4k Random Read/Write
We precondition the 400GB OCZ Intrepid 3600 for 9,000 seconds, or two and a half hours, receiving performance reports every second. We plot this data to illustrate the drives' descent into steady state.
This dual-axis chart consists of 18,000 data points, with the IOPS on the left and the latency on the right. The blue dots signify IOPS, and the grey dots are latency measurements during the test. We place latency data in a logarithmic scale to bring it into comparison range. The lines through the data scatter are the average during the test. This type of testing presents standard deviation and maximum/minimum I/O in a visual manner.
Note that the IOPS and latency figures are nearly mirror images of each other. This illustrates high-granularity testing can give our readers a good feel for latency distribution by viewing IOPS at one-second intervals. This should be in mind when viewing our test results below. This downward slope of performance only occurs during the first few hours of use, and we present precondition results only to confirm steady state convergence.
Each level tested includes 300 data points (five minutes of one second reports) to illustrate performance variability. The line for each OIO depth represents the average speed reported during the five-minute interval. 4k random speed measurements are an important metric when comparing drive performance, as the hardest type of file access for any storage solution to master is small-file random. One of the most sought-after performance specifications, 4k random performance is a heavily marketed figure.
The OCZ Intrepid 3600 averages an impressive 84,467 IOPS at 256 OIO (Outstanding I/O), second only to the Samsung 845DC EVO, which delivers 85,155 IOPS. The Micron M500DC averages 56,259 IOPS, and the Intel DC S3500 averages 57,769 IOPS.
Our Latency vs IOPS charts compare the amount of performance attained from each solution at specific latency measurements. Many applications have specific latency requirements. These charts present relevant metrics in an easy to read manner for readers who are familiar with their application requirements. The SSDs that are lowest and furthest to the right exhibit the most desirable latency characteristics.
The Intrepid nearly matches the 845DC EVO latency. The Intrepid provides nearly 85,000 IOPS at .1ms, the 845's deliver 85,000 IOPS, the DC S3500 provides 57,000 IOPS, and the M500DC provides 56,000 IOPS.
Garbage collection routines are more pronounced in heavy write workloads, leading to performance variability.
The Intrepid averages 39,133 IOPS at 256 OIO, beating the M500DC performance of 39,089 IOPS. Perhaps the most impressive aspect is the very tight performance profile of the Intrepid 3600. The 845DC EVO trails with an average of 13,841 IOPS, near the Intel DC S3500 at the bottom of the chart.
The Intrepid and M500DC trade blows in latency performance, easily separating themselves from the DC S3500 and 845DC EVO. The short length of the bars in the IOPS vs. latency testing is a great testament to the low latency ceiling of the Intrepid 3600 and M500DC.
Our write percentage testing illustrates the varying performance of each solution with mixed workloads. The 100% column to the right is a pure 4k write workload, and 0% represents a pure 4k read workload.
The Intrepid blasts through this test with very impressive performance. The M500DC is comes in a close second, but it is hard to deny the strength of the Intrepid in mixed random workloads.
Our mixed workload latency chart reveals the M500DC maintaining the latency edge over the Intrepid in this workload, but the Intrepid easily bests the other two competitors.
We record power consumption measurements during our precondition run. We calculate the stated average results after the device has settled into steady state during the last five minutes of the test.
The Intrepid averages 5.62 Watts, easily the highest of the SSDs in the test pool. The 845DC EVO averages 3.55 Watts, the M500DC averages 4.09 Watts, and the DC S3500 averages 3.8 Watts during the measurement window.
IOPS-to-Watts measurements are generated from data recorded during our precondition run, and the stated average is from the last five minutes of the test.
The Intrepid averages 7,018 IOPS per Watt. The Intrepid's write performance advantage keeps the drive competitive in efficiency measurements in spite of the power consumption. The 845DC EVO averages 3,973 IOPS per Watt, and the M500DC jumps to a big lead, averaging 9,545 IOPS-per-Watt due to its outstanding write performance. The DC S3500 averages 3,125 IOPS per Watt.
PRICING: You can find products similar to this one for sale below.
United States: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon's website.
United Kingdom: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon UK's website.
Canada: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon Canada's website.
Recommended for You
- We at TweakTown openly invite the companies who provide us with review samples / who are mentioned or discussed to express their opinion of our content. If any company representative wishes to respond, we will publish the response here.
Latest News Posts
- Nintendo Switch battery life analysis
- Resident Evil 7 isn't coming to Nintendo Switch
- Zelda: Breath of the Wild's Hyrule is bigger than Skyrim
- 'Rogue One' captures plans for $1B worldwide box office
- Huawei P10: Curved display and front fingerprint sensor?
- Upgrading to Z270
- headphones not registering on ASUS k501uq
- Black screen GA Z170X ULTRA GAMING BIOS F21 I7 6400 T HELP
- hp printer technical support
- How to prevent pc from waking up from sleep when a brown out occurs?
- Transcend reveals industrial-grade SuperMLC JetFlash 740 USB flash drive for exceptional performance and endurance
- Light up your gaming with BIOSTAR B250 motherboard series
- MSI the pioneer in VR Gaming crowns winners of VR JAM
- NGE and Twitch partner to bring the Overwatch Winter Premiere Live Finals to PAX Arena at PAX South
- Bayview Labs, Seraph Group and MIT Game Lab announce 'Play Labs' VR/AR/AI Playful Tech Accelerator for MIT students and alumni