OCZ upgrades its budget SSD lineup with the Trion 150

Back when we reviewed OCZ's Trion 100 solid-state drive, we concluded its attractive price didn't quite make up for its performance. OCZ is now looking to give its entry-level drive lineup a little more oomph with the release of the Trion 150, a drive that purports to offer "increased real-world performance" over its predecessor.

The drive's TLC NAND flash cells once again hail from Toshiba's foundries, but they're built on a 15-nm process this time around. OCZ says the Trion 150 can do sequential reads up to 550 MB/s and writes up to 530 MB/s. Perhaps more importantly, random write performance has been given a healthy boost, with a quoted maximum of 91,000 IOPS. The company also says the new drives should be good for 240TB of total writes.

The drives are available in 120, 240, 480, and 960GB capacities. Prices are competitive: the 120GB drive goes for $50, the 240GB version costs $70, the 480GB drive is yours for $140, and the day has come when you can get 960GB of solid-state storage for $270. OCZ backs up these drives with a three-year warranty that includes free advance replacement and no shipping costs.

Comments closed
    • DarkMikaru
    • 4 years ago

    The reviews on the Trion 100 on the egg are disappointing. Personally, mine has been working just fine in my FX rig. I cloned the Samsung 830 256 that was in there with the Trion and it’s a decent little SSD. I just wanted to see how day to day performance was , thus wasn’t planning on keeping it installed. It’s been flawless for close to 6 months now so I just left it in. The 830 was placed in an external case and is now my portable fast storage drive.

    I’ll probably check out the 150 when it goes on sale at some point. Since the innards are Toshiba I feel more comfortable recommending them.

    • Mourmain
    • 4 years ago

    > 240TB of total writes?

    Isn’t that a little low? Maybe PB?

      • smilingcrow
      • 4 years ago

      That’s just for the warranty and more than the 1TB 850 Evo which is rated for 150TB.

      • ArdWar
      • 4 years ago

      Still with 240TB, you’ll need 120 days of constant writes at full speed to reach that number. Real world daily write would be much lower, unless you’re running cache server on them.

      • Waco
      • 4 years ago

      The worst part is they rate the 120 GB drive at 2000 whole drive writes, and the 960 GB drive at 250 whole drive writes.

      The former is awesome for TLC. The latter is terrible, period.

        • ArdWar
        • 4 years ago

        Come on guys, how hard is it to read a datasheet / product spec?

        [url<]http://ocz.com/consumer/trion-150-ssd/specifications[/url<] BTW, 30TB for 120GB model. 250 writes all across the range.

          • Waco
          • 4 years ago

          I didn’t click through, the verbiage in the news post made it sound like it was the entire range (which isn’t out of the ordinary at all for consumer SSDs).

          That said, 250 total drive writes is pretty pathetic…

        • smilingcrow
        • 4 years ago

        Which makes it third in this list:

        Crucial MX200 1TB = 320DW
        Samsung 850 Pro 1TB = 300DW.
        OCZ Trion 150 960GB = 250DW
        Samsung 850 Evo 1TB = 150DW.
        Samsung 850 Pro 2TB = 150DW.
        Sandisk Extreme Pro: 960GB = 80DW
        Samsung 850 Evo 2TB = 75DW.
        Crucial BX200 1TB = 72DW

        Seems pretty good.

          • Waco
          • 4 years ago

          I honestly don’t understand this though.

          The flash underneath (especially in the MLC case) can be written to many times more than this before having issues. Wear leveling has gotten pretty damn good too, so it’s hard to blame that for the 8x or more decrease in life from that…

            • smilingcrow
            • 4 years ago

            Those figures just relate to the warranty terms not the life of the NAND. In the same way that car manufacturers give different warranty lengths and mileages. It’s more of a marketing and strategy thing than anything else.

            • Waco
            • 4 years ago

            I’m sure, but you’d think that marketing would have figured out by now that rating a drive for high endurance, even with a somewhat short warranty, inspires consumer confidence.

            I guess I don’t see the point in segmenting so aggressively. It gains them essentially nothing to under rate the endurance.

            • smilingcrow
            • 4 years ago

            Different ideologies, cultures etc lead to different terms.
            For example in the UK, Korean and other Asian car manufacturers tend to have 5 or 7 year warranties sometimes with long mileages which is not the case with European cars usually even the premium ones.

            But for SSDs it might seem odd that they choose such low endurance ratings until you realise two things:

            1. These are consumer client drives so will rarely hit those limits anyway so why over promise something when it has the potential to bite you down the line?
            2. It’s a way of differentiating between the consumer and prosumer drives so makes it easier to charge a premium for the latter.

    • deniro444
    • 4 years ago

    Does this mean OCZ is now officially the “Arby’s” of SSD’s?

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 4 years ago

    Time for jokes about reliability and ocz

      • Freon
      • 4 years ago

      It’s really funny when you spend a hundred bucks or two on something that dies in 13 months.

        • Luckyo
        • 4 years ago

        But it’s not when it dies in 1.3 months. You know, like OCZ drive.

      • DrCR
      • 4 years ago

      I wrote off OCZ a good decade or so ago. But it’s simply a Toshiba brand now.

    • willmore
    • 4 years ago

    I put a Trion 100 in my AMD C-50 based netbook. Seemed the right pairing.

    • Anovoca
    • 4 years ago

    /golfclap

    Now get back to work on those 4 lane pcie chips

    • DPete27
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]offer "increased real-world performance" over its predecessor.[/quote<] Congrats on clearing the lowest . bar . EVER.

      • nico1982
      • 4 years ago

      Well, it could have been worse.

      • smilingcrow
      • 4 years ago

      You must have missed the TR review of the Crucial BX200 v OCZ Trion 100?

      “Though neither drive blew us away, the victory goes to the OCZ Trion 100.”

      [url<]https://techreport.com/review/29352/ocz-trion-100-and-crucial-bx200-ssds-reviewed[/url<]

        • DPete27
        • 4 years ago

        I put the Trion 100 and BX200 in the same category of “garbage not worth wasting your money for”. Whether or not one beats the other is basically irrelevant in my eyes.

          • travbrad
          • 4 years ago

          Would it actually make a noticeable difference for most people whether they get a “slow” SSD or a “fast” one? I went from the first drive here to the 2nd and can’t tell ANY difference whatsoever apart from one being a larger capacity: [url<]http://imgur.com/RX599Aw,qmmoOyU[/url<] It's irrelevant to me too because pretty much any SSD feels fast. The only reason I got a MX200 instead of BX200 was because it was only $10 more and came with free cloning software and 32GB more capacity. If you really need XTREME storage performance you shouldn't be looking at SATA drives at all.

            • brucethemoose
            • 4 years ago

            Low queue-depth 4K reads are pretty much the same, so it wouldn’t feel very different.

            SSD’s stopped “feeling” faster awhile ago. The only read speeds going up now are high queue-depth random reads and sequential reads, which won’t make a huge difference without a really heavy workload.

            • smilingcrow
            • 4 years ago

            “Would it actually make a noticeable difference for most people whether they get a “slow” SSD or a “fast” one?”

            Depends on how you use it. These cheap TLC drives have very poor write speeds once the SLC cache is filled to the point where they can be 5x slower than a regular non premium MLC drive.
            That’s very noticeable if you have a terabyte class drive and are copying large chunks of data as I have done a few times recently.
            For web browsing and email I don’t think you’d see a significant difference.

            • DPete27
            • 4 years ago

            Do the Trion 100 and BX200 even have SLC caches? I don’t care enough about them to look it up, but I thought they didn’t, just ran on the slow slow TLC.

            • smilingcrow
            • 4 years ago

            If you don’t care then neither do I care to point you at the review AGAIN.

            • DPete27
            • 4 years ago

            Ok fine, they both have “pseudo-SLC caching. jeesh. They still suck.

            • Krogoth
            • 4 years ago

            Still lightyears ahead of any HDD on the market.

            Solid-state media in its “slowest” form is plenty fast for the overwhelming majority of users and workloads out there.

            • travbrad
            • 4 years ago

            So are you saying you are actually impressed by SSDs? O.o

            • DPete27
            • 4 years ago

            Cost is the reason. When you can get better performing (on paper) drives for the same price with sales, what’s the point in buying something like this?

      • Ushio01
      • 4 years ago

      I though the Crucial BX200 was the lowest SSD bar? hmm going to have to recheck some reviews.

      [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1580?vs=1518[/url<] Yep BX200 is the lowest bar.

      • Krogoth
      • 4 years ago

      SSD performance doesn’t matter for 90% of the market. The demographic that actual cares about it and it isn’t for simple epenis are eyeing towards NVMe SSD devices not SATA-based SSD drives.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This