OCZ Vertex 460 (240GB) Review
by Kristian Vättö on January 22, 2014 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
- SSDs
- OCZ
- Indilinx
- Vertex 460
Performance vs. Transfer Size
ATTO is a useful tool for quickly benchmarking performance across various transfer sizes. You can get the complete data set in Bench. At smaller transfer sizes, the read speeds of Vertex 460 are slightly slower than the speeds of Vector 150 and Vertex 450. Write performance is mostly the same, though, for all drives.
Click for full size
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
The 250 GB 840 EVO achieves 260 MB/s write speeds. 120 GB EVO achieves 140 MB/s. 500 GB EVO should achieve 520 MB/s bit it only achieves 420 MB/s. Why??blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
I am talking about non-Turbowrite speeds btw.rufuselder - Thursday, October 9, 2014 - link
OCZ Vertex 460 is one of the worst options for storage out there in my opinion (each time I try it out, I get just as disappointed). /Rufus from http://www.consumertop.com/best-computer-storage-g...DanNeely - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Having more NAND dies to multiiplex IO over only helps for some parts of the write process; and the more of them you have the less adding still more will help because other factors dominate more of the total time (Amdahl's law). As a result going to 500 from 250 gives less of a percentage boost than going to 250 from 120.I suspect in the case of the 500, because all the mid/top end drives are clustering in a narrow performance band, that SATA III bottlenecking is coming into play in addition to limitations within the SSD itself.
blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Gee thanks. BTW, SATA III maxes out around 540 MB/s for writes. So it's a controller/firmware limitation.Gigaplex - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
It's not that simple. You don't have to hit maximum utilisation to start feeling the limitations of SATA III.lmcd - Thursday, January 23, 2014 - link
I thought there weren't more packages but rather larger packages? If I'm wrong then yeah it's probably SATA limitations but if not it's because it's the same bandwidth allocated per packages as previously.lmcd - Thursday, January 23, 2014 - link
*weren't more packages once 250 GB is met, in the case of this model.Novuake - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Simple. Diminishing returns + limitations of SATA III.Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
It is amazing Toshiba would sully their own name by placing it next to "OCZ".