I now feel like Toshiba is a Trojan horse, because all the OCZ drives that were in the buffer during bankruptcy and released after Toshiba initially bought them, in particular the exceptional ARC 100, were a sign they were turning things around.
Then Toshiba releases this crap under the OCZ name. WTF are they thinking OCZ is a performance focused brand and these drives are clearly marketed at grandma's old Dell laptop.
Yea but I think Toshiba's plan was to use OCZ for ALL of their customer facing drives. Before they bought OCZ they simply didn't offer retail drives at all!
As far as a Toshiba Trojan horse... Toshiba actually had a competent drive itself right before it bought OCZ.
The Toshiba THNSNH drives were actually good (they don't bench awesome, but they're good) but since they were OEM only you've never heard of them. THNSNH was also a big jump from Toshiba's prior drives that seemed mostly made for industrial (performance wasn't great, but HDD wouldn't handle vibration/shock).
Bonus that Toshiba kept OCZ's in development models, so you had the ARC series come out. (vs. something ... not so nice like continuing Octane). But those were Marvell (I think) based with Indilinx firmware? Nothing wrong at all with that, but I imagine Toshiba's shareholders would question why they weren't using native Toshiba tech...
I'm actually really glad Toshiba of anyone (also, a surprise!) was able to snag the OCZ engineering team. Yea everyone loves to hate on OCZ, but OCZ really was the first company to so extremely aggressively bring SSD drives to the consumer market. Everyone likes to hate on Ryan Petersen but damnit, he really DID push to make SSD drives an affordable "thing" much MUCH sooner than just Intel alone would have.
They had a really rough time pounding out the bugs with SandForce yes... but seriously - who could have predicted that? (no, SERIOUSLY - before the kneejerk reaction, imagine being in OCZ's development shoes - that had to be really tough cause each time they thought they had it fixed, and it was always something very subtle). I always find it interesting that everyone forgets that their Indilinx controllers just worked - but they weren't the "sexy" fastest.
Saying that, I totally understand people who... after forking out their $600+ on a drive and having failure after RMA failure after "no this firmware really fixes it honest" failure upon failure would yea... swear off OCZ forever. But today's OCZ isn't that. Different time, place, era.
This comment has gone way too long. And I've lost my point lol.
And so you all don't think I'm a forgive and forget person. I'll never buy another Kingston product after the asshattery with the V300. When a company basically tells Anand himself to piss off when they bait and switch the NAND used...
Ugh, and I just realized I didn't address the part of using the OCZ name for non-performance parts.
Basically, unless you're Samsung right now nobody is a performance part. And so that doesn't sound like a hipster "well, duh" answer - Samsung went crazy (awesome!) insane mad R&D into controllers and 3D NAND. Holy moly they even kicked Intel's butt enough so that Intel announces vaporware crosspoint memory.
I mean, halo effect in SATA market at least is crazy! SanDisk has some very extremely competitive models in their high end - but because they're maybe 3% slower in some benchmarks? Nobody on the street cares. That's nuts.
I dunno, I guess my point is that unless Toshiba/OCZ can somehow squeeze 12Gb/s through a SATA 3 link (I joke) they're not going to be able to market as a performance product these days.
Actually, the killer solution I think is to make an SSD controller that is both power efficient and makes TLC NAND not suck (so much). And that's not easy. At all. Cause small process planar TLC really a physics nightmare. I mean that's taking crappy flash drive memory and getting it to perform. Not easy.
maybe i been unlucky i had to many sandisk SSDs (3) and SD (more than 5) cards fail (failing as what is in my phone right now about to funny enough change it for a 32GB EVO+)
i do wish they would make more SSDs like the BX100 its the most power effect SSD i have ever seen (the BX200 and MX200 the very bad) BX100 is not very fast for a SSD but in laptops its very low power
Hi Arnulf, As this is my first post on this article please allow me to identify myself as a Toshiba America Electronic Components (TAEC) representative. We completely understand the quality concerns and appreciate your comments. Since the Toshiba acquisition of OCZ in 2014 improving product reliability is a key priority for us. We made significant changes to everything from processes to production. OCZ SSDs are made with premium Toshiba NAND and is back by the Advanced Warranty Program.
We understand how you feel and hope that one day we will have the opportunity to demonstrate the reliability of current OCZ products. Thank you again for your feedback.
Not a great showing, that's for sure. I'd like to point out two things - one is that we're looking at a range of drives that could be offering 2TB SSDs for under $400. WhereTF are they? I feel like we've been pretty patient, but at these prices, I can actually afford to replace all disks on my PCs and getting really close to replacing disks on my servers and NAS units.
Second, would it be at all reasonable to add a WD VelociRaptor, Hybrid SSHD, and/or common 5400RPM hard drive to the 2015 SSD Bench like the old days? I think most of the readership knows how much better ANY SSD is over a mechanical HDD, but I think we also get a bit too cynical with drives like this that are "slow" compared to other SSDs and won't even consider buying them. We shouldn't forget where we came from. XD
I second this, really want to keep perspective on speeds, especially when we're dealing with the low cost SSDs where you can get high storage space for low $$
Agreed, as stated in the 2nd paragraph of the article: "It's important to keep in mind that for the cheapest SSDs on the market, maximizing performance is not the only goal and often isn't even a primary goal." Yes, the performance sucks compared to anything the average Anandtech reader would put in his computer, but these drives are intended to get people who buy cheap crappy computers at the boxmark off of spinning rust. It might help if the performance charts were split between performance and budget SSDs, otherwise is as unfair as comparing a standard HDD to a 15k SAS drive would've been a dozen years ago.
It's still probably 2 or 3 generations before I'd consider SSDing my NAS. Pricing even on cheap SSDs is still ~6x that of NAS HDDs; it'd need to drop to at most 2x before I'd consider it; at that point reduced power consumption over a half dozen years might be able to close enough of the gap that quieter operation and smaller size might be worth the larger up front cost. Also, I'd want at least 6gb of post RAID storage capacity if standing up a new NAS today; probably 10 or 12 if I'd be filling all the bays and unable to add more storage to it later; with my needs growing by about 2x every 3-4 years. The smaller criteria could be met by 4x2gb drives in raid 5; the latter would either need 4gb drives or an 8 bay enclosure. Pre-built 8-bay NASes suffer from an additional enterprise price premium; while on the DIY front that many sata ports is stretching what can be done with cheap hardware and I'm not aware of any mITX sized cases with that many drive bays.
Just curious, what do you do with all that storage? 10 to 12 TB (I assume your 6gb was a typo and you meant 6tb) is a hell of alot of storage. What do you need so much storage for?
I am still using a first gen Macbook pro retina with 256 GB of SSD storage and I have 90 GB free. Even my server that does backups and stuff uses only about 350 GB.
Media and system backups. About half of the latter is images of old systems that I got rid of at some point. Feeding bigger drives into the nas is a lot easier than trying to scour a system to make sure everything of value's been removed separately. Most recently some scanned documents a family member left in the scanner apps temp folder (that I didn't even know existed).
I can't speak for DanNeely, but my DVD/Blu-ray server alone is 32TB now (~4TB free after duplication). Other miscellaneous storage: ~10TB. I wouldn't bother converting the video server over to SSDs, but my other devices I certainly will when the price is right. To be honest, my storage needs have slowed a lot in the past year. Once I can start backing up UHD Blu-ray discs, that will change, but not a lot. I'll just replace existing DVD or Blu-ray backups with the UHD versions. There are only a handful of new movies each year that are worth buying anyway IMO.
Jesus man you buy alot of movies. 32 TB is around 640 Blu-Ray backups if my math is correct. At a minimum of $10 per Blu-Ray (which is almost certainly an under-estimate), you're talking $6,400 just in the media alone. 32 TB of SSD is probably peanuts for someone with your budget :)
Whatever. Enjoy your hoarding of content you'll likely never watch again just because it feels so good to rip content producers off. Oh and then why don't you come to Anandtech and whine about how expensive the storage is for your ripped off goods. Not you specifically of course, but there are people who do both of these things. Despicable.
@bji: " Enjoy your hoarding of content you'll likely never watch again just because it feels so good to rip content producers off. Oh and then why don't you come to Anandtech and whine about how expensive the storage is for your ripped off goods."
Sadly, this is too often the case. While I don't support MPAA / RIAA practices of treating everyone like a criminal, people who do this make it hard for them to trust anyone. In the end, it is the honest consumer that suffers as measures taken by studios to prevent these actions generally only make things more inconvenient for those who don't make a practice of bypassing them. Given that I like my entertainment to be entertaining and not frustrating, I've elected to drop movie watching almost completely until such a time as I enjoy it again. However, that gives no justification to rip them off.
Speaking personally I subscribe to Amazon Prime so I don't buy a lot of TV or movies but I do generally pick up a few each year.
Supernatural, Bones, Castle, The Flash, Arrow, plus a few miscellaneous TV series, plus maybe five movies per year means I'm racking up thirty to forty Blu-rays per year, and I've got a 3.5 year old so don't get anything like enough time to watch telly compared to what I used to. In a different situation I could easily see myself tripling that! 640 brs is only about 5 years' consumption at that point.
@bji: "32 TB is around 640 Blu-Ray backups if my math is correct. At a minimum of $10 per Blu-Ray (which is almost certainly an under-estimate), you're talking $6,400 just in the media alone."
Well he did say:
@nathanddrews: "... my DVD/Blu-ray server alone is 32TB now (~4TB free after duplication)."
So its more like 28TB (used) / 2 (duplication) = 14TB or something like 280 Blu-Ray backups by your math. You're talking $2800 at your specified minimum price of $10. Still quite the budget, but less than half of what you stated.
@bji: "32 TB of SSD is probably peanuts for someone with your budget :)"
He isn't the one (at least up to this point) complaining about the price of SSDs. He is simply stating a personal use case that uses large amounts of storage, presumably in an attempt to show the people in this thread that there are legitimate reasons someone may need more than just the 256GB SSD storage in their Macbook Pro retina. Certainly such a use case is not the common user, though.
Another point of interest is that he never stated over what time period he acquired said collection. $280 a year for 10 years is a lot more palatable than $2800 in a single year. That's still more movies than I'll probably watch in my lifetime, but movies aren't my thing. If they were, I'd have to consider that, regardless of my yearly budget, a $230 1TB (rounded) Trion SSD is worth about 23 movies by your stated minimum pricing. To replace his 32TB array (not sure if he uses raid or another form of duplication) would cost about $7360. That's worth more movies than he could theoretically store without duplication (using your stated minimum pricing).
Oh you want 2TB SSDs for a good price do you? Well get in line. I was trying to find a decent priced 1080p, i5, SSD, 8GB equipped Laptop today. In 2016 you'd think there were dozens and dozens by now. Nope. Slim pickings. Seems 90% of the Windows hardware world is going backwards or stagnating. Sure I could add the SSD and ram later but we were looking for straight out of the box solutions.
As a desktop support engineer who works on $2k business laptops, i can tell you that for sata based ssd, oems put truly cheap and nasty ssds in theit laptops. Better off buying your own.
Why are you guys telling me to install my own afterwards? I already told you I know that. Plus I told you in this instance it had to be out of the factory/box not a case of cracking it open and upgrading. Just read stuff before rushing to post.
The worst part I'm guessing is finding anything decently priced that isn't 1366x768. I hate that resolution so much. My keep looking to replace my old core2 craptop that wheezes along (sadly it uses the most gimped/market segmented version of the Intel 945GM chipset), But it uses an old school 1440x900 screen - and that vertical space I refuse to give up.
Sorry folks, when I see 768 - that was only cool back when 1024x768 was an upgrade from VGA's 800x600. F going back.
Look at HP Elitebooks like the 820 and 840, they come standard with 1600x900 screens (which is a perfect resolution on the 12.5" 820.
1920x1080 is fine and all on a 14"+ but really sucks on a 11-13" unless you have display scaling. Windows 7 and Linux it just sucks unless you have eagle vision.
@Samus: "Look at HP Elitebooks like the 820 and 840, they come standard with 1600x900 screens (which is a perfect resolution on the 12.5" 820."
I do rather like that resolution for this size on a notebook. Tablets are generally used at a closer distance, but I digress.
@Samus: "1920x1080 is fine and all on a 14"+ but really sucks on a 11-13" unless you have display scaling. Windows 7 and Linux it just sucks unless you have eagle vision."
Yet I'd still rather see 1920x1080 than 1366x768 as I find it less frustrating to lean a little closer when I need to than to not be able to get the content I want on screen. Until better scaling is commonplace, 1680x1050 or 1600x900 please.
The link below is a 2011 review on Anandtech, showing Velociraptor scores vs SSDs of the time. You can estimate pretty well from that how things would compare now.
FYI, the Mushkin Reactor 1TB MLC SSD (reviewed here recently) is available for $220 on NeweggBusiness.
Excellent drive (the Mushkin Reactor) I have recommended it at least a dozen times and never heard a complaint. Stark contrast to the one person who didn't take my advice (I have two of them so I know how good they are) and bought the Sandisk Ultra II 960GB instead because it was $20 cheaper. It failed on them after 4 months. Which is alarmingly common if you read the reviews on Newegg.
"Second, would it be at all reasonable to add a WD VelociRaptor, Hybrid SSHD, and/or common 5400RPM hard drive to the 2015 SSD Bench like the old days?"
It's definitely something we can look into. Keep in mind that we'd only be able to use them for a portion of the tests though; even a 7200 RPM drive would be impossibly slow on tests like the Destroyer that involve a lot of random activity.
@Ryan Smith: "It's definitely something we can look into. Keep in mind that we'd only be able to use them for a portion of the tests though; even a 7200 RPM drive would be impossibly slow on tests like the Destroyer that involve a lot of random activity."
That is fine. The destroyer was made to tease out differences in performance and consistency between SSDs that are so high end that are hidden in lesser tests. One of your other (far less strenuous) tests is good enough as a reference point to show how HDDs stack with respect to random activity.
From a strictly business point of view, Toshiba should probably re-brand OCZ to some other name. Not a single member of my moderate circle of pro or power user friends will ever touch anything with OCZ in the name again. And they all told their friends, and they all told their friends, etc.
The Mushkin Reactor not being included on any charts for SSD reviews must be a conspiracy, right? You guys did review it and it's in your best SSDs for 2016 list. Yet it doesn't appear to be included on the charts for any of the SSD reviews. Or am I just missing it?
It was reviewed with the 2014 test suite and I don't have the drive available to re-test with the current (2015) suite. The results from the Mushkin Reactor review may not be directly comparable to the current reviews, but indicate that it performs a little worse than the Crucial BX100 that has the same controller and flash.
Hi Billy, will there be a future review on the Sandisk Plus which presumably uses SM2246XT & MLC NAND? It's the lowest tier in Sandisk's SSD lineup & is priced even lower than the TLC based Ultra II.
I actually had an 840 Pro that was 2 years old fail on me a few months ago. It was hell getting Samsung to warranty it. The process was awful. I've been using it lightly a few months, and I'd sell it if you want it. $90 bucks. It's a 256GB.
The people complaining about the drives performance need to consider that what's beating it cost significantly more. These are drives for low-mid range computers. And for 99% of your desktop use, if I swapped out your much more expensive (probably Samsung) SSD you'd probably never notice the difference in day to day use.
Take a breath, have a little perspective, stop worrying about inconsequential (relative to the intended use) benchmarks and take a close look at the cost.
Not really - this drive costs more and sometimes performs worse than its in-house competitor (Trion 100). The fact that it only reliably trumps BX200 is quite telling ...
Take a look at the Mushkin Enhanced Reactor. Its results will be VERY close to the BX100. That drive outperforms (often by a large margin) the OCZ in nearly all benchmarks, and it costs the same. In fact, Newegg regularly has it on sale for $209.
The bottom of this article has an advertisement for the OCZ Trion 150 240GB at $45.99. This is actually the price for the 120GB model. The 240GB model is still $61.99 as shown in the price comparison chart.
I have the 480 trion150 and feel completely satisfied with it. I bought it as a replacement for the very last mechanical drive I had. I would probably not use as OS drive, in principle, but for anything other than that I can't find anything wrong with it. Why are you people dissing it? It could be cheaper? Shouldn't everything? It WAS one of the cheapest at that capacity range when I bought it.
So I might be doing this calc wrong but I'm seeing the endurance as 250 drive writes? Probably fine for most people and definitely for a media storage drive. Prices are getting low enough for that.
I'd prefer it if they just stated endurance in drive writes rather than as 9,876PB or something. I end up doing the mental arithmetic to divide it down to drive writes every time I see that in the table anyway.
I got one 480GB Trion 100 for my old Elitebook upgrade.
I knew what I'm buying and I am very pleased with it. Here in NZ, I paid 480GB Trion around NZ$30 more than what I would pay for 250GB Samsug 850 EVO (non-pro): they were NZ$150 and 180. I wanted more capacity but didn't want to overspend for machine I rarely use these days.
While it is slow for SSD, it still is revelation in everyday use, compared to HDD. Windows 10 boot time is quick anyway, and SSD takes away all that after-login sluggishness while system is still loading background processes/drivers/utils/...
Like I said, champ it is not, but huge improvement over HDD it is.
Is this different from OCZ TR150 (current model)? Looking at the specification of the 480GB on their website (https://ocz.com/us/ssd/tr150-ssd#specs), they are quite different from the TRION 150 480GB in this table. The 4K Write shows up to 83K IOPS instead of the 54K IOPS shown in the table. Others numbers are close though.
I have a Trion 150 480GB which I paid $60 at Frys during an awesome sale (probably pricing error). Working very well for my laptop working as a HTPC/home file server.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
Back to Article
Arnulf - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
So not only is this a low-end drive, it's an OCZ low-end drive.Thanks for the article and giving consumers heads-up so that we don't get burned!
Arnulf - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Ugh, EDIT function pretty please ...So not only is this a low-end drive, it's an overpriced OCZ low-end drive.
close - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I wouldn't call this a "burn" but it's definitely a warm beer after a hot summer day.LB-ID - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
<Wanders in, sees another OCZ drive review><Reads the review, sees nothing has really changed>
<Wanders out to buy from a reputable brand>
Samus - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
I now feel like Toshiba is a Trojan horse, because all the OCZ drives that were in the buffer during bankruptcy and released after Toshiba initially bought them, in particular the exceptional ARC 100, were a sign they were turning things around.Then Toshiba releases this crap under the OCZ name. WTF are they thinking OCZ is a performance focused brand and these drives are clearly marketed at grandma's old Dell laptop.
xrror - Wednesday, April 6, 2016 - link
Yea but I think Toshiba's plan was to use OCZ for ALL of their customer facing drives. Before they bought OCZ they simply didn't offer retail drives at all!As far as a Toshiba Trojan horse... Toshiba actually had a competent drive itself right before it bought OCZ.
The Toshiba THNSNH drives were actually good (they don't bench awesome, but they're good) but since they were OEM only you've never heard of them. THNSNH was also a big jump from Toshiba's prior drives that seemed mostly made for industrial (performance wasn't great, but HDD wouldn't handle vibration/shock).
Bonus that Toshiba kept OCZ's in development models, so you had the ARC series come out. (vs. something ... not so nice like continuing Octane). But those were Marvell (I think) based with Indilinx firmware? Nothing wrong at all with that, but I imagine Toshiba's shareholders would question why they weren't using native Toshiba tech...
I'm actually really glad Toshiba of anyone (also, a surprise!) was able to snag the OCZ engineering team. Yea everyone loves to hate on OCZ, but OCZ really was the first company to so extremely aggressively bring SSD drives to the consumer market. Everyone likes to hate on Ryan Petersen but damnit, he really DID push to make SSD drives an affordable "thing" much MUCH sooner than just Intel alone would have.
They had a really rough time pounding out the bugs with SandForce yes... but seriously - who could have predicted that? (no, SERIOUSLY - before the kneejerk reaction, imagine being in OCZ's development shoes - that had to be really tough cause each time they thought they had it fixed, and it was always something very subtle). I always find it interesting that everyone forgets that their Indilinx controllers just worked - but they weren't the "sexy" fastest.
Saying that, I totally understand people who... after forking out their $600+ on a drive and having failure after RMA failure after "no this firmware really fixes it honest" failure upon failure would yea... swear off OCZ forever. But today's OCZ isn't that. Different time, place, era.
This comment has gone way too long. And I've lost my point lol.
And so you all don't think I'm a forgive and forget person. I'll never buy another Kingston product after the asshattery with the V300. When a company basically tells Anand himself to piss off when they bait and switch the NAND used...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7763/an-update-to-ki...
Hey, at least Ryan Peterson and OCZ back then was super responsive to Anand directly when they got ripped a new one ;)
xrror - Wednesday, April 6, 2016 - link
Ugh, and I just realized I didn't address the part of using the OCZ name for non-performance parts.Basically, unless you're Samsung right now nobody is a performance part. And so that doesn't sound like a hipster "well, duh" answer - Samsung went crazy (awesome!) insane mad R&D into controllers and 3D NAND. Holy moly they even kicked Intel's butt enough so that Intel announces vaporware crosspoint memory.
I mean, halo effect in SATA market at least is crazy! SanDisk has some very extremely competitive models in their high end - but because they're maybe 3% slower in some benchmarks? Nobody on the street cares. That's nuts.
I dunno, I guess my point is that unless Toshiba/OCZ can somehow squeeze 12Gb/s through a SATA 3 link (I joke) they're not going to be able to market as a performance product these days.
Actually, the killer solution I think is to make an SSD controller that is both power efficient and makes TLC NAND not suck (so much). And that's not easy. At all. Cause small process planar TLC really a physics nightmare. I mean that's taking crappy flash drive memory and getting it to perform. Not easy.
leexgx - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
maybe i been unlucky i had to many sandisk SSDs (3) and SD (more than 5) cards fail (failing as what is in my phone right now about to funny enough change it for a 32GB EVO+)i do wish they would make more SSDs like the BX100 its the most power effect SSD i have ever seen (the BX200 and MX200 the very bad) BX100 is not very fast for a SSD but in laptops its very low power
jasonelmore - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
Still mad about that OCZ rebate scandal i see.Leyawiin - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
No, its a Toshiba low end. Do try and keep up.ocztaec - Tuesday, April 5, 2016 - link
Hi Arnulf,As this is my first post on this article please allow me to identify myself as a Toshiba America Electronic Components (TAEC) representative. We completely understand the quality concerns and appreciate your comments. Since the Toshiba acquisition of OCZ in 2014 improving product reliability is a key priority for us. We made significant changes to everything from processes to production. OCZ SSDs are made with premium Toshiba NAND and is back by the Advanced Warranty Program.
We understand how you feel and hope that one day we will have the opportunity to demonstrate the reliability of current OCZ products. Thank you again for your feedback.
nathanddrews - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Not a great showing, that's for sure. I'd like to point out two things - one is that we're looking at a range of drives that could be offering 2TB SSDs for under $400. WhereTF are they? I feel like we've been pretty patient, but at these prices, I can actually afford to replace all disks on my PCs and getting really close to replacing disks on my servers and NAS units.Second, would it be at all reasonable to add a WD VelociRaptor, Hybrid SSHD, and/or common 5400RPM hard drive to the 2015 SSD Bench like the old days? I think most of the readership knows how much better ANY SSD is over a mechanical HDD, but I think we also get a bit too cynical with drives like this that are "slow" compared to other SSDs and won't even consider buying them. We shouldn't forget where we came from. XD
tarqsharq - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I second this, really want to keep perspective on speeds, especially when we're dealing with the low cost SSDs where you can get high storage space for low $$ImSpartacus - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
Yeah, it would a fantastic way to gain context. Just don't worry about scaling the graphs for the hard drives if that ever becomes an issue.bug77 - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Have you seen the size increase of the PCB? There's no space for 2TB worth of chips.DanNeely - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Agreed, as stated in the 2nd paragraph of the article: "It's important to keep in mind that for the cheapest SSDs on the market, maximizing performance is not the only goal and often isn't even a primary goal." Yes, the performance sucks compared to anything the average Anandtech reader would put in his computer, but these drives are intended to get people who buy cheap crappy computers at the boxmark off of spinning rust. It might help if the performance charts were split between performance and budget SSDs, otherwise is as unfair as comparing a standard HDD to a 15k SAS drive would've been a dozen years ago.It's still probably 2 or 3 generations before I'd consider SSDing my NAS. Pricing even on cheap SSDs is still ~6x that of NAS HDDs; it'd need to drop to at most 2x before I'd consider it; at that point reduced power consumption over a half dozen years might be able to close enough of the gap that quieter operation and smaller size might be worth the larger up front cost. Also, I'd want at least 6gb of post RAID storage capacity if standing up a new NAS today; probably 10 or 12 if I'd be filling all the bays and unable to add more storage to it later; with my needs growing by about 2x every 3-4 years. The smaller criteria could be met by 4x2gb drives in raid 5; the latter would either need 4gb drives or an 8 bay enclosure. Pre-built 8-bay NASes suffer from an additional enterprise price premium; while on the DIY front that many sata ports is stretching what can be done with cheap hardware and I'm not aware of any mITX sized cases with that many drive bays.
bji - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Just curious, what do you do with all that storage? 10 to 12 TB (I assume your 6gb was a typo and you meant 6tb) is a hell of alot of storage. What do you need so much storage for?I am still using a first gen Macbook pro retina with 256 GB of SSD storage and I have 90 GB free. Even my server that does backups and stuff uses only about 350 GB.
DanNeely - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Media and system backups. About half of the latter is images of old systems that I got rid of at some point. Feeding bigger drives into the nas is a lot easier than trying to scour a system to make sure everything of value's been removed separately. Most recently some scanned documents a family member left in the scanner apps temp folder (that I didn't even know existed).bji - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
What kind of media needs that much storage? Are you a professional videographer?Arnulf - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
P0rn :)nathanddrews - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
https://youtu.be/iAwagCwJj-gI can't speak for DanNeely, but my DVD/Blu-ray server alone is 32TB now (~4TB free after duplication). Other miscellaneous storage: ~10TB. I wouldn't bother converting the video server over to SSDs, but my other devices I certainly will when the price is right. To be honest, my storage needs have slowed a lot in the past year. Once I can start backing up UHD Blu-ray discs, that will change, but not a lot. I'll just replace existing DVD or Blu-ray backups with the UHD versions. There are only a handful of new movies each year that are worth buying anyway IMO.
bji - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Jesus man you buy alot of movies. 32 TB is around 640 Blu-Ray backups if my math is correct. At a minimum of $10 per Blu-Ray (which is almost certainly an under-estimate), you're talking $6,400 just in the media alone. 32 TB of SSD is probably peanuts for someone with your budget :)xrror - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
RedBox and/or Blockbuster Video. Also many public libraries have movies in their collection. Just saying ;)bji - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
Whatever. Enjoy your hoarding of content you'll likely never watch again just because it feels so good to rip content producers off. Oh and then why don't you come to Anandtech and whine about how expensive the storage is for your ripped off goods. Not you specifically of course, but there are people who do both of these things. Despicable.BurntMyBacon - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
@bji: " Enjoy your hoarding of content you'll likely never watch again just because it feels so good to rip content producers off. Oh and then why don't you come to Anandtech and whine about how expensive the storage is for your ripped off goods."Sadly, this is too often the case. While I don't support MPAA / RIAA practices of treating everyone like a criminal, people who do this make it hard for them to trust anyone. In the end, it is the honest consumer that suffers as measures taken by studios to prevent these actions generally only make things more inconvenient for those who don't make a practice of bypassing them. Given that I like my entertainment to be entertaining and not frustrating, I've elected to drop movie watching almost completely until such a time as I enjoy it again. However, that gives no justification to rip them off.
bji - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
What? A moral viewpoint on the internet? Didn't April Fools pass already? :)mkaibear - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
It's not unreasonable.Speaking personally I subscribe to Amazon Prime so I don't buy a lot of TV or movies but I do generally pick up a few each year.
Supernatural, Bones, Castle, The Flash, Arrow, plus a few miscellaneous TV series, plus maybe five movies per year means I'm racking up thirty to forty Blu-rays per year, and I've got a 3.5 year old so don't get anything like enough time to watch telly compared to what I used to. In a different situation I could easily see myself tripling that! 640 brs is only about 5 years' consumption at that point.
BurntMyBacon - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
@bji: "32 TB is around 640 Blu-Ray backups if my math is correct. At a minimum of $10 per Blu-Ray (which is almost certainly an under-estimate), you're talking $6,400 just in the media alone."Well he did say:
@nathanddrews: "... my DVD/Blu-ray server alone is 32TB now (~4TB free after duplication)."
So its more like 28TB (used) / 2 (duplication) = 14TB or something like 280 Blu-Ray backups by your math. You're talking $2800 at your specified minimum price of $10. Still quite the budget, but less than half of what you stated.
@bji: "32 TB of SSD is probably peanuts for someone with your budget :)"
He isn't the one (at least up to this point) complaining about the price of SSDs. He is simply stating a personal use case that uses large amounts of storage, presumably in an attempt to show the people in this thread that there are legitimate reasons someone may need more than just the 256GB SSD storage in their Macbook Pro retina. Certainly such a use case is not the common user, though.
Another point of interest is that he never stated over what time period he acquired said collection. $280 a year for 10 years is a lot more palatable than $2800 in a single year. That's still more movies than I'll probably watch in my lifetime, but movies aren't my thing. If they were, I'd have to consider that, regardless of my yearly budget, a $230 1TB (rounded) Trion SSD is worth about 23 movies by your stated minimum pricing. To replace his 32TB array (not sure if he uses raid or another form of duplication) would cost about $7360. That's worth more movies than he could theoretically store without duplication (using your stated minimum pricing).
Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I got 4x 6TB WD Blacks.Movies (BD rips)
Anime (BD rips)
Manga
adult anime manga and mangazines :P
some popcorn
Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
+Nintendo DS, 3DS, Wii, PSP, roms and PC games (I delete what i complete, easy to get if want to play them again).Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
You simple didn't embrace internet.bji - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Nah. I just don't steal stuff, that's all.rtho782 - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
By the definition of the word, neither does he. Piracy is not the same as stealing.bji - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
Fine. I don't pirate stuff, that's all. It's no better than stealing anyway, I'm happy to use the word of your choice.Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
No edit button ftwjabber - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Oh you want 2TB SSDs for a good price do you? Well get in line. I was trying to find a decent priced 1080p, i5, SSD, 8GB equipped Laptop today. In 2016 you'd think there were dozens and dozens by now. Nope. Slim pickings. Seems 90% of the Windows hardware world is going backwards or stagnating. Sure I could add the SSD and ram later but we were looking for straight out of the box solutions.Arnulf - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
You are better off using quality SSD of *your own* choice anyway, those OEM SSDs can be rather mediocre when it comes to performance.Getting a decent screen is the real issue, so many "HD ready" full-mirror-finish-for-maximum-glare screens ... in 2016.
Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
For the premium they make you pay for the SSD laptop you can easily get twitce the space doing the SSD upgrade yourself.doggface - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
As a desktop support engineer who works on $2k business laptops, i can tell you that for sata based ssd, oems put truly cheap and nasty ssds in theit laptops. Better off buying your own.jabber - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
Why are you guys telling me to install my own afterwards? I already told you I know that. Plus I told you in this instance it had to be out of the factory/box not a case of cracking it open and upgrading. Just read stuff before rushing to post.RBFL - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
What do you define as decent priced?xrror - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
The worst part I'm guessing is finding anything decently priced that isn't 1366x768. I hate that resolution so much. My keep looking to replace my old core2 craptop that wheezes along (sadly it uses the most gimped/market segmented version of the Intel 945GM chipset), But it uses an old school 1440x900 screen - and that vertical space I refuse to give up.Sorry folks, when I see 768 - that was only cool back when 1024x768 was an upgrade from VGA's 800x600. F going back.
Samus - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
Look at HP Elitebooks like the 820 and 840, they come standard with 1600x900 screens (which is a perfect resolution on the 12.5" 820.1920x1080 is fine and all on a 14"+ but really sucks on a 11-13" unless you have display scaling. Windows 7 and Linux it just sucks unless you have eagle vision.
BurntMyBacon - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
@Samus: "Look at HP Elitebooks like the 820 and 840, they come standard with 1600x900 screens (which is a perfect resolution on the 12.5" 820."I do rather like that resolution for this size on a notebook. Tablets are generally used at a closer distance, but I digress.
@Samus: "1920x1080 is fine and all on a 14"+ but really sucks on a 11-13" unless you have display scaling. Windows 7 and Linux it just sucks unless you have eagle vision."
Yet I'd still rather see 1920x1080 than 1366x768 as I find it less frustrating to lean a little closer when I need to than to not be able to get the content I want on screen. Until better scaling is commonplace, 1680x1050 or 1600x900 please.
Arbie - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The link below is a 2011 review on Anandtech, showing Velociraptor scores vs SSDs of the time. You can estimate pretty well from that how things would compare now.FYI, the Mushkin Reactor 1TB MLC SSD (reviewed here recently) is available for $220 on NeweggBusiness.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4337/z68-ssd-caching...
Samus - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
Excellent drive (the Mushkin Reactor) I have recommended it at least a dozen times and never heard a complaint. Stark contrast to the one person who didn't take my advice (I have two of them so I know how good they are) and bought the Sandisk Ultra II 960GB instead because it was $20 cheaper. It failed on them after 4 months. Which is alarmingly common if you read the reviews on Newegg.Ryan Smith - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
"Second, would it be at all reasonable to add a WD VelociRaptor, Hybrid SSHD, and/or common 5400RPM hard drive to the 2015 SSD Bench like the old days?"It's definitely something we can look into. Keep in mind that we'd only be able to use them for a portion of the tests though; even a 7200 RPM drive would be impossibly slow on tests like the Destroyer that involve a lot of random activity.
BurntMyBacon - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
@Ryan Smith: "It's definitely something we can look into. Keep in mind that we'd only be able to use them for a portion of the tests though; even a 7200 RPM drive would be impossibly slow on tests like the Destroyer that involve a lot of random activity."That is fine. The destroyer was made to tease out differences in performance and consistency between SSDs that are so high end that are hidden in lesser tests. One of your other (far less strenuous) tests is good enough as a reference point to show how HDDs stack with respect to random activity.
jsntech - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
From a strictly business point of view, Toshiba should probably re-brand OCZ to some other name. Not a single member of my moderate circle of pro or power user friends will ever touch anything with OCZ in the name again. And they all told their friends, and they all told their friends, etc.Flunk - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I'd personally be happier with "Toshiba".ummduh - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Ditto. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, not a chance.Murloc - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
yeah they could just kill the brand for anything SSD-related.NeonFlak - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The Mushkin Reactor not being included on any charts for SSD reviews must be a conspiracy, right? You guys did review it and it's in your best SSDs for 2016 list. Yet it doesn't appear to be included on the charts for any of the SSD reviews. Or am I just missing it?Billy Tallis - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
It was reviewed with the 2014 test suite and I don't have the drive available to re-test with the current (2015) suite. The results from the Mushkin Reactor review may not be directly comparable to the current reviews, but indicate that it performs a little worse than the Crucial BX100 that has the same controller and flash.ghanz - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Hi Billy, will there be a future review on the Sandisk Plus which presumably uses SM2246XT & MLC NAND?It's the lowest tier in Sandisk's SSD lineup & is priced even lower than the TLC based Ultra II.
hojnikb - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
+1 for that. Almost picked it up but went with a second hand 840pro instead.Samus - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
I actually had an 840 Pro that was 2 years old fail on me a few months ago. It was hell getting Samsung to warranty it. The process was awful. I've been using it lightly a few months, and I'd sell it if you want it. $90 bucks. It's a 256GB.vanilla_gorilla - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The people complaining about the drives performance need to consider that what's beating it cost significantly more. These are drives for low-mid range computers. And for 99% of your desktop use, if I swapped out your much more expensive (probably Samsung) SSD you'd probably never notice the difference in day to day use.Take a breath, have a little perspective, stop worrying about inconsequential (relative to the intended use) benchmarks and take a close look at the cost.
Arnulf - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Not really - this drive costs more and sometimes performs worse than its in-house competitor (Trion 100). The fact that it only reliably trumps BX200 is quite telling ...Tanclearas - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Take a look at the Mushkin Enhanced Reactor. Its results will be VERY close to the BX100. That drive outperforms (often by a large margin) the OCZ in nearly all benchmarks, and it costs the same. In fact, Newegg regularly has it on sale for $209.StrangerGuy - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
What you say is true, but OCZ *and* planar TLC and lower raw performance is a combination not worth saving $30 against a 850 EVO 500GB.Why Toshiba didn't incinerate the toxic OCZ branding like a dead monkey with ebola is the one of the dumbest corporate decisions in history.
AuDioFreaK39 - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The bottom of this article has an advertisement for the OCZ Trion 150 240GB at $45.99. This is actually the price for the 120GB model. The 240GB model is still $61.99 as shown in the price comparison chart.Ryan Smith - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
The URL is correct. So it must be a data error on Amazon's part.userseven - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I have the 480 trion150 and feel completely satisfied with it. I bought it as a replacement for the very last mechanical drive I had. I would probably not use as OS drive, in principle, but for anything other than that I can't find anything wrong with it. Why are you people dissing it? It could be cheaper? Shouldn't everything? It WAS one of the cheapest at that capacity range when I bought it.Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Still prefer the Sandisk Ultra II's.Lolimaster - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Anand "tech"2016
Still no edit option
Bravo amigos.
doggface - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
I think by now we can conclude it is deliberate.Murloc - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
there are middle grounds, like edit available only for 5 minutes (à la stackexchange comments) or until a reply to the comment has been posted.Michael Bay - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
They are trying to make you use your brain before posting.Arnulf - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
My brain hurts!Hulk - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
So I might be doing this calc wrong but I'm seeing the endurance as 250 drive writes? Probably fine for most people and definitely for a media storage drive. Prices are getting low enough for that.stephenbrooks - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
I'd prefer it if they just stated endurance in drive writes rather than as 9,876PB or something. I end up doing the mental arithmetic to divide it down to drive writes every time I see that in the table anyway.nikon133 - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
I got one 480GB Trion 100 for my old Elitebook upgrade.I knew what I'm buying and I am very pleased with it. Here in NZ, I paid 480GB Trion around NZ$30 more than what I would pay for 250GB Samsug 850 EVO (non-pro): they were NZ$150 and 180. I wanted more capacity but didn't want to overspend for machine I rarely use these days.
While it is slow for SSD, it still is revelation in everyday use, compared to HDD. Windows 10 boot time is quick anyway, and SSD takes away all that after-login sluggishness while system is still loading background processes/drivers/utils/...
Like I said, champ it is not, but huge improvement over HDD it is.
SeanJ76 - Tuesday, April 5, 2016 - link
Your pretty damn poor if you can't afford a Intel SSD. Intel will always make the best SSD on the market, they've been in the business the longest!xrror - Wednesday, April 6, 2016 - link
I'm sure glad that brand loyalty makes you a consumer retard. Never compare, never revisit your set opinions. Way to be a true patriot. =(nikon133 - Monday, April 11, 2016 - link
Well said.slowdemon21 - Friday, April 29, 2016 - link
I'm using in PS4 with great resultsprefereduser - Friday, June 3, 2016 - link
OCZ Trion 150 SSD 120GB benchmarks Athon II x4 845 4 GB ramWindows 10 clean install on a Sata III port .
Seq R/W is 130.30 MB/s and 107.29 MB/s respectively
4K = 15.37 MB/s read and 20.71 MB/s
4K -64 Thrd read = 25.55 MB/s write = 52.01 MB/s
Acc. time = 0.274ms read and 0.141ms write
I was looking for more than that (maybe twice or more on seq r/w at least ) but not as much as the i7 test box here even though this is low end part .
OTOH it feels *a lot faster the the not old 1TB 5700 rpm metal hdd ever did and def rag is disabled in windows 10 . .
What you think?
hp79 - Wednesday, September 21, 2016 - link
Is this different from OCZ TR150 (current model)? Looking at the specification of the 480GB on their website (https://ocz.com/us/ssd/tr150-ssd#specs), they are quite different from the TRION 150 480GB in this table. The 4K Write shows up to 83K IOPS instead of the 54K IOPS shown in the table. Others numbers are close though.I have a Trion 150 480GB which I paid $60 at Frys during an awesome sale (probably pricing error). Working very well for my laptop working as a HTPC/home file server.