Home / Computing / Peripheral / OCZ Enyo / Specifications, Performance and Verdict

OCZ Enyo - Specifications, Performance and Verdict

Ardjuna Seghers

By Ardjuna Seghers



Our Score:


Though the recent SandForce SSD controller is the new industry darling and offers unrivalled performance, the Indilinx controller used by the OCZ Enyo is still one of the better controllers on the market in our experience, with consistent, proven operation and full TRIM support whether you're using Windows 7 or an older OS.

Sporting 64MB of cache on board, the Enyo range uses MLC Flash and offers some good speeds, starting off at an impressive 225MB/s read and more pedestrian 135MB/s write for the 64GB model. Our 128GB drive pushes this up to 260MB/s and 200MB/s respectively, which is excellent and beats any SSD we've previously looked at, though keep in mind that the quoted figures are generally theoretical maximums under ideal conditions. Sustained write speeds also see a dramatic difference, going from a slightly pathetic 40MB/s on the smaller drive to 150MB/s on the 128GB drive. Speeds on the £570 256GB model are identical, so our 128GB Enyo hits the sweet point between performance and value.

With theoretical figures out of the way, what's the actual performance like? Considering this drive is most likely to be used as a glorified memory stick rather than a boot drive (though that's certainly an option), we measured read and write performance when copying files onto (write) and from (read) the Enyo using our test system.

With a single large file, this OCZ SSD showed off its strengths. Performance better than tripled from USB 2.0 to USB 3.0, and perhaps more importantly, it significantly outperformed OCZ's own Throttle over eSATA. Considering that, if anything, eSATA holds a very small bandwidth advantage over USB 3.0, this superior performance is completely due to the SSD compared to the Throttle's 'ordinary' memory.

With a smaller selection of random files though, the Throttle just about pipped the Enyo to the post. To be honest the difference is negligible, but considering the latter's price it's slightly disappointing. Read performance with large files is where USB 3.0 really makes its advantages over its predecessor felt, and again the Enyo performs like a champion.

However, as the earlier comparison with the Throttle highlighted, OCZ's highest-end external storage really is a niche product for the well-heeled. At £273 it's more expensive than OCZ's own SandForce-based Vertex2 internal SSD, which for £30 less should outperform it across the board in real-world scenarios.

To our minds, the only really viable scenarios for this drive are either when wishing to share a single boot drive between two computers, like a laptop and desktop (obviously both equipped with USB 3.0); or if you need an external memory stick with fast performance. In the latter case it's not such a bad value proposition, as a 'plain' eSATA memory key of the same capacity will set you back around £230. However, even then there's the size advantage of the average memory stick to consider, not to mention not needing to carry around a separate (ugly and thick) cable.


An attractive and extremely fast external hard drive, the Enyo's speed and portability are its two main plus points. It's something of a niche product due to its price, but if it fits your needs it's a decent choice.

Overall Score


Scores In Detail

  • Value 6
  • Design 8


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