OCZ Vertex Real-World Test Caught on Tape: SSD vs HDD

Storage/SSD by jmke @ 2009-04-01

While all those benchmark charts displaying 200+mb/s read and 150+mb/s write are impressive to see, it´s also good to actually have some idea of what that extra performance brings you in real life. We prepared two identical laptops with Windows 7 and Windows XP, one had a conventional HDD, the other a brand new OCZ Vertex SSD. The result is worth checking out.

  • next

Introduction, Test Setup and Testing Windows 7

Introduction

I’ve been following the SSD scene for quite some time now, waiting for a good moment to step in and buy one for my own setup. When Intel launched their X25-M SSD and all review sites out there reported excellent performance, no matter what you threw at it, I came close to ordering one, but was put off by the high price per gigabyte.

OCZ has been on the frontline of more affordable SSD products from the get go with their Core series (v1/v2) which gave the masses SSD storage at an acceptable price; to get the best performance though you had to do a whole lot of system tweaking, reformatting, more tweaking and in the end you had a fast system, which might still act up from time to time.

Anybody considering buying an SSD should have read this excellent article by Anandtech by now, where they outline the strengths and weaknesses of current lower cost SSDs, the main culprit: the controller. The cheaper controller used in the entry level SSDs can cause severe performance dips when smaller file blocks are written and random I/O is performed; over time performance also degrades noticeable once the drive is completely full. Anandtech put different SSD through their paces, and while the Intel X25 reigns supreme, for the first time there is a new contender, the OCZ Vertex, which uses a new controller.

The OCZ Vertex still benefits from the multiple tweaks you can do to increase your system’s performance with SSDs, but it doesn’t rely on it to perform properly; it works just as well “plug & play” and this is a must for most users out there.

I bought a retail OCZ Vertex 30Gb drive for ~€164 (shipped) from MemoryC.com, not the cheapest out there storage device out there, the most expensive 2.5” drives are below that number; but it’s brand new tech and if you want to be the first, you pay the premium. It came shipped with firmware 1199, I flashed the drive to the latest release at this time 1275.

The Test

Last week I prepared two system images for a Dell Latitude D630, one with Windows 7 Beta and one with Windows XP, I also added Office 2007 and some other random applications, put them all in the startup menu; so I could just push the start button and see which system would finish the bootup cycle and loading up the complete Office 2007 suite (including a prepared Outlook 2007 with 1.2gb PST) first. AVG 8.5 was running in background in Windows 7, McAfee VSE 8.5 on XP.

Some of general SSD tweaks from OCZ forum posted here from XP and here for Vista were implemented, but not beyond the regedit tweaks and enabling “write cache” on the disk. Pagefile, hibernation file were left untouched, no ram drive configured. No SteadyState, no MFT. Those last two give major performance boost, but are far from plug & play; we’re looking at user-friendliness; regedit tweaks and an advanced control panel tab fall into that category.

The laptop system specs are not extraordinary, an Intel 2.2Ghz Dual Core CPU, 2GB RAM, one system had a stock Hitachi 7200rpm 80Gb HDD (which costs ~€40 in webshops), the other system features the OCZ Vertex SSD.

Windows 7 Startup

Here’s the outcome with Windows 7, note: the embed movie from youtube already has HD mode enabled, if you click the fullscreen button you can view the original 1280x720 HD source.



While all those benchmark charts displaying 200+mb/s read and 150+mb/s write are nice to see, it’s good to actually have some idea of what that performance brings you in real life, the SSD powered system is more than three times faster. On two identical systems you can do no other upgrade which will give you such a boost, even a 6.6Ghz CPU won’t overcome the HDD bottleneck. SSDs are the upgrade to consider in 2009, the performance boost is unbelievable.

Do note that we are using a laptop HDD, a very affordable one too, with a desktop 10.000rpm HDD the difference will be smaller, but raw access times and random write/read performance remains unmatched, multi-tasking is SSD territory and even the fastest convential HDDs lag behind here.

Onto Windows XP load times ->
  • next
Comment from jort @ 2009/04/01
wow what a difference :O :O
Next laptop is with SSD for sure !!! pity i can't swap the hdd
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/02
put it in your desktop, works just as well FYI
Comment from jort @ 2009/04/02
The problem is that i don't have a desktop anymore atleast for 2.5 years...

I checked google and it seems there might be a chance it would go
need to check it out in the future because i hate startup time when i am talking with a custumor.

grtz
Comment from blind_ripper @ 2009/04/02
Quote:
Originally Posted by jort View Post
The problem is that i don't have a desktop anymore atleast for 2.5 years...

I checked google and it seems there might be a chance it would go
need to check it out in the future because i hate startup time when i am talking with a custumor.

grtz
ask massman how to swamp a HD from a laptop .

the SSD is really something for in future, price/performance i dont know.
The Eee PC from a friend i had here some time ago, had 4GB flash HD did about the same like that SSD.
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/02
EEE PC has low end CPU; stick SSD in a higher end system to get the most from it
Comment from blind_ripper @ 2009/04/02
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
EEE PC has low end CPU; stick SSD in a higher end system to get the most from it
yeah i know john, but u could see how it came to end with low-end cpu.
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/02
those SSDs in netbooks are low end, SD cards with build-in converter to SATA, they have very low I/O , nowhere near the performance level of these OCZ Vertex drives
Comment from blind_ripper @ 2009/04/02
i see, though its nice that u tested it .
would work well for PC mark huh.
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/02
Comment from blind_ripper @ 2009/04/02
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
pure ownage by SSD power .
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/22
OCZ Vertex limited by chipset in Acer 9420 Laptop, still very speedy

Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/22
good enough for 50+mb/s in XP startup for PCmark05 benchie
http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=845364
Comment from blind_ripper @ 2009/04/22
lol looks like il be needing a SSD soon to bench PC05 .
Comment from Massman @ 2009/04/23
No, SSD is being kicked in the nuts by Ramdisks. At least, in PCMark05
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/23
you obviously have not seen 4xSSD Vertex on a PCIe raid controller
1000mb/s read speed !
Comment from Massman @ 2009/04/23
With MFT ... which is not allowed on hwbot
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/23
that's without MFT Massman
with MFT you can reach those speeds with a single oldie SSD
Comment from thorgal @ 2009/04/24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
you obviously have not seen 4xSSD Vertex on a PCIe raid controller
1000mb/s read speed !
4 of my core v2 get about 700Mb/s on my pcie raid controller, but still perform like sh*t in PC05.
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/24
that's because Solid/Core v1/v2 series is nowhere near performance levels of Vertex
Comment from thorgal @ 2009/04/24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
that's because Solid series is nowhere near performance levels of Vertex
Sorry John, I think you're mistaken there. On a raid card solid series performs almost like core, cache is integrated in raid card, on-disk cache makes zero difference. Only difference is the theoretical 20-30mb/s for peak bandwidth (they're rated 200 vs 170 or something).

Edit it's 230 vs 170, sorry 'bout that, but still these are theory numbers. I can get my 4x170 no prob when benching with the raid card, but in PCM05 I get about 80 To be clear I have a core V2, not a solid.
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/24
core, solid, all the same JMicron which fails at 4k random write; PCMark05 XP startup IS random read/write; Indilinx controller with latest OCZ firmware on the Vertex is massively better than JMicron SSDs;

Quote:
Sorry John, I think you're mistaken there.
got any data to back up your claim? theoretical bandwidth means nothing, PCMark05 HDD is all about random mixed read/write IO; raw sequential speeds tell us nothing hence the specs don't matter;

RAW data, random 4k write:
- X25-M 23mb/s
- Vertex 6.47mb/s
- JMicron Core/Solid V1/V2: 0.02mb/s

Vertex is 323x times faster than Core/Solid SSD, Intel X25-M is 1150x times faster

Quote:
but in PCM05 I get about 80
that's because XP startup is a random read/write 4k benchmark, where JMicron drives suck compared to Vertex/Intel

Quote:
I can get my 4x170 no prob when benching with the raid card, but in PCM05 I get about 80
SINGLE vertex PCM05: 78mb/s http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=836355
imagine 4 of them in RAID 0
Comment from blind_ripper @ 2009/04/24
so u say that intel's one is best for the benching part ?
http://www.alternate.be/html/product...wTechData=true
this one for one?
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/24
X25-E is faster still SLC vs MLC;
but are we looking at price or not?

fastest is Software RAM DISK if you must now; but impossible at this time to load OS on there... maybe in the future
6000mb/s read speeds
Comment from blind_ripper @ 2009/04/24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
X25-E is faster still SLC vs MLC;
but are we looking at price or not?
yes and then the vertex wins by miles .
Comment from thorgal @ 2009/04/24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
core, solid, all the same JMicron which fails at 4k random write; PCMark05 XP startup IS random read/write; Indilinx controller with latest OCZ firmware on the Vertex is massively better than JMicron SSDs;



got any data to back up your claim? theoretical bandwidth means nothing, PCMark05 HDD is all about random mixed read/write IO; raw sequential speeds tell us nothing hence the specs don't matter;

RAW data, random 4k write:
- X25-M 23mb/s
- Vertex 6.47mb/s
- JMicron Core/Solid V1/V2: 0.02mb/s

Vertex is 323x times faster than Core/Solid SSD, Intel X25-M is 1150x times faster



that's because XP startup is a random read/write 4k benchmark, where JMicron drives suck compared to Vertex/Intel



SINGLE vertex PCM05: 78mb/s http://hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=836355
imagine 4 of them in RAID 0
These numbers mean nothing when you don't test with a raid card. Everyone knows that jmicron is a culprit when used standalone. There have been ZERO reports of stuttering when the solid/core drives are used with a hardware raid controller WITH CACHE.
Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/24
please quote me where I talk about stuttering?
single vertex reaches 80~100mb/s in XP startup test
two in raid double of that, 4x of them in RAID without MFT who knows
cache can only help so much...

anyway, for benching, to answer Blind's answer: most affordable and fastest is ACARD (€350) with 4~8gb DDR2 (€80~120). Buying a RAID card (€350) and 3~4x 30gb Vertex will be more expensive, not necessarily faster.
Comment from thorgal @ 2009/04/24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
please quote me where I talk about stuttering?
single vertex reaches 80~100mb/s in XP startup test
two in raid double of that, 4x of them in RAID without MFT who knows
cache can only help so much...
I don't dispute this, but have you already forgotten about Massman's troubles with single/double Core V2's in PC05 ? There wasn't any scaling at all... this has nothing to do with 4k random read/write, but is a SSD scaling problem in PC05.
Comment from Massman @ 2009/04/24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
two in raid double of that
Raid0 doesn't give you doubled performance:

Comment from jmke @ 2009/04/24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorgal View Post
I don't dispute this, but have you already forgotten about Massman's troubles with single/double Core V2's in PC05 ? There wasn't any scaling at all... this has nothing to do with 4k random read/write, but is a SSD scaling problem in PC05.
he didn't use a dedicated PCIe card
Comment from fhenus @ 2011/05/07
I work on a big project and we have been using SSD's for some months now and we noticed a LOT of improvement.

Here is a post with some real usage stats: codemadesimple.wordpress.com

 

reply