OCZ Vertex 3.20 Solid State Drive Review: Version 2, Revised.

OCZ decided to re-release their previous hit – Vertex 3 solid state drive. The new SSD revision uses the same LSI SF-2281 controller, but different flash-memory manufactured using more advanced 20 nm production technology. Have they managed to create yet another eye-catcher? Let’s find out from our new review.

Having gone through a series of financial calamities, OCZ Technology seems to have solved most of its problems. At least, the company doesn’t want to leave the business it has been so successful at: the production of consumer- and enterprise-class solid state drives. However, this doesn’t mean OCZ hasn’t been affected by the past troubles at all, and we can see that by the changes in its model range. The latter has become smaller after such series of inexpensive SSDs as Petrol, Octane, Agility, Solid, etc, were discontinued. The only products left are those that bring in the most profit. In other words, they sell well but are not too costly to develop, manufacture and support.

The Vertex 3 is perhaps the most popular SSD series from OCZ of all time. Based on the LSI SF-2281 controller, it has been offering a very attractive price/performance ratio throughout its rather long lifecycle, winning a lot of customers. The popularity of the Vertex 3 series has been declining recently, though. There have just appeared a lot of competing products with flash memory manufactured on thinner tech process. Today’s MLC NAND chips are cheaper, so we can see even more attractive offers such as the Kingston SSDNow V300 we’ve reviewed recently. It is only natural then that OCZ has decided not to abandon the popular Vertex 3 series altogether but to revise it and make it more profitable and also more attractive for end-users in terms of price/performance ratio.

It is actually quite easy to update an SSD with SF-2281 controller. It only takes replacing its memory with a more modern variant. The resulting SSD is not likely to get any worse in terms of speed while its manufacturing cost will surely be lower. We’ve seen a lot of examples of such transformations: Intel’s transition from the 330 to the 335 model, Corsair’s transition from the Force GT to Force GS series, and some others.

As a matter of fact, OCZ itself used to resort to such maneuvering in the past. For example, its Vertex 2 series transitioned to a more advanced type of flash memory but that transformation wasn’t advertise and SSDs with updated components went on selling under the same name. This time around, OCZ declares it openly, so the updated series (with 20nm instead of 25nm flash memory) comes under the name of Vertex 3.20 and has somewhat different specs compared to the classic Vertex 3. OCZ has been kind to give us a sample of the new product so we could check out the new and inexpensive Vertex 3.20 in comparison with its predecessor Vertex 3. We’ll talk about the 240GB version of the new SandForce-based SSD from OCZ in this review.

Closer Look at OCZ Vertex 3.20 240 GB

The Vertex 3 used to be a flagship SSD from OCZ at one time. After the release of the Vertex 4 and Vector series, it stepped down into a mainstream segment. And now the Vertex 3.20 is positioned as an entry-level product. This positioning can be guessed from its packaging even. The Vertex 3 used to come in a cardboard box with 2.5-3.5” adapter but the Vertex 2.30 is shipped in a simple plastic blister wrap with just a few leaflets inside.

This kind of packaging was typical of OCZ’s entry-level products such as the Agility series, so the Vertex 3.20 is clearly meant as a replacement for them.

As opposed to the robust Vector, the Vertex 3.20 has the same case as older Vertex SSDs. Its height is 9.5 millimeters. It consists of a massive bottom plate covered with a black plastic cap from above. There are stickers on the case: with manufacturer and series logos on one side and with a part number, series number and barcodes on the other.

The hardware components are the most interesting part, of course. The PCB features the new design developed in the middle of the last year. It carries an SF-2281 controller and 16 chips of MLC NAND flash.

Frankly speaking, we had expected to find a revision B2 controller inside the Vertex 3.20 along with new flash memory. LSI has been offering it for a while already but OCZ must have not yet run out of older-revision chips. There’s nothing wrong about that since the revisions are almost identical. The newer one only adds support for deep sleep modes which help make the SSD just a little more economical. The Vertex 3.20 is specified to consume 30% less power than the Vertex 3, but this is only due to its use of flash memory with lower power draw.

OCZ uses MLC NAND flash manufactured by IMFT in all of its SSDs. The Vertex 3.20 is no exception, employing Intel chips marked as 29F16B08CCMF3. We’ve seen almost the same chips in the Intel 335 SSD, so we know each of them contains two 64-gigabit NAND devices manufactured on 20nm tech process. Thus, the difference between the Vertex 3.20 and its predecessor boils down to the manufacturing process of its flash memory. The new SSD still uses synchronous ONFI interface and the same level of interleaving on each controller channel.

One thing must be noted here. The 20nm flash is slightly different from the 25nm variety in speed. Intel says the newer memory is somewhat slower in erasing data but OCZ thinks that the performance changes can be observed in different scenarios. Anyway, transitioning to a more progressive memory type, even with the same interface, has to bring about certain changes in an SSD’s parameters.

As we can see, the manufacturer expects a certain reduction in random read speed but the speed of writing 4KB data blocks is promised to be higher. We shouldn’t forget, however, that specifications have little to do with reality in case of SandForce-based products.

Talking about the Vertex 2.30, we should also note the changes in the model range structure, too. The Vertex 3 series included models with capacities of 60 through 480 gigabytes whereas the new series consists of only two models, 120 and 240 GB in capacity. As before, 14% of the total capacity is not accessible by the user but is allotted for a reserve pool and for the RAISE technology which ensures data integrity in case of flash memory failures.

Intel’s 20nm flash has a standard service life of 3000 rewrite cycles, so the Vertex 2.30 is expected to last for as long as its predecessor. The 240GB model can be used to write about 192 terabytes of data, therefore OCZ provides a 3-year warranty for the Vertex 3.20.

The SF-2281 controller having entered its mature phase, there is much more variation among SSDs that use it. There are a lot of different versions besides the standard one with synchronous 25nm flash. The Vertex 3.20 is quite original in this respect. We’ve only met an SF-2281 based drive with 20nm Intel flash once. It was the Intel 335 model. However, Intel’s SSDs are fundamentally different from other SandForce implementations because they feature proprietary firmware. The Vertex 3.20 comes with LSI’s reference firmware with a minimum of optimizations. It is version 2.30.

Unlike many other SSDs, OCZ ones come with the handy OCZ Toolbox software. It can be used to update firmware, view SMART information, and perform the Secure Erase command from Windows.

Testbed Configuration

For our today’s SSD test session we use a unified test system built on an Intel H77 based mainboard, which features two SATA 6 Gbit/s ports. We will use these ports to connect the tested SSDs.

As for the today’s testing participants, it is obvious that the new OCZ Vertex 3.20 240 GB must be compared against different incarnations of the second generation Sand Force platform, which have been multiplying day by day, as well as against other popular SSDs. Therefore, you will see on the diagrams performance numbers for other products based on SandForce controller: Intel SSD 520, Kingston SSDNow V300, Corsair Force GS and Corsair Force GT, which is a total analogue of the OCZ Vertex 3. Other platforms will be represented by the following participants: Corsair SSDs on LAMD LM87800 controller (Neutron GTX and Neutron), OCZ Vertex 4 on Indilinx Everest 2 controller, the newest OCZ Vector SSD on Indilinx Barefoot 3 controller, Crucial m4 on Marvell 9174, and Plextor SSDs on Marvell 9174 controller (M5S) and Marvell 9187 controller (M5 Pro). All above mentioned drives used synchronous MLC flash memory. In particular, Crucial m4, Corsair Force GT, Corsair Neutron, Intel SSD 520, OCZ Vertex 4, OCZ Vector and Plextor M5S use 25 nm IMFT memory with ONFI-interface. And Corsair Force GS, Corsair Neutron GTX and Plextor M5 Pro use Toggle Mode MLC NAND manufactured using 2x nm or 19 nm technology.

Overall our testbed was configured as follows:

  • Intel Core i5-3470S (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores, 2.9 GHz, EIST and Turbo Boost turned off);
  • Intel DH77DF mainboard (BIOS 0108);
  • 2 x 2 GB DDR3-1333 SDRAM DIMM 9-9-9-24-1T;
  • Crucial m4 256 GB system disk (CT256M4SSD2);
  • Tested SSDs:
    • Corsair Force GS Series 240 GB (CSSD-F240GBGS-BK, firmware version 5.03);
    • Corsair Force GT Series 240 GB (CSSD-F240GBGT-BK, firmware version 5.03)
    • Corsair Neutron GTX 240 GB (CSSD-N240GBGTX-BK, firmware version 2.06);
    • Corsair Neutron 240 GB (CSSD-N240GB3-BK, firmware version 2.06);
    • Crucial m4 256 GB (CT256M4SSD2, firmware version 070H);
    • Intel SSD 520 240 GB (SSDSC2CW240A3K5, firmware version 400i);
    • Kingston SSDNow V300 240 GB (SV300S37A/240G, firmware version 5.0.5);
    • OCZ Vertex 3.20 240 GB (VTX3-25SAT3-240G.20, firmware version 2.30);
    • OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB (VTX4-25SAT3-256G, firmware version 1.5);
    • OCZ Vector 256 GB (VTR1-25SAT3-256G, firmware version 2.0);
    • Plextor M5S 256 GB (PX-256M5S, firmware version 1.03);
    • Plextor M5 Pro 256 GB (PX-256M5P, firmware version 1.03).
  • Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate x64
  • Drivers:
    • Intel Chipset Driver 9.3.0.1026;
    • Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Driver 9.17.10.2932;
    • Intel Rapid Storage Technology 11.7.0.1013.

Performance

Random and Sequential Read/Write

We use Anvil’s Storage Utilities 1.0.51 to measure random and sequential ref and write speeds. The synthetic benchmark integrated into this software suite provides a great overview of the products by experimentally checking out a wide variety of speed characteristics of the tested SSD.

The results you see here refer to the FOB (fresh out-of-box) non-degraded SSD performance. Moreover, we use incompressible data, which is formally the least favorable scenario for the LSI SF-2281 controller that employs on-the-fly data compression. Our tests show, however, that in today’s world when the data may only be partially compressed and the utilized flash memory has high-speed synchronous interface, the compression algorithms do not have a big effect on the real-life performance of SSDs with SandForce controllers. Therefore, we gave up the idea of testing SandForce-based SSDs with compressible data: These results would be exclusively artificial in nature and wouldn’t have any practical value for us today.

The respectable age of the LSI SF-2281 controller is reflected in the performance of SSDs that use it. They are not very fast processing random-address 4KB data blocks and can only match today’s leaders at sequential operations or at processing large data blocks. The OCZ Vertex 3.20 is no better than the other implementations of the second-generation SandForce platform. Moreover, it is one of the worst implementations that use synchronous flash.

Unfortunately, the modernization of the Vertex 3 series is only good in terms of reduced manufacturing cost but doesn’t bring about any performance benefits. If you want a faster SSD, OCZ offers the Vertex 4 and Vector series which are far more attractive from this standpoint. The Vertex 3.20, on its part, is an inexpensive and not very fast solution which is even slower than its predecessor Vertex 3. We can easily see this because the Corsair Force GT, also based on Intel’s 25nm synchronous flash, is a full analog of the latter.

Performance Degradation, Garbage Collection and TRIM

Unfortunately, SSDs are not always as fast as in their “fresh” state. In most cases their performance goes down after some time and in real life we deal with completely different write speeds than what we see on the diagrams in the previous chapter of our review. The reason for this phenomenon is the following: as the SSD runs out of free pages in the flash memory, its controller has to clear memory page blocks before saving data into them, which causes substantial delays. Therefore, contemporary SSDs usually try to free the memory in advance, and not when writes are underway. This usually happens in idle mode. At this time SSD controller can alleviate the performance drop almost completely by erasing unused flash memory pages ahead of time. The corresponding procedures are usually performed in idle mode, when the controller can fully restore the SSD performance by clearing out the unused flash memory pages. They use two techniques for that: idle-time garbage collection and TRIM.

An SSD controller doesn’t know which memory pages contain user data and which are considered empty by the OS. It happens this way because in file systems removing a file doesn’t involve its actual physical removal. Instead, the corresponding memory is marked in the file system as available for rewriting into. So, without involving the OS, an SSD controller can only pre-erase pages in the reserve pool (if it exists), which is not accessible by the OS. For a better solution to this problem, modern OSes have the TRIM command which improves garbage collection the efficiency. TRIM provides the SSD controller with information on which data could potentially be removed without any harm, as it is considered unused by the OS. As a result, the SSD controller can increase the cleared pages pool by physically removing unneeded data so that the user didn’t feel a performance hit during subsequent write requests.

This is how it should be in an ideal world. In reality, however, SSDs differ in their garbage collection and TRIM implementation. That’s why we check out the performance hit an SSD suffers when transitioning from its out-of-box (the flash memory is clean) to steady-state. This test follows the SNIA SSSI TWG PTS guidelines, which means that we measure the write speed in four cases one by one. First we measure the “fresh” SSD speed. Then we measure the speed after the SSD has been fully filled with data twice. The third test occurs after a 30-minute break during which the controller can partially restore performance by running the idle-time garbage collection. And finally, we measure the speed after issuing a TRIM command.

We ran the tests in synthetic IOMeter 1.1.0 RC1 benchmark, where we measured random write speed when working with 4 KB data blocks aligned to flash memory pages at 32 requests queue depth. The test data were pseudo-random. The following diagram shows the history of the relative speed changes, where 100% refers to the SSD performance in “fresh-out-of-box” state.

The diagram suggests that the performance degradation problem only plagues SandForce-based SSDs whereas the others can restore their speed after the OS gives them the TRIM command. However, the OCZ Vertex 3.20 is even worse than the other SSDs with SF-2281 controller: its write speed degenerates badly and its garbage collection algorithms are far from efficient. As a result, it can suffer a twofold performance hit at writing.

Hopefully, the Vertex 3.20 may improve after firmware updates. We don’t know which exactly reference firmware OCZ uses in this SSD since OCZ has its own numbering system. One of the latest reference versions had some problems with TRIM, which may show up in the Vertex 3.20. If so, they may be eliminated in the next firmware revision. On the other hand, SandForce engineers have not been able to make their garbage collection algorithms perfect for over 2 years, so their controller cannot avoid some performance degradation anyway, which is its main downside.

Futuremark PCMark 7

The popular PCMark 7 contains an individual disk subsystem benchmark. It is not a synthetic test, but is based on real-life applications. This benchmark reproduces typical disk usage scenarios and measures how fast they are completed in popular tasks. Starting with version 1.4.0, the PCMark 7 disk subsystem test generates raw performance results which do not take into account any pauses in the requests queue. New results are thus incompatible with old ones, but the differences between the performance numbers of different SSDs have now become more obvious. That’s why we decided to switch to the new version of the test from now on.

We ran PCMark 7 on “steady” SSDs, which is what they are going to be in actual computer systems most of the time. Their performance in this case is affected not only by their controller or flash memory speed but also by the efficiency of their internal algorithms that fight performance degradation.

SandForce-based SSDs have always been good in this benchmark because it uses compressible data, yet the OCZ Vertex 3.20 remains the worst among its kin. This might have been expected since it was slower than SandForce-based SSDs with 25nm ONFI or Toggle Mode flash in the synthetic tests.

However, total score is a more generalized performance metric. Now let’s check out the individual tests to get a more detailed picture of what our SSDs are capable of under various types of operational load.

What a remarkable unity! The OCZ Vertex 3.20 is always behind the rest of SandForce-based SSDs with synchronous MLC NAND flash, so its results are average in the overall ranks. There are no preferable usage scenarios for this product, and its appeal for the end-users will depend solely on its price.

Intel NAS Performance Toolkit

Intel NASPT is another disk sub-system test that employs real-life usage scenarios. Like PCMark 7, Intel NASPT reproduces predefined disk activity traces and measures how fast they are executed. However, the default traces are designed for network attached storage devices rather than for SSDs. Therefore during our test session we replace them with the specially developed SSD Benchmarking Suite which offers more relevant usage scenarios such as compressing and decompressing files, compiling large projects, copying files and folders, loading 3D game levels, installing software, batch-processing photos, searching a digital library for data, mass-launching applications, and transcoding video.

Like PCMark 7, this benchmark gives us a true-to-life illustration of disk subsystem performance. Here the SSDs are again tested in their “steady” state.

We think that Intel NASPT provides a more realistic picture of SSD performance, and the OCZ Vertex 3.20 behaves in a peculiar way here. It is not the worst of the SandForce-based SSDs in this comparison, for example, which indicates optimizations targeted at improving its performance under real-life conditions. As a result, it is ahead of the Corsair Force GT and Corsair Force GS, which are based on the SF-2281 controller, have synchronous flash memory and use the reference SandForce firmware. On the other hand, OCZ’s new product can’t match the Intel 520 or the Kingston SSDNow V300, which deliver high performance thanks to deep firmware customization. Thus, the Vertex 3.20 finds itself exactly where it is supposed to be: behind the OCZ Vector and Vertex 4 but ahead of many competing products from other brands.

Besides the average benchmark score, we would also like to offer you the results of individual usage scenarios, which will show where OCZ Vertex 3.20 can really shine. Note that the data-transfer rate is higher than the SATA 3 interface bandwidth in some subtests. That’s because INASPT is a high-level test that uses standard Windows functions to access the disk subsystem. As a result, the OS caching mechanisms also affect the results.

We can see that the Vertex 3.20 has an advantage over some other SSDs with SF-2281 controller and synchronous MLC flash in terms of writing files and folders. But when it comes to reading, the Vertex 3.20 falls behind its close and distant analogs. OCZ implies this fact in its official specs and we saw the same in our synthetic tests. That’s why the new SSD is nowhere near flagship solutions. It is an affordable product with rather mediocre speed characteristics even by the SandForce’s own standards.

File Copy Speed

We use AS SSD version 1.7.4739.38088 test to benchmark the speed of copying different types of files within a single partition the size of the whole SSD. The SSDs are tested in their steady state.

The OCZ Vertex 3.20 is better than other SandForce-based SSDs at writing files but worse at reading files. That’s why it delivers average performance in the copying test which involves both writing and reading. It is also slow in comparison with popular SSDs that are based on Indilinx, Marvell and LAMD controllers.

Conclusion

Of course, SSD makers do not aspire to reach any performance heights by introducing new products with the LSI SF-2281 controller, especially OCZ. This company has long been using its own controllers for its flagship SSDs. The SandForce is currently just a time-tested inexpensive platform that helps make new SSDs with acceptable specs without much effort. Therefore, all recently released SSDs with SF-2281 controller must be discussed in terms of price/performance ratio in the first place. They are positioned as mainstream solutions for price-conscious consumers.

That’s why there’s nothing wrong about the new OCZ Vertex 3.20 working no faster than the reference SandForce SSDs with 25nm synchronous flash from Intel (such as the Vertex 3 series which the Vertex 3.20 comes to replace). The main thing is that it is cheaper and the transition to Intel’s 20nm flash memory is meant to reduce the manufacturing cost in the first place. Unfortunately, our testing suggests that OCZ has selected a suboptimal hardware configuration for this model. The Kingston SSDNow V300 we’ve reviewed recently uses the same SF-2281 controller but offers better performance and lower price although it is equipped with Toshiba’s Toggle Mode 19nm flash. Of course, OCZ may revise its pricing policy with respect to the Vertex 3.20 but we can hardly recommend this SSD now, considering the availability of very strong alternatives.

Besides, the OCZ Vertex 3.20 inherits all of the typical downsides of SandForce-based products such as not-very-high performance (by today’s standards) which tends to degrade over time due to inefficient garbage collection algorithms. In other words, if you want a high-performance SSD, you should look elsewhere. OCZ itself offers faster alternatives in the way of the Vector and Vertex 4 series. And if you need an inexpensive SSD, the Vertex 3.20 may only be considered if it costs less than other SandForce-based products with synchronous flash.

To help you with your choice, we offer the following summary table with test results of various SSDs. It contains basic hardware information about SSDs we’ve tested so far and allows to quickly determine the general position of a particular model among its competitors in terms of relative performance.

About The Author

XbitLabs Team

We are a team of enthusiasts thriving to provide you with helpful advice on buying tech.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments