Review Index:

OCZ Octane 512GB SSD Full Review - Indilinx Has Returned With Everest

Subject: Storage
Manufacturer: OCZ

Conclusion, Pricing, and Final Thoughts



  • Extremely low latency, beating Intel in most areas
  • Outstanding IOPS performance, unseating SandForce (and Intel) in most areas
  • Available 1TB capacity ($$$)


  • Some cache tuning needed for better handling of mixed read+write workloads
  • Some compatibility issues noted with non-native chipsets *(see below)*

View Full Size


Pricing and Availability:


  • 128G @ $200 ($1.56 / GB)
  • 256G @ $370 ($1.44 / GB)
  • 512G @ $880 ($1.72 / GB)
  • 1TB @ TBD

It's a bit early in the game to gauge street pricing. While some vendors have listings, most if not all are not yet stocked. That said, provided the MSRP remains the upper bounds of pricing, these should have a hard time staying on the shelves this holiday season.

* Compatibility *:

In the lab, we noted some odd issues with the Octane that we feel necessary to mention. The drive worked flawlessly when connected to our testbed's native Intel ICH SATA 6Gb/sec as well as Marvell 6Gb/sec controllers. We did however see some issues when attempting connection via an eSATA dock linked to an Asus P6T's JMicron controller. We also tried a USB 2.0 to SATA dongle from Apricorn. The Octane refused to properly link to the system with either configuration, causing Disk Management to timeout or to incorrectly show the NTFS formatted drive as a RAW partition or as an unformatted device.

OCZ passed us a last minute beta firmware (build 1349, flashed via OCZ Toolbox) that they suspected might fix it, but retests showed the incompatibility remained. More to follow on that front. For now, our readers should be advised that while the Octane functioned flawlessly when directly connected to motherboard controllers, users planning to clone their existing OS partition over to a new Octane may have issues doing so when using a USB or eSATA based dongle or dock. Cloning *should* work provided the Octane is directly connected to a desktop motherboard, but this potentially forces single-bay laptop users into a clean install or to perform the cloning with their desktop.

Final Thoughts:

The Indilinx Everest had a very good showing in OCZ's Octane SSD. Sequential read and write performance was right at the top of the charts, and the new unit turned in some of the lowest latency and highest IOPS figures we'd seen from a SATA SSD to date, sticking it to Intel and SandForce in nearly all areas. Combine that high performance with some very low cost/GB figures and choosing the Octane almost becomes a no-brainer.

View Full Size

Save a bit of mixed workload sluggishness and a few compatibility quirks, presumably correctable with firmware updates, this is an extremely fast drive. The idea behind the original Indilinx Barefoot controller was to deliver good performance at low cost. Back then it was easy, but despite the large increase in competition, they just might have pulled it off a second time.


November 23, 2011 | 12:43 PM - Posted by Matt (not verified)

Great review and an interesting product. I am finally tempted to put an SSD in my Laptop. To bad about the compatibility issue. There is no way I would do a fresh install.

also, on the pc per File copy test page, you haev a small typo :

''Even with a laege cache''

November 23, 2011 | 02:05 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Thanks, fixed!

November 23, 2011 | 04:00 PM - Posted by PNG (not verified)

When making screenshot :

Please do not using JPEG , use PNG
It looks a lot better with PNG.

Took me about 1/2 sec to spot the JPEG artifacts ...

November 23, 2011 | 08:50 PM - Posted by Nilbog

delete this lame^^

November 24, 2011 | 12:15 AM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

blocked and cleaning now

November 24, 2011 | 02:35 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It is still made by OCZ and that alone is reason enough to go no where near this product.

November 24, 2011 | 02:34 PM - Posted by ToiT (not verified)

Times are changing... keep your eye on them.

November 24, 2011 | 08:01 PM - Posted by pdjblum

My vertex recently failed and it took over a month to get a replacement from them. In the mean time, I had to buy another ssd for my system. I got the intel 320 because I was more interested in reliability than having the fastest drive out there. Really two issues come up here: one is that the vertex failed; and two is that it took over a month to get a replacement. I too will stay clear of OCZ for the foreseeable future. I just hope my vertex 3 max io edition that I bought previous to my vertex debacle hangs in there.

December 1, 2011 | 12:23 AM - Posted by josephjpeters (not verified)

Your perception is based on a first gen product. Look at the reviews of the Vertex 3 (or all SF-based drives) and you'll see that they've become a lot more reliable. I've had a Vertex 3 since launch and never had a single issue.

Now at OCZ is developing their own products (own controller), they'll be able to respond much quicker to compatibility issues. Keep in mind they're a relatively small company. As they grow their support and subsequent reliability will improve.

November 24, 2011 | 11:52 AM - Posted by pdjblum


Can you say anything as to the effectiveness of trim on the drive?

November 24, 2011 | 02:37 PM - Posted by ToiT (not verified)

It's too bad that OCZ handed out all 512GB drives, considering the price, that's probably more than what the majority of buyers are going to consider as viable option. I'd love to see a review of something smaller since the specs are worse, I'm not sure it would keep up to any SF-2281's or other competitors.

December 1, 2011 | 12:29 AM - Posted by bluehorseshoe (not verified)

Rumor has it OCZ is being qualified at a major OEM who wants to put SSD's in every laptop across their product line, either all SSD or as part of a hybrid system. This is part a response to the recent HDD shortage. I'd assume that's where the 128GB and 256GB drives are being shipped at the moment.

January 3, 2012 | 10:44 PM - Posted by wujj123456

I just read a relevant review on tom's hardware. Honestly, based on my knowledge of SSDs, I think their test approach is more complete, especially if your are evaluating a new controller.

The worst case scenario and steady performance they pointed out is orthogonal to what you've tested here (sequential/random I/O). I don't see many other websites doing the same thing, and it would be great if you can try similar methodology if possible. Thanks.

March 28, 2012 | 02:29 AM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

First - I am the original source for review sites conducting this type of testing: (dated Feb of *2009*).

The part of the Tom's article you speak of: a dated method that is no longer relevant when using an SSD with an OS that continually issues TRIM commands to the drive. Benchmarks can not accurately test for this as they are unable to issue TRIM commands directly to the drive while doing all of those random writes. The closest you can get is to run something that fragments the drive, but then to partition and format the drive under Windows 7, *then* run the HDTach pass and see what happened. I do this to all drives as part of my testing, and the Octane behaved as all other modern SSDs do - performance had returned to normal. This was actually noted below the basing portion on that page of the Tom's piece.

That said, I'll revive my "Performance Over Time And TRIM" page for future pieces.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.