Performance Consistency

Performance consistency tells us a lot about the architecture of these SSDs and how they handle internal defragmentation. The reason we do not have consistent IO latency with SSDs is because inevitably all controllers have to do some amount of defragmentation or garbage collection in order to continue operating at high speeds. When and how an SSD decides to run its defrag or cleanup routines directly impacts the user experience as inconsistent performance results in application slowdowns.

To test IO consistency, we fill a secure erased SSD with sequential data to ensure that all user accessible LBAs have data associated with them. Next we kick off a 4KB random write workload across all LBAs at a queue depth of 32 using incompressible data. The test is run for just over half an hour and we record instantaneous IOPS every second.

We are also testing drives with added over-provisioning by limiting the LBA range. This gives us a look into the drive’s behavior with varying levels of empty space, which is frankly a more realistic approach for client workloads.

Each of the three graphs has its own purpose. The first one is of the whole duration of the test in log scale. The second and third one zoom into the beginning of steady-state operation (t=1400s) but on different scales: the second one uses log scale for easy comparison whereas the third one uses linear scale for better visualization of differences between drives. Click the dropdown selections below each graph to switch the source data.

For more detailed description of the test and why performance consistency matters, read our original Intel SSD DC S3700 article.

AMD Radeon R7 240GB
25% Over-Provisioning

The IO consistency is very similar to the ARC 100 but the R7 is maybe slightly faster. Compared to the Vector 150 and Vertex 460 there is a small decrease in consistency as performance occassionally drops below 10K IOPS, but on average IOPS of 15-20K is excellent for a client drive. The same goes for IO consistency with 25% over-provisioning – the R7 is not as good as the Vector 150 and Vertex 460 but it is still one of the best performing client SSDs.

AMD Radeon R7 240GB
25% Over-Provisioning


AMD Radeon R7 240GB
25% Over-Provisioning


Introduction, The Drive & The Test AnandTech Storage Bench 2013
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • blackmagnum - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    AMD and her antics of renaming/ re-branding a product once again. Everything's as usual, enthusiasts please move along (to someone else's).
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    I've got zero problem with this. If they're only dealing with quality products, I think it can be a boost to both companies images, and kind of an easy way for someone who wants quality components but doesn't want to think much about it to grab it and know they're getting something okay.

    I'd be MUCH more inclined to get OCZ now that it's owned by Toshiba, though Crucial and Intel remain my go-to brands (and I'd probably look at the hard drive companies seriously too).
  • kaesden - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    if they wanted to deal with quality products, OCZ would be near the very bottom of their list. They are apparently just going for dirt cheap, to hell with reliability. OCZ products fail like clockwork.
  • PEJUman - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    Products fail like clockwork? How many ocz products have failed on you? I personally owns/owned 14 of their old time ddr2 sticks and 7 of their ssds, youngest one is 3 years old. Haven't failed one yet.
  • willis936 - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    Their ssd track record early on (mind you early on means less than five years ago) was actually horrifying.
  • patssle - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    What? Their early SSD drives (Vertex/Agility) changed everything - they were the first SSDs that worked well and were reliable. I know because I bought an SSD as soon as there was one on the market that didn't have the write delay issue. Their quality went down over time but early on OCZ was THE SSD company.
  • Guspaz - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    It was the Vertex and Agility drives that *gave* them their terrible reputation. They were only "the" SSD company early on because they were cheap and nobody had realized WHY they were so cheap yet (because they sacrificed reliability for performance).
  • Samus - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    Agility drives were terrible. OCZ knew it and quickly replaced the Agility line with Agility 2 (literally in a matter of months) and even fulfilled RMA's for Agility with Agility 2's (my personal experience) but I still have an Agility 2 240GB running for 3 years without issue. But this isn't the norm, most of these drives eventually just stop detecting in the BIOS. Some of their SSD failures I've attributed to "freakout" when they are too full - a typical Sandforce problem when there is not enough space to do garbage collection.

    But its pretty obvious, even for Sandforce-based drives, OCZ SSD's were the most unreliable out there, probably due to low-quality NAND, poor or over-aggressive firmware tuning, or just bad design.

    I'm glad Toshiba bailed them out because I am a huge Barefoot fan. The controller is just incredibly consistent.
  • ummduh - Friday, August 29, 2014 - link

    Yup. My first Agility lasted about 3 months. The second another 6 months. The third I've had for a long time now (in ocz SSD terms) but that's only because it sits all by itself as a "install whatever OS you want to play around with this time for a week or so until you get bored and leave it for another 6 months" drive.
  • bronan - Monday, November 9, 2015 - link

    Well i know they made at one time a serie of bad drives, but i NEVER had any issues ever.
    OCZ ssd's still am pretty good drives, but the ever lasting whining from people about that flawed series keeps coming up. All my ocz vertex drives still going strong and my vertex 2 runs like it is brand new. So stop the whining and focus on the products they make now. I do not see you people whine about intels massive mistakes do you, or the fails of others brands.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now