Logo   Banner   TopRight
TopUnder
Transparent
OCZ Vertex 450 Solid State Drive Review
Transparent
Date: May 23, 2013
Section:Storage
Author: Seth Colaner
Transparent
Introduction and Specifications

OCZ already offers a wide array of popular, high performance SSDs, but to the company’s credit, it’s not resting on its laurels. After employing SandForce controllers on some of the earlier Vertex SSDs, OCZ snapped up Indilinx and is using what is now its own proprietary silicon in many of its drives. Thus, the brand new OCZ Vertex 450 SSD we'll be showing you here today with an Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 series controller inside is very much a “vertical” effort, with the Indilinx and OCZ-owned PLX teams building both the silicon and firmware.

OCZ will be selling Vertex 450s in capacities of 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB. The 128GB version will offer 525/290 MBps sequential read/write speeds with 75,000/70,000 4KB random read/write IOPS. The larger-capacity versions offer markedly better performance specifications that are almost identical, with the only difference being that the 512GB model is rated for an additional 5MBps in sequential write speeds.

The 256GB version, which is the model we put on the test bench, has sequential read/write speed ratings of 540/525 MBps and 85,000/90,000 4KB random read/write IOPS. In terms of numbers, that puts the Vertex 450 just slightly slower than the Vertex 4 for read speed and slightly faster than its write speed, as the 256GB Vertex 4 (with last fall’s firmware upgrade) is rated for 560/510 MBps read/write.


The OCZ Vertex 450 SSD

OCZ Vertex 450
Specifications & Features
  • SATA 3.0 6Gb/s interface
  • Proprietary Barefoot 3 M10 series controller
  • 20nm IMFT MLC NAND flash
      
  • 2.5-inch 7mm form factor
  • 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB capacities
     
  • Advanced suite of flash management to increase durability and reliability
  • High performance and endurance without compression/loss of usable capacity
  • Bundled with cloning software
     
     
  • 256-bit AES-compliant data encryption
  • TRIM support
  • OCZ Vertex Series SSDs On Amazon


This Barefoot 3 M10 controller features an ARM Cortex core with an OCZ Aragon co-processor, a SATA 6Gbps interface, AES 256-bit encryption, ECC engine, and a power-optimized clock generator. The 2.5-inch Vertex 450 also offers TRIM support, bundled cloning software, and a suite of flash management tools designed to bolster both durability and reliability.

One physical difference between the Vertex 450 and the Vertex 4 is height; OCZ shaved 2.5mm off of the Z-Height with this new drive, which is now just 7mm high. Further, the casing looks decidedly more like an OCZ Vector drive than a Vertex, with a chunky-looking white rim and a black top with “Indilinx Infused” stamped on one corner.

 

 

Peering at the guts of the Vertex 450, you can see the Micron DRAM cache and 16 total (8 each on the top and bottom of the PCB) 16GB NAND flash chips that equal 256GB in total. In the Vertex 450, OCZ went with 20nm IMFT (a joint venture between Intel and Micron) MLC NAND flash chips over the previous Vertex’s 25nm flash.

Note that we’ve included some photos of and benchmark scores from the 240GB OCZ Vertex 3.20 in this review as well; OCZ released this drive a few weeks back, so we decided to include it here for reference. In short, this drive sports a SandForce 2281 controller and also features that 20nm synchronous MLC NAND flash (which helps reduce cost over previous models).

    

Going all-in on yourself is a bold move, but OCZ has fully embraced the risk--especially with another new Vertex on hand built with an alternative controller. The question is, did the bet pay off? Let’s dig into some benchmarks and suss it out.
 

Transparent
Test Setup, IOMeter 1.1 RC

Our Test Methods: Under each test condition, the Solid State Drives tested here were installed as secondary volumes in our testbed, with a standard spinning hard disk for the OS and benchmark installations. Out testbed's motherboard was updated with the latest UEFI available as of press time and AHCI (or RAID) mode was enabled. The SSDs were secure erased before testing and left blank without partitions wherever possible, unless a test required them to be partitioned and formatted, as was the case with our ATTO, PCMark 7, and CrystalDiskMark benchmark tests. Windows firewall, automatic updates and screen savers were all disabled before testing. In all test runs, we rebooted the system, ensured all temp and prefetch data was purged, and waited several minutes for drive activity to settle and for the system to reach an idle state before invoking a test.

HotHardware Test System
Intel Core i7 and SSD Powered

Processor -

Motherboard -


Video Card -

Memory -

Audio -

Hard Drives -

 

Hardware Used:
Intel Core i7-2600K

Asus P8Z6-V Pro
(Z68 Chipset, AHCI Enabled)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285

4GB Kingston DDR3-1600

Integrated on board

WD Raptor 150GB (OS Drive)
Samsung SSD 830 (256GB)
OCZ Vertex 450 (256GB)
OCZ Vertex 3.20 (240GB)
Corsair Force GT (240GB)
Crucial M4 (256GB)
OCZ Vector (256GB)
OCZ Vertex 4 (256GB)

OS -
Chipset Drivers -
DirectX -

Video Drivers
-


Relevant Software:
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64
Intel 9.2.0.1030, iRST 10.5.1027
DirectX 11

NVIDIA GeForce 275.33

Benchmarks Used:
IOMeter 1.1.0 RC
HD Tune v4.61
ATTO v2.47
AS SSD
CrystalDiskMark v3.01 x64
PCMark 7
SiSoftware Sandra 2012

IOMeter
I/O Subsystem Measurement Tool

As we've noted in previous SSD articles, though IOMeter is clearly a well-respected industry standard drive benchmark, we're not completely comfortable with it for testing SSDs. The fact of the matter is, though our actual results with IOMeter appear to scale properly, it is debatable whether or not certain access patterns, as they are presented to and measured on an SSD, actually provide a valid example of real-world performance for the average end user. That said, we do think IOMeter is a reliable gauge for relative available throughput within a given storage solution. In addition there are certain higher-end workloads you can place on a drive with IOMeter, that you can't with most other storage benchmark tools available currently.

In the following tables, we're showing two sets of access patterns; our custom Workstation pattern, with an 8K transfer size, 80% reads (20% writes) and 80% random (20% sequential) access and another with 4K transfers, 100% random, 100% writes.

 

 

 

 

 

In the default access pattern test, the OCZ Vertex 450 starts out in the middle of the pack, although as the concurrent I/Os ramp up, the drive performance improves. That pushes it past the Corsair Neutron into third place behind the OCZ Vector and Vertex 4. (It’s worth noting that the new SandForce-equipped Vector 3.20 performed poorly compared to the rest of the field in this test.)

In our custom workstation access pattern, which uses a larger transfer size and more of a mix of random and sequential access, the Vertex 450 does a little better, starting and finishing relatively close to the Intel 520 and OCZ Vector while soundly outpacing most of the rest of the field. In this test, the Vector 3.20 fared substantially better, too.

 

 

 

It’s more of the same in total transfers, with the Vertex 450 finishing in third place in both the default and workstation access tests.
 

Transparent
SiSoft SANDRA 2013
Next we ran SiSoft SANDRA, the the System ANalyzer, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant. Here, we used the Physical Disk test suite and provided the results from our comparison SSDs. The benchmarks were run without formatting (which is a requirement for the write test) and read and write performance metrics are detailed below.

SiSoft SANDRA 2013: Physical Disk Test
Synthetic Disk Benchmarking



In SiSoft SANDRA, the Vertex 450 delivers outstanding performance, besting the field in both read and write speeds. Perhaps most revealing is the gaping delta between the Vertex 450 and the Vertex 4.
Transparent
ATTO Disk Benchmark
ATTO is another "quick and dirty" type of disk benchmark that measures transfer speeds across a specific volume length. It measures raw transfer rates for both reads and writes and graphs them out in an easily interpreted chart. We chose .5kb through 8192kb transfer sizes and a queue depth of 6 over a total max volume length of 256MB. ATTO's workloads are sequential in nature and measure raw bandwidth, rather than I/O response time, access latency, etc. This test was performed on blank, formatted drives with default NTFS partitions in Windows 7 x64.

ATTO Disk Benchmark
More Information Here: http://bit.ly/btuV6w







The Vertex 450 carves a quirky path through our ATTO chart, spiking and then dipping sharply at the 16KB and 32KB transfer sizes, respectively, in both the read and write tests.

In any case, however, the drive performed well, coming in what is essentially a three-way tie for first in the write test with the Corsair Force GT and the OCZ Vertex 3.20, leaving all but the OCZ Vector behind.

Things were much more tightly grouped in the read test, with four drives scoring within just a few MBps of one another and only one SSD (the Corsair Neutron) delivering less than 500MBps.
Transparent
HD Tune Benchmarks
EFD Software's HD Tune is described on the company's web site as such: "HD Tune is a hard disk utility with many functions. It can be used to measure the drive's performance, scan for errors, check the health status (S.M.A.R.T.), securely erase all data and much more." The latest version of the benchmark added temperature statistics and improved support for SSDs, among a few other updates and fixes.

HD Tune v4.61
More Info Here: http://www.hdtune.com












As we’ve seen so far, the OCZ Vertex 450 is a formidable drive in most of our tests, and indeed the trend continues here as the SSD beats the field in the average transfer rate and burst rate tests. It also had the second-best access time, bowing only to the Vertex 4.

The SandForce-powered Vertex 3.20 didn't fare quite as well and offered middling performance in this group of tests.
 
Transparent
CrystalDiskMark Benchmarks

CrystalDiskMark is a synthetic benchmark that tests both sequential and random small and mid-sized file transfers using incompressible data. It provides a quick look at best and worst case scenarios with regard to SSD performance, best case being larger sequential transfers and worse case being small, random transfers.

CrystalDiskMark Benchmarks
Synthetic File Transfer Tests

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SandForce-based drives have performed well in CrystalDiskMark’s sequential transfers (including apparently the Vertex 3.20, which also posted a strong write score), and the Vertex 450 didn’t catch them all, but it got a lot closer than the Vertex 4 did. The drive also topped the field in the 512K transfer write test (coming in a close third in the read test), giving the SandForce based drives a run for their money.

The Vertex 450’s impressive write speeds evinced themselves further in the 4K and 4K QD32 tests and complemented those scores with mostly solid read results.

 

Transparent
AS-SSD Compression Test

Next up we ran the Compression Benchmark built-into AS SSD, an SSD specific benchmark being developed by Alex Intelligent Software. This test is interesting because it uses a mix of compressible and incompressible data and outputs both Read and Write throughput of the drive. We only graphed a small fraction of the data (1% compressible, 50% compressible, and 100% compressible), but the trend is representative of the benchmark’s complete results.

AS SSD Compression Benchmark
Bring Your Translator: http://bit.ly/aRx11n




 

 

 

 

In the AS-SSD read test, the Vertex 450, like all of the other drives, posted extremely consistent scores--except for the Vertex 3.20, which had a rough start due to the 1% compressible data.

The write test results are far more interesting; the Vertex 450 was again consistent and was able to hang tight to the OCZ Vector. SandForce drives, as we’ve mentioned in past reviews, struggle with incompressible data. With its Indilinx controller though, the Vertex 450 offers both top-notch consistency and excellent bandwidth.

 

 

 

Transparent
PCMark 7 Storage Benchmarks
We really like PCMark 7's Secondary Storage benchmark module for its pseudo real-world application measurement approach to testing. PCMark 7 offers a trace-based measurement of system response times under various scripted workloads of traditional client / desktop system operation. From simple application start-up performance, to data streaming from a drive in a game engine, and video editing with Windows Movie Maker, we feel more comfortable that these tests reasonably illustrate the performance profile of SSDs in an end-user / consumer PC usage model, more so than a purely synthetic transfer test.

Futuremark's PCMark 7 Secondary Storage
http://www.futuremark.com



SandForce drives seem to do well in PCMark 7’s secondary storage benchmark, but the Vertex 450 put up a very strong score and finished second best in the group.



The deltas separating the scores in PCMark 7 are relatively miniscule, but even so, the Vertex 450 scored among the top two or three drives in every sub-test.
 
Transparent
Our Summary and Conclusion

Performance Summary: There’s no question that OCZ has a really nice drive on its hands with the 256GB Vertex 450 SSD. In most of our benchmark tests, it either beat the competition or hung close to the top two or three drives. Regardless, the Vertex 450 showed solid consistency and great bandwidth across all workloads. Of particular note is the remarkable improvement over the previous-gen Vertex 4 in terms of write speeds, which rival or exceed the SandForce-based SSDs in our test bank. And unlike SandForce SSDs, the Indilinx-based Vertex 450 didn’t have any issues with compression-related performance penalties.


The OCZ Vertex 450 SSD

Generationally, the Vertex 450 seems to mostly fit the profile of the original Vertex 3--consistent and high-performance.  OCZ should be relieved to see its homegrown SSD faring so well versus some of the market's top competitors. However, for as solid a drive as the Vertex 450 is, it doesn't always outshine the competition in every test--there are even one or two in which the Vertex 4 actually does better.

Further, although the cost of the Vertex 450 isn’t unreasonable, prices for other drives in our test suite have dropped considerably as well. Thus, at an MSRP of $234.99, the 256GB Vertex 450 with a formatted capacity of 238GB will run you $0.99 per GiB. That’s certainly respectable, especially granting that this is a new SSD and hasn’t enjoyed any price drops yet. Note, for example, that the 256GB Vertex 4 debuted at $349 before dropping to $203 just five or so months later. (For what it’s worth, the 128GB and 512GB Vertex 450s will cost $129.99 and $499.99, respectively.)

All things taken into consideration, we’re giving the Vertex 450 our Recommended badge for now, but we’ll look forward to seeing how things look in a few months when the price settles down a bit and OCZ perhaps delivers a firmware update or two to further tweak performance, which the company is wont to do. All in all though, the Vertex 450 looks very good.

  • Solid, consistent performance
  • Good write performance
  • 3-year warranty
  • 7mm Z-Height
  • Price per GiB is a little high currently



Content Property of HotHardware.com