1st tests of the OCZ Octane
Written by Marc Prieur
As you can see, all three capacities have the same read speed but writes increase a good deal as you go up the range. OCZ sent us the highest performance model, which also happens to be the most costly. In contrast, on the Vertex 3 range, the 240 GB is the highest performance model, in front of the 480 GB, while the Crucial M4 256 and 512 GB versions are given as having the same speeds.
A new Indilinx IDX300 controller with 16 (8 on each side of the PCB) MLC flash chips made by the Intel/Micron joint venture, IMFT, as well as 2 Micron DRAM chips for the 512 MB SSD cache.
What about performance? You’ll have to wait for the full test for our definitive opinion, but in the meantime here are the figures we obtained on CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 (4 GB test, repeated 9 times, non compressible random data) with a P67 Express chipset:
[ OCZ Octane 512 GB ] [ Crucial M4 256 GB ]
Although still very good, the sequential reads are a little slower than expected. The same goes for the sequential writes though they are again still high, close to the best SSDs in this category (Samsung 830 265 and 512 GB SSD, Corsair Performance Pro 256). Random 4 KB speeds with 4K accesses are at a decent level, up on the M4 256 GB but down with a higher number of simultaneous accesses (4K QD32). Random writes are down on those obtained on the M4 at 4K and performance doesn't increase much with a higher number of simultaneous accesses. Nothing too serious in itself as the Octane is already a good deal over requirements for desktop PC or workstation use.
From the point of view of synthetic performance alone, according to this first test which must still be confirmed with other tools, the Octane 512 GB seems to be at a very good level without bringing anything revolutionary to the table. It remains to be seen what it will give in practice in terms of performance in an environment without TRIM or improvement in OS boot times!
Copyright © 1997-2014 BeHardware. All rights reserved..