Home  |  News  |  Reviews  | About Search :  HardWare.fr 

MiscellaneousStorageGraphics CardsMotherboardsProcessors
Advertise on BeHardware.com
Review index:
OCZ Octane 512 GB and Indilinx Everest vs Crucial M4 512 GB
by Marc Prieur
Published on February 23, 2012

Synthetic performance – Sequential throughputs
We started with sequential writes, measured using IOMeter

The sequential speeds are very good, with reads of over 500 MB/s, the same as with the M4, and writes of 376 MB/s, which is significantly better than the M4 512 GB which doesn't do any better than the 256 GB version.
Synthetic performance – Random throughputs
Still with IOMeter, we measured performance during 4 KB random accesses across the whole SSD. These readings were carried out with a variable number of simultaneous accesses, going from 1 to 32, allowing us to illustrate the SSD’s ability to deal with these simultaneous accesses. While it’s definitely worth checking this out, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that in standard usage, the level of simultaneous accesses is somewhere between 1 and 4.

[ IOPS ]  [ MB/s ]

With reads, the OCZ Octane does better than the Crucial M4 with a single command, but the M4 has the advantage as of two commands, extending its lead after that.

[ IOPS ]  [ MB/s ]

When it comes to writes, the difference between the two is even more noticeable, with the Octane hitting a ceiling at around 20,000 accesses per second, against over 60,000 for the Crucial M4.

<< Previous page
OCZ Octane and Indilinx Everest

Page index
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Next page >>
Practical performance – File copying and applications  

Copyright © 1997- Hardware.fr SARL. All rights reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines.