OCZ Vertex 460 240 GB SSD (VTX460-25SAT3-240G) Review

Barefoot. Ahead of the competition with Barefoot 3 M10? This mass storage device brings strong benchmark results and an attractive capacity for a cheap price.

Sebastian Jentsch, ✓ Stefanie Voigt (translated by Martina Osztovits), Published 05/06/2014 🇩🇪 🇷🇺

Storage

OCZ Vertex 460 240 GB (VTX460-25SAT3-240G)

For the original German review, see here.

Performance and capacity for little money? As the prices for SSDs have fallen rapidly, the robust and mostly frugal flash memories have become alternatives for nearly everyone nowadays. Although many budget and midrange laptops still come with rotating hard drives, many customers upgrade to 2.5-inch SSDs after a while.

OCZ, who now belongs to the Toshiba group, offers the Vector 150 (e.g. 240 GB, about 136 Euros; ~$189) and the Vertex 460 with the same capacity (about 133 Euros; ~$185) for very similar prices. The only apparent difference is the clock of the controller: The Vector 150 features an Indilinx Barefoot 3 (IDX500M00-BC) with 397 MHz, and the Vertex 460, a Barefoot 3 M10 with 352 MHz. The power consumption of the Vector 150 is marginally lower: 2.5 instead of 2.7 W (in operation), 0.55 instead of 0.6 W (idle). Anandtech checked the manufacturer's specification and confirmed that it is very accurate for the Vertex. However, the Vector 150 is on par according to their measurements (idle/write).

We already reviewed the 120 GB model of the Vector 150; therefore, we can make comparisons.

Currently, OCZ is represented with three Vertex 460 models (120, 240, 480 GB) in the upper class market. All of them are based on the Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 controller. OCZ ships the 2.5-inch SATA drive (99.7 x 69.75 x 7 mm; ~3.9 x 2.7 x 0.3 inches) with the Acronis True Image HD cloning software. This also makes moving the system from a bigger HDD (500 GB in our case) to a smaller SSD possible. The size of the main partition is reduced appropriately. Laymen had better not use this tool, since moving the visible and the hidden partitions is rather difficult despite a user guide. Thanks to the included 2.5-inch to 3.5-inch mounting bracket, the Vertex 460 can also be incorporated in a desktop computer.

Not yet available: The OCZ Deneva 2 C M3T with SandForce SF-2281 controller. The price of the 240 GB model (200 to 240 Euros; ~$278 to $333) is significantly higher. The Deneva is an Enterprise solution.

2.5-inch, SATA 6 GB/s
Power consumption: 2.7 W (in operation)/0.6 W (idle)
MTBF: 2 million hours
Read: 540 MB/s; Write: 525 MB/s
NAND type: MLC (19 nm, Toshiba)
Controller: Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10
Manufacturer's warranty: three years
Supplies: software included, 2.5" to 3.5" mounting bracket

Sequential Performance

The 240 GB model of the Vertex 460 performs very well in the sequential tests and is on par with the top models from Samsung (SM841, PM841, 840 Pro, 840 EVO), Crucial (M500 120 GB), or Intel (520 series). However, the data transfer rates of the MLC chips are so close to each other that sequential reading can hardly determine the quality.

However, the results in sequential writing are noticeably different. Our test model belongs to the leading devices. Samsung's PM841 and Crucial's M500 perform significantly worse. The differences are even bigger in CrystalDiskMark 3.0, but the ranking is basically the same. Not so the Read 512: The Vertex 460 is no longer leading; it is 20% slower than Samsung's 840 Pro and EVO.

Anvil's Storage benchmark confirms the sequential data transfer rate, but focuses on small, fragmented files. It achieves high 50 MB/s in 4K writing, but only 20 MB/s in reading.

AS SSD
Seq Read (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	509 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	519 MB/s +2%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	518 MB/s +2%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	516 MB/s +1%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	514 MB/s +1%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	513 MB/s +1%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	508 MB/s 0%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	503 MB/s -1%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	498.3 MB/s -2%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	494.5 MB/s -3%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	496.1 MB/s -3%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	493.4 MB/s -3%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	502 MB/s -1%
Seq Write (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	491.4 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	473.8 MB/s -4%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	319 MB/s -35%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	500 MB/s +2%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	455.9 MB/s -7%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	498 MB/s +1%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	493.3 MB/s 0%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	459 MB/s -7%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	134.8 MB/s -73%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	416.4 MB/s -15%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	288.4 MB/s -41%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	415.5 MB/s -15%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	478.3 MB/s -3%

CrystalDiskMark 3.0
Read Seq (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	504 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	536 MB/s +6%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	534 MB/s +6%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	513 MB/s +2%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	430.2 MB/s -15%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	531 MB/s +5%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	523 MB/s +4%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	486 MB/s -4%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	472.5 MB/s -6%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	501 MB/s -1%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	497.7 MB/s -1%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	503 MB/s 0%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	485.8 MB/s -4%
Write Seq (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	507 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	505 MB/s 0%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	331.2 MB/s -35%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	514 MB/s +1%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	466.7 MB/s -8%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	513 MB/s +1%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	513 MB/s +1%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	470 MB/s -7%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	138.6 MB/s -73%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	436.3 MB/s -14%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	307.8 MB/s -39%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	421.7 MB/s -17%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	485.9 MB/s -4%
Read 512 (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	416.9 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	456.3 MB/s +9%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	436 MB/s +5%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	438 MB/s +5%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	352.2 MB/s -16%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	471 MB/s +13%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	482.1 MB/s +16%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	308 MB/s -26%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	415.1 MB/s 0%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	406.9 MB/s -2%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	441.2 MB/s +6%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	380.8 MB/s -9%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	394.1 MB/s -5%
Write 512 (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	501 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	484.6 MB/s -3%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	322.3 MB/s -36%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	506 MB/s +1%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	434.8 MB/s -13%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	501 MB/s 0%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	317.9 MB/s -37%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	470 MB/s -6%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	139.2 MB/s -72%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	437.8 MB/s -13%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	299.5 MB/s -40%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	411.8 MB/s -18%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	463.8 MB/s -7%

4K Benchmarks

The 4K benchmarks are not a strength of the OCZ Vertex 460. The PM841 or the 840 EVO perform about 60 to 140% better and are more likely leading devices. Although there is also a difference in CrystalDiskMark, it is not that big. Overall, (average of all values), the Samsung, the Corsair, and the Vector 256/Vertex 4 256 perform 20 to 60% better than our Vertex 460 in the AS SSD and the CrystalDiskMark tests. Samsung's SM841 performs best with +61%.

AS SSD
4K Read (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	22.68 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	34.11 MB/s +50%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	29.42 MB/s +30%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	24.38 MB/s +7%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	22.8 MB/s +1%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	32.3 MB/s +42%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	37.84 MB/s +67%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	26.3 MB/s +16%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	22.64 MB/s 0%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	21.79 MB/s -4%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	24.41 MB/s +8%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	29.32 MB/s +29%
OCZ VTX460-25SAT3-240G	18.48 MB/s -19%
4K Write (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	76.7 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	86.5 MB/s +13%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	106.1 MB/s +38%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	79.3 MB/s +3%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	45.18 MB/s -41%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	73.5 MB/s -4%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	98.6 MB/s +29%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	76.7 MB/s 0%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	92.2 MB/s +20%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	71.7 MB/s -7%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	72 MB/s -6%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	64.9 MB/s -15%
OCZ VTX460-25SAT3-240G	44.68 MB/s -42%
4K-64 Read (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	321.6 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	376.6 MB/s +17%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	347.7 MB/s +8%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	362 MB/s +13%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	331.7 MB/s +3%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	381 MB/s +18%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	335.9 MB/s +4%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	332 MB/s +3%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	251.7 MB/s -22%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	299 MB/s -7%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	236.2 MB/s -27%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	331.3 MB/s +3%
OCZ VTX460-25SAT3-240G	323.7 MB/s +1%
4K-64 Write (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	290.5 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	316.9 MB/s +9%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	199.8 MB/s -31%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	302 MB/s +4%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	316.1 MB/s +9%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	329 MB/s +13%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	200.6 MB/s -31%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	306 MB/s +5%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	118.3 MB/s -59%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	292.1 MB/s +1%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	231.8 MB/s -20%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	248.8 MB/s -14%
OCZ VTX460-25SAT3-240G	287.5 MB/s -1%

CrystalDiskMark 3.0
Read 4k (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	25.2 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	37.7 MB/s +50%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	31.93 MB/s +27%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	27.8 MB/s +10%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	24.64 MB/s -2%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	35.7 MB/s +42%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	38.9 MB/s +54%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	29.6 MB/s +17%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	25.53 MB/s +1%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	24.22 MB/s -4%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	29.74 MB/s +18%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	31.71 MB/s +26%
OCZ VTX460-25SAT3-240G	21.53 MB/s -15%
Write 4k (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	90.5 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	89.4 MB/s -1%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	119.7 MB/s +32%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	103 MB/s +14%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	57 MB/s -37%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	88.9 MB/s -2%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	109.9 MB/s +21%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	85 MB/s -6%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	106.8 MB/s +18%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	78.6 MB/s -13%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	91.2 MB/s +1%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	74 MB/s -18%
OCZ VTX460-25SAT3-240G	49.93 MB/s -45%
Read 4k QD32 (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	338.9 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	401.8 MB/s +19%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	397.7 MB/s +17%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	383 MB/s +13%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	344.3 MB/s +2%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	402 MB/s +19%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	299.8 MB/s -12%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	349 MB/s +3%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	271.5 MB/s -20%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	310.3 MB/s -8%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	239.9 MB/s -29%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	362.2 MB/s +7%
OCZ VTX460-25SAT3-240G	281.3 MB/s -17%
Write 4k QD32 (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	343.2 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	367.5 MB/s +7%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	263.7 MB/s -23%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	372 MB/s +8%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	350.6 MB/s +2%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	370 MB/s +8%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	278 MB/s -19%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	342 MB/s 0%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	139.9 MB/s -59%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	280.2 MB/s -18%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	266.3 MB/s -22%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	276.9 MB/s -19%
OCZ VTX460-25SAT3-240G	201.1 MB/s -41%

Access Times

The write access times of the Vertex 460 are significantly worse than the competition's. The same was already true for the Vertex 4 256. The access times of the competition are about 30 to 60% shorter. It is striking how much worse Intel's 520 series (- 159%) perform in writing.

Anvil reports an average response time of 24.7 ms (512 K) in the IO Threaded QD (Random Write) test. It is 7.9 ms with IOMeter. Anvil says the access time is 0.227 ms in writing 4K blocks, while it is 0.114 ms according to AS SSD.

4K - Anvil IO Threaded QD (Random Write)

512 K - Anvil IO Threaded QD (Random Read)

512 K - Anvil IO Threaded QD (Random Write)

AS SSD
Access Time Read (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	0.039 ms *
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	0.067 ms * -72%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	0.057 ms * -46%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	0.049 ms * -26%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	0.106 ms * -172%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	0.056 ms * -44%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	0.077 ms * -97%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	0.13 ms * -233%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	0.084 ms * -115%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	0.052 ms * -33%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	0.126 ms * -223%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	0.071 ms * -82%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	0.114 ms * -192%
Access Time Write (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	0.041 ms *
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	0.038 ms * +7%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	0.031 ms * +24%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	0.04 ms * +2%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	0.077 ms * -88%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	0.046 ms * -12%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	0.034 ms * +17%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	0.03 ms * +27%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	0.073 ms * -78%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	0.051 ms * -24%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	0.212 ms * -417%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	0.055 ms * -34%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	0.082 ms * -100%

* ... smaller is better

Realistic Tests

PCMark 7 impressively demonstrates the high level of all SSDs in our tests. Hardly any difference can be seen in the Storage test. Samsung's SM841 and 840 Pro perform best by a small margin. The overall scores differ greatly, but CPU and GPU of each system have an impact on it.

The PCMark 8.2 Storage score reports 4948 points. Other SSD systems can also achieve this. Although it took above one hour, it did not come up with a difference. Apparently, the SSD models are on such a high level, only bad controllers or HDDs would stand out of the crowd.

The Compression subtest of AS SSD tests the data transfer of data with a varying degree of compressibility. The Barefoot controller shows its strengths compared to the Samsung-MEX/MCX and SandForce competitors. Its write and read rates always remain high.

Unlike SSDs with SandForce SF-2000 controllers (e.g., the Intel SSD 520), the performance of the Vertex 460 does not depend on the compressibility of data. The two lines for read and write are even closer than the Samsung 840 (MEX)'s.

AS SSD Compression benchmark VTX460-25SAT3-240G

Samsung SSD 840 controller: Samsung MEX (400 MHz)

Samsung SSD 830 controller: Samsung MCX (220 MHz)

PCMark 7
Score (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	4843 Points
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	5454 Points +13%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	6045 Points +25%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	5028 Points +4%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	5130 Points +6%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	4945 Points +2%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	4467 Points -8%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	4835 Points 0%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	6388 Points +32%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	4941 Points +2%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	5838 Points +21%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	4038 Points -17%
System Storage (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	5271 Points
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	5596 Points +6%
Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD512HAGL	5372 Points +2%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	5371 Points +2%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	5208 Points -1%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	5519 Points +5%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	5453 Points +3%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	5085 Points -4%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	5072 Points -4%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	5216 Points -1%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	5430 Points +3%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	5291 Points 0%

PCMark 8 - Storage Score (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	4950 Points
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	4989 Points +1%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	4987 Points +1%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	4828 Points -2%
Liteonit LMT-256M6S	4960 Points 0%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	4947 Points 0%

The AS SSD Copy benchmark tests copying of realistic data. The results of different runs differ slightly (uncontrolled use of the SSD by the OS, system programs). Therefore, the following image is rather a snapshot than a real result. In any case, the Vertex 460 could not take the lead. This corresponds to the 4K Read/Write benchmarks from above.

AS SSD
Copy ISO MB/s (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	402.1 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	417.6 MB/s +4%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	448 MB/s +11%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	334 MB/s -17%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	429 MB/s +7%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	271.5 MB/s -32%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	347 MB/s -14%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	305.7 MB/s -24%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	269 MB/s -33%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	368 MB/s -8%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	233.3 MB/s -42%
Copy Program MB/s (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	238.4 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	37.18 MB/s -84%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	247 MB/s +4%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	193.8 MB/s -19%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	222 MB/s -7%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	143.2 MB/s -40%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	196 MB/s -18%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	189.4 MB/s -21%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	236.9 MB/s -1%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	143.9 MB/s -40%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	119.7 MB/s -50%
Copy Game MB/s (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	290.2 MB/s
Samsung SSD SM841 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	128.8 MB/s -56%
OCZ Vector 256 GB	274 MB/s -6%
Corsair Neutron GTX SSD	265.5 MB/s -9%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	269 MB/s -7%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB	186.6 MB/s -36%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	229 MB/s -21%
Crucial M500 120 GB CT120M500SSD3	385.8 MB/s +33%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	267.1 MB/s -8%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	214 MB/s -26%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	199.7 MB/s -31%

System Performance

In our opinion, the performance with the profile "IOMix" in the IOMeter benchmark tool belongs to the system tests. It tests typical access to the SSD in everyday use. The Vertex 460 is outperformed by the mentioned competitors in the IOMix test. The Vector 256 from the same manufacturer performed 83% better and even the older Intel SSD 520 is 53% better.

IOMeter - IOMix, 5min, 10GB Partition (sort by value)
OCZ Vertex 460 VTX460-25SAT3-240G	245 MB/s
OCZ Vector 256 GB	275 MB/s +12%
Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV	177.5 MB/s -28%
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB VTX4-25SAT3-256G	211.9 MB/s -14%
OCZ Vector 150 120 GB	247.1 MB/s +1%
Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A	230.2 MB/s -6%
OCZ Vertex 460 Notebook 3120M	150.3 MB/s -39%

Compatibility

The SSD was recognized by the target computer without problems (Lenovo ThinkPad Edge E530c). But, it took nerves to boot from the Acronis drive, which contained our HDD image (all partitions). We needed several trial and error attempts with different BIOS settings.

Reliability

Reliability and durability are important aspects for SSDs. OCZ had built up a bad reputation with its Agility 3 in 2012, since a large percentage of a batch already malfunctioned after a few weeks of use at customer sites. If we talk about durability, we mean lifetime in years and the remaining capacity after many write cycles. It is still not possible to write to flash memory arbitrarily often. Therefore, the controller features mechanisms for replacing bad sectors (garbage collection).

We mentioned a small difference between the Vector 150 (top model) and the Vertex 460 (midrange) above. Here we find a second one: The NAND chips of the Vector 150 go through more testing and validation cycles. Therefore, OCZ can specify a significantly higher endurance of 50 GB/days for 5 years for it. See Anandtech's OCZ Vertex 460 (240GB) review.

OCZ grants a shorter warranty period of 3 years for the Vertex 460 than for the Vector 150 (5 years). We do not know if this alone already allows drawing conclusions about lifespan. As the scores for the Vector 150 are the same or even better (4K Write +61%; Access Time Read +54%, AS SSD Copy Benchmarks +15 to 98%), there is no reason not to buy the sister model with five years of warranty for the same price.

The SSD Endurance test uses an interesting approach. SSDs are written live (simulated user, write 16 GB of random data) and so degraded. The amount of data in Terra byte is continuously reported to the website. Currently there are only four participants and OCZ does not belong to them. But Samsung's 840 EVO and Intel's 520 series do. OCZ specifies 20 GB write cycles for three years for its Vertex 460. With a maximum write volume (TBW) of 91 TB (specification of the Vector 150), this would give a lifetime of above 12 years.

OCZ uses so-called Idle Time Garbage Collection. The SSD uses idle times to reorganize data blocks. Thus, the performance should remain high during load.

Verdict

The OCZ Vertex 460 is a good SSD, although it cannot keep up with high-end SSDs in all aspects (at least in this comparison). Overall, the results in the synthetic tests speak in favor of the competition. However, users would have to be very accurate to be able to experience higher transfer rates and shorter access times in practice.

Certainly, fast copying, faster program launches and games are advantageous. However, apart from workstation use, no user will work on a PC with a stopwatch. All things considered, customers get a decent storage capacity (240 GB) for an affordable 134 Euros (~$186). But, the Vector 150 top model (same Toshiba-NAND, but better testing, 5 years instead of 3 years) costs about the same in the market. Therefore, there is no reason to buy the Vertex 460.

More important than discussing the performance level, is questioning the rather poor cloning solution; Acronis True Image HD, included with the drive. Beginners, who dare to physically replace an HDD with an SSD, might be unable to succeed with it. While it is easy to create an HDD image, it is difficult and time consuming to move from a bigger HDD to a smaller SSD with hidden partitions. This scenario is especially common when switching from HDDs to SSDs in laptops.

It is always difficult to evaluate durability and reliability of new SSDs and controllers. We did not face incompatibilities with data loss, blue screens and other anomalies.

An overview of all SSDs, which we tested separately or in a notebook review is available in our HDD-/SSD benchmark list.

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Sebastian Jentsch - Managing Editor Consumer Laptops - 1753 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2010

Computers always had an important place in my life, starting with an Intel 80286 microprocessor in the early 1990s. I became interested in the productive side of technology, especially in campus radio, while studying at TU Chemnitz and during a trainee program in Belfast. Hardware interests led me to manage Notebookjournal.de, which is now a division of Notebooksbilliger, for a few years. I became self-employed in 2010 and took the next logical step in my career by starting to write for Notebookcheck.

contact me via: Xing

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Archive of our own reviews > OCZ Vertex 460 240 GB SSD (VTX460-25SAT3-240G) Review

Sebastian Jentsch, 2014-05- 6 (Update: 2018-05-15)