AnandTech Storage Bench 2013

Our Storage Bench 2013 focuses on worst-case multitasking and IO consistency. Similar to our earlier Storage Benches, the test is still application trace based – we record all IO requests made to a test system and play them back on the drive we are testing and run statistical analysis on the drive's responses. There are 49.8 million IO operations in total with 1583.0GB of reads and 875.6GB of writes. I'm not including the full description of the test for better readability, so make sure to read our Storage Bench 2013 introduction for the full details.

AnandTech Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer
Workload Description Applications Used
Photo Sync/Editing Import images, edit, export Adobe Photoshop CS6, Adobe Lightroom 4, Dropbox
Gaming Download/install games, play games Steam, Deus Ex, Skyrim, Starcraft 2, BioShock Infinite
Virtualization Run/manage VM, use general apps inside VM VirtualBox
General Productivity Browse the web, manage local email, copy files, encrypt/decrypt files, backup system, download content, virus/malware scan Chrome, IE10, Outlook, Windows 8, AxCrypt, uTorrent, AdAware
Video Playback Copy and watch movies Windows 8
Application Development Compile projects, check out code, download code samples Visual Studio 2012

We are reporting two primary metrics with the Destroyer: average data rate in MB/s and average service time in microseconds. The former gives you an idea of the throughput of the drive during the time that it was running the test workload. This can be a very good indication of overall performance. What average data rate doesn't do a good job of is taking into account response time of very bursty (read: high queue depth) IO. By reporting average service time we heavily weigh latency for queued IOs. You'll note that this is a metric we have been reporting in our enterprise benchmarks for a while now. With the client tests maturing, the time was right for a little convergence.

Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The good IO consistency translates into good performance in our 2013 Storage Bench. The ARC 100 is without a doubt the fastest value drive in the market for heavy IO workloads as the 840 EVO and MX100 do not even come close.

Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer (Service Time)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench 2011
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • HisDivineOrder - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    "The Barefoot 3 platform does provide excellent performance consistency and it has proven to be reliable over the last two years"

    "The Barefoot 3 platform does provide excellent performance consistency...has proven to be reliable over the last two..."

    "...excellent performance consistency...has proven to be reliable..."


    Wut? You can't be serious. Go read the reviews by actual users. OCZ products have far higher one-star reviews and failures than any other serious equivalent. Or do you guys really think the rest of the world is wrong about their reliability and you're right? ;)
  • Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    Here is some actual data from NewEgg and Amazon for you:

    OCZ Vector 150 & Vertex 460 combined: 89.2% are 5 or 4-star reviews - 7.8% 1-star
    Crucial M500: 91.1% are 5 or 4-star - 4.6% 1-star
    Samsung 840 EVO: 94.1% 5 or 4-star - 2.3% 1-star

    OCZ's sample size was much smaller and there were only 13 one-star reviews in total, so the results are not really scientifically accurate. There were several one-star review due to the fact that OCZ denies warranty if bought from an uncertified reseller, so the number of failures is smaller in reality.

    Either way, your claim that OCZ has "far higher one-star reviews" isn't true. It used to be true and I don't deny that, but the OCZ today is totally different company with new management and owner. Things are only going to get better with Toshiba helping OCZ with validation.
  • Per Hansson - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    Yea, but OCZ still shows up in reliability survey as the black sheep.
    No matter how much they say they want to improve their reputation the numbers don't lie:

    Sure it's better than the 50% RMA rates for the Petrol & Octane series, but then again those where never even recalled by OCZ so in my mind they can just go MIA!
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    Ah yes and no other manufacturer ever screwed things up?... In reality they've all
    chucked out bad fw, but people forgave the likes of Intel and Samsung when they
    did that. OCZ changed its policies, started producing excellent models, yet people
    still post the same old guff about Octane/Petrol models.

  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    Nonsense. All that stuff was about much older models. The later OCZ SSDs are very good,
    everything from the Vertex4 onwards. Heck, with the early fw issues sorted out, the previous
    models are fine too, I have loads of them.


    PS. Buyer feedback on a seller site suffers from enormous -ve bias. People who don't
    have any issues almost never state the fact. Sats: garbage in = garbage out.
  • kaesden - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    You couldn't pay me enough to ever trust another OCZ product. I dont care how well they perform, or how cheap they might be, they are the most unreliable memory products i've EVER used.
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    They were. Now that sandforce is gone and toshiba is owning them, this is a completly different OCZ as it was a few years ago.
  • hosps - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    Management is still the same and by the CEO's own admission, they have been left largely alone for day-to-day operations. This product is yet another horrible idea just like Octane, Petrol, and Agility. They are undercutting their own product lines with inferior products and dumbfounded why their higher end products don’t sell. They need to follow what Samsung has done and release two product lines and keep it straight. Higher number product numbers = higher expected performance. Stop mixing and matching product lines and tagging them with meaningless numbers that have no sense of order or scale. They keep repeating the same mistakes that led them to bankruptcy and it’s why they won’t survive as a company.
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    What toshiba needs to do is rebrand the whole thing; they could just continue using toshiba brandname as they did before ocz acq. but instead use oczs controller and firmware. And as you've said; two models. One highend with MLC flash and one mainstream with A19 tlc (sandisk already has one).

    That way, product stack will be less of a mess and cost savings when using TLC could also translate to lower MSRP. Which is always good, when competition is stiff.
  • patssle - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    Once you lose trust it's hard to gain it back. Hard drives are crucial for reliability with all your important data stored on it (and hopefully backed up) - living with the thought of just MAYBE my hard drive isn't good enough is more than enough to not buy that brand. And I was quick to jump on the OCZ bandwagon back when they were the first to bring reliable SSDs mainstream without write delays with the Vertex.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now