Review Index:
Feedback

OCZ Trion 100 240GB 480GB 960GB SATA SSD Review - Toshiba TLC

Subject: Storage
Manufacturer: OCZ

Conclusion, Pricing, and Final Thoughts

Conclusion:

PROS:

  • Good sequential and random read performance
  • Impressive endurance rating given use of planar TLC flash
  • ShieldPlus Warranty offers free advance RMA

CONS:

  • SLC write cache capacity is deficient compared to competing SSDs
  • Sustained write speeds are severely crippled compared with competing SSDs
    (and some HDDs)
  • Mixed mode (read + write) IOPS performance is limited and inconsistent
  • Warranty period shorter than competing products

View Full Size

Pricing:

Intro MSRP's

  • 120GB: $57   ($0.48/GB)
  • 240GB: $88   ($0.37/GB)
  • 480GB: $185 ($0.39/GB)
  • 960GB: $370 ($0.39/GB)

Street prices (on launch day):

OCZ Trion 100:

  • 120GB: $60   ($0.50/GB) (Amazon)
  • 240GB: $90   ($0.38/GB) (Amazon)
  • 480GB: $180 ($0.38/GB) (Amazon)
  • 960GB: $360 ($0.38/GB) (Amazon)

Samsung 850 EVO:

  • 120GB: $68   ($0.56/GB) (Amazon)
  • 250GB: $98   ($0.39/GB) (Amazon)
  • 500GB: $162 ($0.32/GB) (Amazon)
  • 1TB     : $378 ($0.37/GB) (Amazon)

At the higher capacities, the outright prices of the 850 EVo seem higher, but you have to factor in the 4% increase in capacity of those units. This brings the cost/GB lower at the 1TB capacity, and *much* lower at the current price of the 500GB capacity. The Trion 100's run only $8 cheaper at the two lower capacities, which is not enough to justify the performance differences seen throughout this review.

Warranty:

  • 3 year (ShieldPlus)

Endurance:

OCZ Trion 100:

  • 120GB: 30TB / 27GB/day
  • 240GB: 60TB / 55GB/day
  • 480GB: 120TB / 110GB/day
  • 960GB: 240TB / 219GB/day

Samsung 850 EVO:

  • 120GB: 75TB / 40GB/day
  • 250GB: 75TB / 40GB/day
  • 500GB: 150TB / 80GB/day
  • 1TB     : 150TB / 80GB/day

The OCZ Trion is able to compete with Samsung partly on the use of QSB and partially on some different application of math. QSB brings the base endurance figures higher than what would typically be seen on planar TLC flash. This brings it within striking distance of Samsung's VNAND. Also, Samsung is a bit lax in their endurance ratings (they should scale up proportionally starting with the 120GB model, yet Samsung does not double that figure until the 500GB model. The 250GB model has 2x the dies and should actually have 2x the endurance, just as the Trion claims). This lets OCZ pull past them in total writes by the 1TB mark. The reason for the write-per-day rating passing Samsung in more capacities is actually just a side effect of the *shorter* warranty period (3 year vs. 5 year), so while those numbers are higher - they are for the wrong reason.

Final Thoughts:

We had high hopes for the OCZ Trion 100. Properly executed, a TLC SSD with an SLC cache could let them take a stab at the Samsung EVO series and could help OCZ become a more serious contender in the market, especially with Toshiba providing their own controller infused with endurance boosting QSB error correction. Unfortunately, the resulting product significantly underperforms whenever TLC writes are involved. SLC cache is there to aleviate the slower write speeds of TLC, but our testing revealed this cache to be ineffective for just four seconds of sequential writing. The cache is depleted almost instantly during random mixed workloads, severely hobbling the overall performance of the Trion. We might be able to justify these deficiencies if the Trion 100 was significantly less expensive than the competition, but at this level of perofrmance, I could only see myself recommending these at a significantly discounted rate, and only then to individuals I know would be using these for mostly reads. These would make a great Steam game drive once you get past the wait for the games to copy onto it.

This is the second SSD in a row from OCZ for us to not recommend to our readers, but we remain hopeful that they (and Toshiba) can turn this around.

Video News


July 9, 2015 | 09:48 PM - Posted by Kingkookaluke (not verified)

OCZ....Meh!

July 22, 2015 | 03:25 PM - Posted by Master Chen (not verified)

Not even Toshiba could save them from the very bad habit of making crappy SSDs, lol.

July 9, 2015 | 09:49 PM - Posted by Kingkookaluke (not verified)

Maybe they will come out with a NVME version!!!!?

July 10, 2015 | 01:27 AM - Posted by Hakuren

OCZ in the name is deal breaker for me. Lot of hype and nothing at the business end. 2nd deal breaker is TLC flash. Not a fan of it by long shot. I would be more optimistic if they come with pure TLC drive and like 4-5TB capacity for 400-500$.

If they want to take a stab at something, stab the region where no competition reached before. And that's beefy SSDs for the masses intended as storage. You don't need 500MB/s+ transfers here. Also random access/write/read is not major factor. I said as long as SSDs are around. Storage of rarely accessed data that's the only good place for SSDs.

July 10, 2015 | 10:16 PM - Posted by Simms (not verified)

$.10 per GB I like that idea

BackBlaze StoragePod made of only SSD
Only like $20k

July 11, 2015 | 12:10 AM - Posted by btdog

Thanks for the solid write up, Allyn.

As I see it, OCZ continues to struggle. I thought with Toshiba acquiring them, allowing the access to Toshiba's inventory "at cost," they would provide some solid SSDs at affordable prices. Think Crucial. Instead we have prices higher than Samsung with subpar performance.

I'd love to support OCZ but they make it so darn hard! Unless they have some huge OEM contracts, I don't see how they can stay relevant.

July 11, 2015 | 01:10 AM - Posted by HERETIC (not verified)

Perhaps Toshiba should ask their manufacturing partner Sandisk
for a little help here,as it's possible the flash they are using
is exactly the same....................

Haven't seen write speeds that low since the 120GB-840......
Uphill battle-even if OCZ reduces prices by 30% they still have
the-"Friends don't let friends OCZ" to contend with............

July 11, 2015 | 08:12 AM - Posted by Sean Sinha (not verified)

It makes you wonder why OCZ released this product when they could clearly see in their testing/validation that it couldn't compete with the 850 Evo? Releasing a product after the competition that costs more that offers worse performance? *sigh*

July 13, 2015 | 02:42 PM - Posted by Nathaniel (not verified)

My spoon is too big...

July 22, 2015 | 03:23 PM - Posted by Master Chen (not verified)

*Sings in David Bowie's voice*
G-g-g-g-GAR-BAGE, G-g-GARBAGE. G-g-g-g-GAR-BAGE, Ga-ga-GARBAGE!

November 7, 2015 | 12:45 PM - Posted by rajii (not verified)

One major plus for me is that OCZ offers a linux version of their "SSD Guru" utility. I'm wondering if some of the short comings in this review might be mitigated by an update.

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

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.