OCZ Vertex 460 (240GB) Review
by Kristian Vättö on January 22, 2014 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
- SSDs
- OCZ
- Indilinx
- Vertex 460
Power Consumption
As expected, power consumption is also on-par with the Vector 150. The difference to Vertex 450 is surprisingly big, actually, as the Vertex 460 draws more than a watt less under load, so the difference in clock speeds may be having an impact here. I'm still a bit disappointed that OCZ hasn't implemented any support for low power states (HIPM+DIPM and DevSleep).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
The 250 GB 840 EVO achieves 260 MB/s write speeds. 120 GB EVO achieves 140 MB/s. 500 GB EVO should achieve 520 MB/s bit it only achieves 420 MB/s. Why??blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
I am talking about non-Turbowrite speeds btw.rufuselder - Thursday, October 9, 2014 - link
OCZ Vertex 460 is one of the worst options for storage out there in my opinion (each time I try it out, I get just as disappointed). /Rufus from http://www.consumertop.com/best-computer-storage-g...DanNeely - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Having more NAND dies to multiiplex IO over only helps for some parts of the write process; and the more of them you have the less adding still more will help because other factors dominate more of the total time (Amdahl's law). As a result going to 500 from 250 gives less of a percentage boost than going to 250 from 120.I suspect in the case of the 500, because all the mid/top end drives are clustering in a narrow performance band, that SATA III bottlenecking is coming into play in addition to limitations within the SSD itself.
blanarahul - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Gee thanks. BTW, SATA III maxes out around 540 MB/s for writes. So it's a controller/firmware limitation.Gigaplex - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
It's not that simple. You don't have to hit maximum utilisation to start feeling the limitations of SATA III.lmcd - Thursday, January 23, 2014 - link
I thought there weren't more packages but rather larger packages? If I'm wrong then yeah it's probably SATA limitations but if not it's because it's the same bandwidth allocated per packages as previously.lmcd - Thursday, January 23, 2014 - link
*weren't more packages once 250 GB is met, in the case of this model.Novuake - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
Simple. Diminishing returns + limitations of SATA III.Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - link
It is amazing Toshiba would sully their own name by placing it next to "OCZ".