OCZ Vertex 4 256GB SSD Review


Test Setup

CPU: Intel i5-3570K

Thermal Paste:  Noctua NT-H1

CPU Cooler:  Cooler Master TPC 812

Motherboard: Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H

RAM: 2x4GB Patriot Viper Xtreme II 1600MHz DDR3

OS HDD: Patriot Pyro 60GB SSD

Secondary HDD: OCZ Vertex 4 256GB SSD (firmware v1.5)

OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit



Initial tests of the Vertex 4 published around the web discovered subpar sequential read performance at low queue depths from the Everest 2 controller. Two firmware updates and four months later, this issue seems to have been eradicated. It's only logical that we take advantage of this latest firmware for our benchmark testing. With the latest firmware version 1.5, OCZ promises the following improvements:

  • Improved sequential file transfer performance for 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB models
  • Optimized idle garbage collection algorithms to extend the benefits of performance mode by enabling the feature across a greater percentage of the drive
  • Improved HBA/RAID card compatibility
  • Further improved compatibility with desktop and mobile ATA security features
  • Corrected a corner case issue where the "Remaining Life" SMART attribute could be reported incorrectly


As real-world comparisons between SSDs are very difficult if not impossible to implement without custom measuring techniques, benchmarking tools that test the major facets of performance such as sequential read/write speeds, random read/write speeds, and incompressible/compressible read/write speeds are valuable tools for reporting a quantifiable difference betwen drives. For our testing we used CrystalDiskMark, ATTO,  AS SSD, and the Storage Benchmark of PCMark7. Reporting the 4k file size provides a representative measure of performance during normal usage, since OS operations generally consist of many small file transfers. For an objective measure of real-life performance, PCMark 7 is a reliable solution for extracting an overall score as well as important real-life metrics, such as application loading and game data transfers. As there is an inherent amount of variability between benchmarks, we ran them with larger sizes to allow the speeds to average over a longer period of time.  We ran four runs of each benchmark and averaged the numbers to further offset variability.


You have no rights to post comments