Home / Computing / Peripheral / OCZ Enyo

OCZ Enyo review

Ardjuna Seghers



1 of 8

OCZ Enyo
  • OCZ Enyo
  • OCZ Enyo
  • OCZ Enyo
  • OCZ Enyo
  • OCZ Enyo
  • OCZ Enyo
  • OCZ Enyo
  • Enyo OCZSSDU3-1ENY128G Solid State Drive 128 GB - USB 3.0 - USB - External


Our Score:


OCZ's Enyo brings together two exciting developments in the technology industry: SSD and USB 3.0. The first is an evolution of the traditional moving-parts hard drive to a non-magnetic form of storage that is silent, produces no heat, uses less power and is far more rugged and robust, not to mention a lot faster. The second is one of the fastest external connection standards around - if you want to know all the fine details, we would recommend you have a read of our comprehensive USB 3.0 article.

The Enyo incorporates various capacities of SSD, from 64GB to a whopping 256GB, into an anodised aluminium shell that's almost Apple-esque in its minimalist attractiveness. We've taken the golden middle-road, going for 128GB, which will still set you back the not inconsiderable sum of £273.

Its metal casing gives the Enyo a reassuring feel and it weighs a portable 75g, though there is a slightly disconcerting rattle when you tap the drive or put it down. We imagine this is due to the spare room for the extra 128GB memory found on the highest capacity model, but it's a shame as it detracts from the premium feel.

As already mentioned, its design is where the Enyo really shines, with tapered edges that lend it a sleek, minimalist appeal. It's among the best-looking storage devices we've come across (even if the aluminium casing reveals a few screws at its base), though this is easy enough considering design is rarely a primary concern for storage. Two tiny and flush blue status LEDs indicate power and activity, and the Enyo's single connector is an incredibly slim MicroUSB 3.0 port (the first of its kind we've seen) which provides both power and data connectivity.

OCZ takes further inspiration from Apple in the attractive packaging, and the provided data cable is also white rather than the more common black or blue. It's ugly compared to the device, though, as the plastic plug at the Micro-USB 3.0 end is actually taller than the drive you're hooking it up to!

Ironically, considering its design makes it the ideal Mac partner, we wouldn't recommend buying this device if you're an Apple user because it will be limited to USB 2.0 speeds. There are some laptops beginning to ship with USB 3.0, however, and USB 3.0 is backwards compatible for those occasions when it's not available.


September 2, 2010, 3:11 pm

Thanks for the review. With USB3, external drives are finally getting at least somewhat interesting as permanent addon drives. That said, wouldn't it make more sense to convert the results of your own benchmarks into MB/second? This'd make comparing real world speeds to the manufacturers claims and to the speeds measured by other people easier. 3.5 GB in 49s doesn't tell me a whole lot, while 70 MB/second tells me that it's very fast for a USB device, but fairly slow for an SSD.


September 2, 2010, 4:03 pm


To be fair, eSATA has been providing more than adequate specs for permanent external drives for years now...

As to the graphs, thanks for your suggestion but we avoided using MB/s precisely because with random usage like in the performed tests the figures are very unlikely to match the manufacturer's quoted speeds. This is because the type, amount and manner of data transmission (not to mention USB 3.0 controller, SSD firmware, motherboard, etc) can all have a

dramatic impact on file speed.

In Write, for example, the 1GB folder is easily convertible giving 40MB/s, while the 3.5GB single file almost doubles that at over 71MB/s. Neither of these speeds are close to the quoted maximums due to a combination of the above factors, one of the most significant of which is that the 'copy' also includes the writing to/reading from the test machine's moving-parts hard drive.


September 2, 2010, 9:12 pm

Point taken about the chipset and controller impacting the speed (oh and about eSATA), but write/read speeds to/from SSDs should really be tested from memory/ramdisk or at least a suitably fast internal SSD. Otherwise, you're really just testing the speed of the internal SATA drive, right? That said, I realize this isn't a hardcore storage testing site, so excessive testing might not be necessary.

comments powered by Disqus