Toshiba expands its budget SSD lineup with its OCZ TL100

Since Toshiba pared back its OCZ-branded SSD lineup back in May, the company has been slowly rebuilding the brand's portfolio. To that end, Toshiba has announced the OCZ TL100 SATA SSD in 120GB and 240GB capacities. These entry-level TLC SSDs use an unspecified Toshiba controller and connect to SATA 6Gbps ports.

Toshiba quotes 550MB/s and 530MB/s for sequential reads and writes on both capacities of the drive. Those figures aren't surpising, but the stated random performance—85K IOPS on 4K random read and 80K IOPS on 4K random write—is actually superior to the 120GB and 240GB versions of the OCZ TR150, at least on paper. The new TL100 drives share the same TBW ratings as the TR150, too, at 30TBW for the 120GB drive and 60TBW for the 240GB drive.

Aside from the better random write performance, these drives appear to be largely similar to the TR150. Both the old and new model share the same three-year warranty and slot into the same 7-mm height class of 2.5" drives. Slightly lower active power consumption and reduced weight are the only other differences between the products. Toshiba hasn't announced pricing or availability for the TL100 drives.

Comments closed
    • robertsup
    • 4 years ago

    120 gb 30gb tbw, 240gb model 3 years warranty 60tb tbw trash 60tb is for half year

      • Chrispy_
      • 4 years ago

      Consumer drives for typical laptops and PCs rarely write more than 5TB/year.

      If your usage means that you require a drive with more endurance, buy a more expensive ‘prosumer’ drive based on MLC not TLC. You get what you pay for and cheap TLC is adequate for 99.9% of users.

        • robertsup
        • 4 years ago

        20 gb per h for 16h per day isnt much, install one 2 games from steam and you limit is over (and some games there are 60-80gb) (home usage)
        i dont say that every hour you will do 20gb but for data safety reasons
        and if you do others things than gaming on pc for example photo or video editing even only on home scale then thats limits are a bad joke

          • Chrispy_
          • 4 years ago

          I think you overestimate how much your average user writes to a disk.

          If you use software like Samsung Magician to look at drive writes, gaming photo-editors who even use their SSD as a torrent cache are unlikely to write that much. 30TB is a lot of data. Let’s pretend you wanted to download, install and reinstall the 50GB Titanfall installation from Steam every day for six months. Not only is that absolutely insane, it’s still not even 10TB of data.

          There’s a forum thread on here (to do with the Samsung 840/840 EVO fisaco, and lots of power users were posting their TBW figures. People commented on [url=https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=96590&start=30#p1226905<]how high my usage was[/url<] and I can tell you now that I was using for VMWare as a Revit 2014 cache server where about 20-30 users were repeatedly creating and deleting 500MB-1GB cache files dozens of times an hour for 18 straight months (of 40-hour working weeks). My other drive was me using it as a PC geek and It was about 5TB in two years. That's "normal use" rather than "datacenter use". Sure, the 240GB Toshiba with it's 60TB TBW would probably have been unsuitable for the Revit scenario I just mentioned, but that's because it's a multi-user, high bandwidth datacenter scenario, and not a drive that one person is going to boot Windows off.

    • JosiahBradley
    • 4 years ago

    Without pricing how can we be sure it’s really a budget drive? If the 240gb model cost any more than 50$ they still haven’t moved the $/GB number south.

    • ibnarabi
    • 4 years ago

    Pricing…
    120GB: $45 ($0.38/GB)
    240GB: $68 ($0.28/GB)

    • Chrispy_
    • 4 years ago

    I think TR needs to campaign for QD1 specs.

    This is the cheapest thing in Toshiba’s product stack and using the irrelevant SATA3 sequential bottleneck and equally-irrelevant burst QD32 4K results, this thing looks to be high-end datacenter grade, exactly like every other SSD on the market.

    Toshiba’s controllers are actually pretty decent at the moment, I bet this thing has 10K burst IOPS at QD1 and within 60 seconds of writes at that level it’s down to 1000 IOPS. That’s still pretty decent for a consumer TLC drive, but it does not resemble the quoted specs in the slightest.

    SSD specs are going the way of LCD specs. Technically reproducible under ridiculously-specific conditions, but woefully wrong and utterly misleading when referring to the monitor’s intended purpose. Let’s face it, if you [i<]really could[/i<] spend $150 and get a monitor with [b<]1,000,000:1 contrast, 1ms response and 160° vertical viewing angles*[/b<], we could call monitor tech "solved" and be done with it! [i<]* - Translation: 800:1 contrast after the entirely necessary calibration, 3-25ms variable response but averaging 9ms 20° vertical viewing angle before gamma/contrast values are more than 100% different to 0° [/i<]

      • Waco
      • 4 years ago

      Agreed. High queue depth is great and all, but QD1 results are far more relevant to consumers with normal workloads.

      I imagine it puts almost all drives on a reasonably level playing field for QD1 reads, though.

        • Chrispy_
        • 4 years ago

        Not as even as you’d think, another reason why QD1 is such an important metric!
        Quite a few sites graph 4K performance against queue depth, so QD1 results aren’t hard to find.

        Samsung’s current controllers seem to deliver 14K IOPS on QD1 4K reads (950, SM951) whilst the budget drives to avoid like the BX200 and Trion100 get only 7K IOPS at QD1.

        There was a budget Sandisk model (the Plus, I think) that only quoted 8K IOPS [i<]at best[/i<] so I don't know what that would have scored on QD1 and then there was Crucial's disastrous V4 which claimed 10K IOPS but benchmarked at 10MB/s (2500IOPS). 4K QD1 isn't the only specification that matters, but it sure is coincidental that all the "good drives" have excellent 4K QD1 read speeds and all the "avoid even if it's on sale" drives have significantly lower 4K QD1 speeds.

          • Corrado
          • 4 years ago

          Lets remember though, that 8000 IOPS is a LOT of IOPS, at least in terms of a desktop machine. I’m a storage engineer for a living, and when we quote SATA/SAS SSDs for speccing an array, we do 1500. Nevermind that under the right circumstances, it COULD get 75K, we spec around 1500 with 64K blocks (we run MSSQL, Oracle and DB2 all @ 64K block sizes, so all the 4K stuff means squat to us unless we’re talking a NetApp FAS which breaks everything down to 4K blocks anyway). For a 7200RPM drive? 75. 10K? 150 and 15K 175 IOPS. Those are the generally accepted numbers for your cache miss operations. Now, once you add in cacheing both on the drive itself and at the controller level, things are much better, but if you can legitimately get 1000IOPS out of an SSD, thats going to be nearly indistinguishable from 5-10x that much for most people’s daily desktop workloads.

            • Waco
            • 4 years ago

            Exactly. Once you’re 10x+ beyond what the best HDDs can do, it really doesn’t matter much.

            Even the extremely crappy SSDs you can buy will do a few thousand IOPs, QD1 4K. That’s more than enough to feel snappy.

            I have an array that can peak at 200K 4K IOPs at high queue depths, but it feels extremely similar to a single drive that barely manages 10K 4K IOPs…the QD1 numbers just aren’t crazily different. They’re both in the 4000-5000 range.

            The benchmarks/loading times shown by “crappy” SATA SSDs versus the best NVMe drives only make it more clear.

            • Chrispy_
            • 4 years ago

            Yeah, that’s a large component of my day job too. I use the following numbers:

            75 IOPS for nearline SAS/SATA
            150 IOPS for 15K SAS
            1000 IOPS for the X25-M’s we still have in service as a ghetto server
            2000 IOPS for newer enterprise SSD’s

            I think HERETIC nailed it earlier – once you get above about 7K that’s enough IOPS that a consumer won’t notice much of a difference. Certainly even a terrible SSD with only 1000 QD1 IOPS is still going to be obviously faster than a mechanical drive. The real difference between a “good” and “bad” SSD today is because pricing is so close. Why pay $0.4/GB for an 7K IOPS drive when you can buy a 14K IOPS drive for $0.45/GB?

            You know what’s funny though? We’ve made no real progress at the low end, since few drives deliver over 10K IOPS for 4K QD1 reads even today. My first SSD was an OCZ Agility that delivered 26MB/s in CrystalDiskmark’s 4K QD1 read. Thats 6700 IOPS, back in 2009 and that drive is still going strong and still provides a respectable SSD-like desktop experience in my mother’s laptop.

      • HERETIC
      • 4 years ago

      Spot on-Thro apples to apples-Best Sata drive is around 10k(850)
      Most drives with 8k+ tend to be pretty good drives.

    • DancinJack
    • 4 years ago

    boring

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This