Getting back to the issue of performance, the Octane series does deliver, just not as well under all circumstances. When running our file copy tests we were blown away by the performance, which was consistently higher than competing SandForce drives. The real-world performance seemed to have its ups and downs, with the Octane 512GB providing strong Windows 7 boot time performance but average game level load times.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
« AMD Radeon HD 7870 and Radeon HD 7850 · OCZ Octane 512GB
· Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 OC »
|
ProX |
Posted on: 03/14/2012 12:00 PM
Hmm mediocre performance and not that competitive price wise, think I will pass for now. |
|
next |
Posted on: 03/15/2012 12:34 PM
yeah 2 late now the v4 is just around the corner. |
|
swayn |
Posted on: 03/16/2012 11:20 AM
I had the Agility 3, well actually I had three of them. In the end I gave up and got an m4, not sure I could go back to OCZ anytime soon. |
|
Sarge |
Posted on: 03/16/2012 11:29 PM
Yes the price of the bigger models like the 512GB model reviewed are cheaper when compare to most other high-end SSDs but the Octane is also slower. When spending as much on a single SSD as most people do on an entire system you probably want to buy the fastest model possible. So I fail to see the point of the Octane series. |