In-Depth with the OCZ Core Series Low-Cost SSD

Application Launches

In our view, the most important thing a hard drive can do is open programs and files quickly, because watching the little Vista swirl rotate has to be the most annoying form of torture we can imagine.

For this round of application open tests, we turned off Vista SuperFetch, a built-in WIndows service which speeds application load times by caching frequently used programs in memory. We also erased all the files Windows users to cache applications from the \windows\prefetch\ directory. While we had SuperFetch on in our initial tests last week and 99.9% of Vista users have it on too, we turned it off so we could accurately test each drive’s ability to open applications. Also, our results with SuperFetch on were less consistent, probably because of what Vista had or had not cached at any given time.

To test the ability of our drives to handle both single and multiple tasks, we recorded open times for several applications, under three conditions:

  • No Stress – Application was opened all by itself, with no other tasks occurring in the background.
  • Stress – AVG Free Antivirus scan was running and CamStudio was doing a video capture of all screen activity when we launched the application.
  • Super Stress - We zipped 5GB of files in the background while attempting to open the application. We found the zipping process to be a lot more demanding than the combination of anti-virus + screen capture in the stress test.

All times were observed by pointing a video camera at the screen, then watching the recorded footage so we could get an exact time to the tenth of a second. While we tested more applications, we’ll share two here: Word 2007 opening to a blank document and Photoshop CS2 opening with a large 400MB TIF file.

Don’t be fooled by the long lines. As you can see in the charts above, the Core Series did really well in the most common situation, non-stress, and did a lot better than the 5,400rpm hard drive under regular stress. Only under super stress did its performance lag way behind the other SSDs in our test.

Again, this shows that, for whatever reason, the read/write required by the zipping process is very taxing to the Core Series drive. However, we don’t think that zipping huge files while you try to open applications is a common situation.

Battery Life We ran two different battery-life tests. Our first test, the Wi-Fi Web Surfing test, is a script that launches Firefox 3, with browser cache disabled, and causes it to visit the home pages of 60 popular Web sites, pausing 33 seconds between each page load. Admittedly, this test is not the most hard drive intensive, but it does keep the drive busy by closing and reopening Firefox between each page load and by writing time log files to the hard drive every few seconds until the battery dies.

We were pretty surprised to see that the OCZ Core Series actually consumed more power in this test than the 5,400rpm drive. On the other hand, the Super Talent MasterDrive did even worse, getting a full 10 minutes less battery life than the WD Scorpio. We were so surprised that we tested the OCZ a second time, but got the same results. Perhaps Tom’s Hardware has a point, when they say that some SSDs consume too much power when in idle or low activity.

However, we were not content to test our drives with the low-impact Web surfing test so we devised a more-intense battery rundown that we dubbed the “Hercules Test.” For the Hercules test, we used the VLC player to loop a full screen mpeg-2 movie, Steve Reeve’s Hercules (a public domain film was used so anyone can replicate this), at 50% volume until the system died. While not as large a file as a ripped DVD would be, the variable bit-rate movie reads from the hard drive at about 4MBps.

On the more hard drive-intensive Hercules battery test, the OCZ Core Series drive outlasted both the mechanical 5,400rpm drive and the Super Talent MasterDrive. Only the $800 Samsung drive did better.

Looking at these numbers, it’s clear that the OCZ Core Series is neither a great benefit nor a horrible hinderance to a notebook’s endurance. Even if we were using an ultraportable notebook with 9 hours of battery life.

Early Verdict

While the OCZ Core Series has difficulty under abnormally high-stress situations (zipping files in particular), it turns in truly excellent application open times under normal scenarios. What this really proves is that, for the vastly majority of users, people who just want to open apps and files quickly, the Core Series looks like a great performer that will give you back the valuable seconds of your life you spent watching hourglasses and Vista swirls.

That said, we won’t give the OCZ Core Series a final rating until we’ve had the chance to match it up against a few more MLC-based SSDs. We expect a few more to trickle into our office in the next couple of weeks so stay tuned.

Avram Piltch
Avram Piltch
The official Geeks Geek, as his weekly column is titled, Avram Piltch has guided the editorial and production of since 2007. With his technical knowledge and passion for testing, Avram programmed several of LAPTOP's real-world benchmarks, including the LAPTOP Battery Test. He holds a master’s degree in English from NYU.
Avram Piltch on
Facebook Twitter Google+
Email* (will not be published)
*Indicates required field
Submit Comments

  1. Yazmin Harper Says:

    Needless to say I feel somewhat rebellious but I know I will follow tests. The Core Series are confortable. Tests of like watered down the Western Digital.

  2. Wout Mertens Says:

    Could the slowness under stress be related to incompatibilities with the SATA controller?

    Here’s a user that has similar issues:

    Can you try running the Core on some other motherboards?

  3. Gooble Gobble Says:

    Why not just admit OCZ’s drive is not better than the Samsung drive. Clearly no more tests need to be carried out. I think Kudos to Samsung for doing a sterling job, normally its the bigger brute brands that arent that good but this is not the case with the SSD’s tested here. However, its going to be at least another 12 months before anyone will actually start buying these things. I mean £3000 for a 256+GB is just a complete waste of money. Until then these are just experiments in my eyes and a way to recoupe the R&D costs.

    Peace and Good Will to Oompa Loompas!

  4. Genius Guru Says:

    HITS THE NAIL SQUARELY RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THE HEAD. I’ve done hours of file copy comparison tests as well as other tests (such as zipping files) & the results here mirror my own. Copying files from one partition to another or anything were the drive has to do two or more things at once brings these core series to their knees.

    In some tests Samsung SSD II is anywhere from 150% to 750%+ percent FASTER. Sure Samsung SLC cost more, but core series 120-143MB/s MB/s ” RATING ” is very deceiving.

    Compared to Samsung SLC 80-100MB/s ” RATING ” which is telling you NOTHING about real world performance such as zipping files etc. but nevertheless people will base everything on that ” BOX RATING ” when making their purchase decisions.

    I didn’t compare battery run time, so now that I see it clearly here, my Samsung SSD is going BACK into my Laptop.

    I originally bought 4 of these core series to replace our Samsung SSD drives thinking to sell the more expensive Samsung drives while getting similar performance from these promising looking 120-143MB/s ” RATINGS ” of the core series. NOT!

    REALLY deceiving thing here about 120-143MB/s” RATINGS ” is, I have found that even the old model Samsung SATA 1 drive which can be found on ebay for much less than the SATA II model, even this older SATA 1 Samsung SSD version (Rated at only 40-60MB/s is FASTER THAN CORE SERIES in many circumstances. Especially Multitasks such as file zipping, copying from one area to another, or anything were the drive has to do two jobs or more at one time.

All Product Types Accessories Cars Digital Camcorders Digital Cameras eReaders GPS Laptops MP3 & Video Players Projectors Smartphones Software Storage Tablets / MIDs VoIP Wi-Fi
All Subcategories
All Subcategories All-Purpose Budget Business Desktop Replacement Gaming Multimedia Netbook Nettop Rugged Student Tablet PCs Ultraportable
Acer Alienware Apple Archos ASUS Averatec BenQ CTL Corp. Dell Digital Storm eMachines Emtec Everex Fujitsu GammaTech Gateway General Dynamics Getac Gigabyte Hercules HP HTC iBuyPower Intel Lenovo MSI Nokia Nvidia OCZ OLPC OQO Origin Panasonic Sager Samsung Sony Sylvania Systemax TabletKiosk Toshiba Verizon Viewsonic Viliv VooDoo Workhorse PC ZT Systems
Minimum Rating
Any Rating 4.5 Stars 4.0 Stars 3.5 Stars 3.0 Stars
Screen Size
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 4 5 6 7 8 9
1024x576 1024x600 1024x768 1200X800 1280 x 720 1280x1024 1280x768 1280x800 1366x678 1366x768 1440x1050 1440x900 1600x768 1600x900 1680x1050 1680x945 1920x1080 1920x1200 800x400 800x480
Weight Range
10.1 - 12.0 pounds 12.1 - 14.0 pounds 14.1 - 16.0 pounds 2 lbs 2 pounds and under 2+ lbs 2.1 - 4.0 pounds 4.1 - 6.0 pounds 6.1 - 8.0 pounds 8.1 - 10.0 pounds Over 16 pounds Under 2 pounds
more options