• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

OCZ Trion 150 480 GB

W1zzard

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,651 (3.74/day)
System Specs
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
OCZ's Trion 150 is one of the most affordable SSDs on the market today, with only 27 cents per gigabyte. Performance has also been improved significantly over the Trion 100, which makes the Trion 150 an excellent candidate for a low-cost system upgrade to boost performance.

Show full review
 
Last edited:
Nice review, definitely a consideration for a value SSD. I don't think most would notice the difference between this drive an something more expensive, and I think that is just coming down to the fact that we are basically maxing out SATA 6Gb/s and AHCI.

Also, the write stalling on the Trion100 was supposed to be fixed, or greatly improved, with the 11.2 firmware. Release Notes. Any chance of testing out the difference the updated firmware makes?
 
newtekie1 said:
Nice review, definitely a consideration for a value SSD. I don't think most would notice the difference between this drive an something more expensive, and I think that is just coming down to the fact that we are basically maxing out SATA 6Gb/s and AHCI.

Also, the write stalling on the Trion100 was supposed to be fixed, or greatly improved, with the 11.2 firmware. Release Notes. Any chance of testing out the difference the updated firmware makes?
Click to expand...

Always :), still sad there is no Samsung 850 EVO there and this week only $11 more than this drive. I like the 5 year warranty with the samsungs and for a extra $11-$20 still the way t o go.
 
Hey why hasn't the sandisk ultra been ever tested? or is there any future plans to test it at all?
 
TLC@15nm

How about no.
 
You guys should really start using true capacity for price/gb calculations. these 480gb labeled drives are fairly constant at around 447gb, but those labeled 500/512 can have less predictable true capacities, but someone would just assume it's roughly the same as the 480gb drives if they didn't do prior research.
 
Getting close to the 100 $ price I am willing to spend on a 480 GB drive for my games. I hope this happens later this year.
 
Not everyone cares about endurance. I have had my MX100 for 15 months, and in 9600 hours I managed to write 5.6 TB and have 98% of life left, and it is a system drive (browser cache, temp files).

It would take me forever to write over 100 TB, which is what these 480 GB TLC drives can easily do.
 
Harry Lloyd said:
Not everyone cares about endurance. I have had my MX100 for 15 months, and in 9600 hours I managed to write 5.6 TB and have 98% of life left, and it is a system drive (browser cache, temp files).

It would take me forever to write over 100 TB, which is what these 480 GB TLC drives can easily do.
Click to expand...

Its not just endurance. Although its much worse than MLC, this is not the primary concern.

Problem is data retention and subsequent read speed drop. Did anyone totally forget about 840evo fiasco ??
 
These tests serve no purpose whatsoever for regular home usage. They are just the reason all those "myths" exist.

You obviously do not buy a low-end drive when you need top performance end endurance. But for browsing the internet, multimedia and gaming, a TLC drive offers everything you need.
 
hojnikb said:
Its not just endurance. Although its much worse than MLC, this is not the primary concern.

Problem is data retention and subsequent read speed drop. Did anyone totally forget about 840evo fiasco ??
Click to expand...

That problem has been fixed with firmware. There are now cell refresh algorithms that prevent degradation and stop the read performance drop. The only time it becomes an issue is if the drive is left unpowered for extended periods of time. And that shouldn't be an issue because no SSD is recommended for cold storage, because even MLC drives suffer from cell degradation over time.

Firedrops said:
You guys should really start using true capacity for price/gb calculations. these 480gb labeled drives are fairly constant at around 447gb, but those labeled 500/512 can have less predictable true capacities, but someone would just assume it's roughly the same as the 480gb drives if they didn't do prior research.
Click to expand...

The amount lost is very predicable for all drives. It is all because of the 1GB = 1,000,000,000 Bytes system that storage manufacturers use. While software uses 1TB = 1,073,741,824 Bytes.

So 1GB on an SSD(or HDD) really shows up as 0.93GB to software.
480 x .93 = 446.4GB
500 x .93 = 465GB
512 x .93 = 476.2GB

This is the same across all drives. So using true capacity vs. advertised capacity wouldn't make any difference.
 
Last edited:
newtekie1 said:
The amount lost is very predicable for all drives. It is all because of the 1GB = 1,000,000,000 Bytes system that storage manufacturers use. While software uses 1TB = 1,073,741,824 Bytes.

So 1GB on an SSD(or HDD) really shows up as 0.93GB to software.
480 x .93 = 446.4GB
500 x .93 = 465GB
512 x .93 = 476.2GB

This is the same across all drives. So using true capacity vs. advertised capacity wouldn't make any difference.
Click to expand...

This is all Windows's fault. Windows shows the quantity in base-2 while showing the base-10 unit (GB, MB). Linux shows this correctly, meaning base-2 quantity has also base base-2 units (GiB, MiB).

I am surprised how anyone takes Windows OS'es seriously when they make such elementary mistakes.
capacity.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top