OCZ Trion 100 (240GB, 480GB & 960GB) SSD Review: Bringing Toshiba to the Retail
by Kristian Vättö on July 9, 2015 12:01 PM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer has been an essential part of our SSD test suite for nearly two years now. It was crafted to provide a benchmark for very IO intensive workloads, which is where you most often notice the difference between drives. It's not necessarily the most relevant test to an average user, but for anyone with a heavier IO workload The Destroyer should do a good job at characterizing performance. For full details of this test, please refer to this article.
The Trion is evidently not designed for intensive IO workloads like our The Destroyer and that's clear in the results. It's quite a bit slower than any of the other drives we have tested, including the TLC based Silicon Motion SM2256.
Fortunately the share of high latency IOs is tolerable and despite the high average latency the Trion at least doesn't completely stop processing host IOs.
It looks like the Trion is doing a lot of background garbage collection because despite the low performance, the power consumption is very high. For desktop users that's a non-issue, but for mobile the Trion may not be the best pick.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
ocz_tuff_bunny - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link
Hi sonny73n,Thank you for your comment. You are right there is still a price gap between SSD and HDD. With the introduction of Trion 100 and OCZ adjusting prices quickly with the market trend we hope to narrow that price gap and making this SSD affordable for the mass market. Thank you again for your feedback and words of encouragement.
Ryan Smith - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
In the interest of transparency, one comment has been removed for profanity and racism.As a reminder to all readers, racism and profanity are not welcome nor tolerated in the AnandTech comments.
sonny73n - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
"considering the Samsung alternative" Really?I have an 840 EVO from not too long ago in my laptop and I'm so ready to send it to the trash. There's an article here about its problems which Samsung have been incapable of fixing with new firmware updates that you should take a look on. Beside, I consider it's cheating when Samsung use my system RAM as cache for their SSD. My next SSD definitely won't be Samsung's.
NvidiaWins - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Samsung is terrible SSD manufactuer, in fact Intel was the only SSD that passed Torture Testinghttp://www.extremetech.com/computing/173887-ssd-st...
ggathagan - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
I've heard of a "one trick pony" before.I've never seen a "one link troll" before now.
The linked article doesn't even involve Samsung SSD's.
Not only are you a troll, you're an ignorant troll.
shadowjk - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
Toshiba's silence on the drive probably makes enthusiasts nervous about this drive, if they weren't already nervous considering OCZ's heritage... This might be a tough sell indeed.jabber - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
To be honest SSDs like these should be marketed cheap and largely aimed at SATA I/II kit owners. A lot of kit out there is still only SATA II and to be honest the cheapest SSD out there will push 260MBps all day long and still feel light speed fast compared to the 5400rpm 65MBps HDD it replaced. No point bothering trying to say they compete for SATA III owners. Hence why I buy a lot of the Kingston V300 SSDs. Most here wouldnt touch them but they are reliable, the cheapest and will push a SATA II laptop or PC to its max.romrunning - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
"OCZ wasn't involved in the development of the Trion 100, but it did help Toshiba to validate the drive. "With OCZ's past history, I found that statement to be quite humorous! :)
TheWrongChristian - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
Yeah. I was expecting the relationship to work the other way round.The_Assimilator - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
It makes sense, since OCZ has far more SSD experience than Toshiba; that's why Toshiba bought them. Unfortunately it looks like OCZ's "validation" procedures haven't changed much from the days of the Vertex 2 debacle.