I don't think Pentium II had sata ports...
j/k
:D
I don't think Pentium II had sata ports...
j/k
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Mine does :hm:
haha
They need to make one with a SAS interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
ohhhhhh that would be nice :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
There were rumors of a PCI-express drive too. I want to jump in and buy some SSDs but it seems like new/better products are coming out every month.
Yep, its even worse than other computer parts (CPUs and GFX) where there are quite big improvements every half either in performance or price (or both)
I'll probably jump on when its about £1 for 1GB but I want one now damnit, I think I may even take a 128GB Titan if I can find it in UK
Hm I'm between Intel X25-E and OCZ Vertex. It will take some time to choose the right product. :D
Sorry, don't buy it. Enterprise leads the storage technologies. There aren't any 20K RPM drives slated in RD for Enterprise. We've been stuck at 15K for a long time now, many, many engineers say that is the theoritical limit for mechanical drives.... Google it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lu(ky
Raptors would go 15K long before 20K. I say again, a 20K Raptor ain't happenin'.
Could be good, but it will be more expensive than sas. I also hope that in the future we will see more mobos with onboard sas like some of the new asus intel boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oats
What about FusionIO's ioExtreme?
Sub $1000 Flash card...
Any news about that?
As of today, the Apex drives are finally in stock across retailers in Germany, but no sign of the Vertex whatsoever. :mad:
Thank you, jcool.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
How about @ MindFactory? They actually listed them as in stock for ove a month now, so I'm suspicious, but nonetheless...Quote:
Originally Posted by jcool
(I didn't care to check because they don't ship to my country ;))
I got that info this morning directly from my Distributor (Wave) which means Alternate and Mix computer will have it soon (they share the same logistics). I could have the 60GB or 120GB here with me tomorrow if I wanted to.. but I am waiting on the Vertex.
As to Mindfactory, no idea really. But if they list something as in stock they usually have it.
It is in the works for 2009 as Vertex 2 which is internal RAID-0 with 4 controllers pushing 550mb with reads and 480mb with writes.
I'll upgrade to it after Vertex :D
Quote:
550MB/s read
OCZ has shown us the prototypes of Vertex 2, their next generation SSD, and the company's CEO Ryan Peterson and EVP and Chief Marketing officer Alex Mei were kind enough to show us a first glimpse of the drive's performance.
The drive is insanely fast as this internal quad raid drive can write at up to 480MB/s and read around 550MB/s, depending on the size of the files.
This is specially the case with big files and in reality at this speed you might copy a 20GB file in just 41.66 seconds, and we are sure that video editing guys are going to love these numbers. In order to achieve thee speeds you will have to get to SATA 3.0, as SATA 2.0 is maxed out at 300MB/s per device. SATA 3.0 on the other hand gets you all the way to 750GB/s which will be enough even for Vertex 2.
This drive will come the market in late Q1 2009 and we reckon it will be ready for Cebit. Here is how it looks in action.
http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stori...09/vertex2.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
Hmm... wonder why they didn't show the smaller read/writes-
Exactly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
Because you're clouding issue with facts :p: PR like big and round 550 number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
As always, I'd trust fellow XS'ers with actual performance numbers over any manufacturers...
+1 on both points.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by F@32
Since the Intel drives are super fast it's a question of what price point do you jump in on. Vertex should bring that price point down - when they finally arrive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oats
Personally I'm going for 4 Vertex 30GB in RAID0 and will probably buy a 5805 to run them on. That's not cheap, but it's the price point I've pulled the trigger at.
I can't see any real advantage going much above 500MB/sec in maximum transfer speed. The advantages are in smoothing out the lower performing areas, and so far only Intel, or expensive h/w RAID has that. Perhaps with a couple of Vertex in RAID0 we'll see a miles cheaper option.
PCIe will bring the price down significantly since it'll wipe out the need for expensive h/w RAID controllers, and of course the price of SSDs is falling all the time.
So $1000 buys amazing speed right now, perhaps in a year it'll be $200.
This is taking too long! We need Vertex and we need it now!
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14257
reviews coming soon from anandtech
So what Vertex size are you guys looking to buy? 30GB, 60GB or the 120GB? I was thinking of 4 x 30GB in a raid...
4 x 30gb raid 0 and 120 gb for laptopQuote:
Originally Posted by Lu(ky
I'd be happy with a 60gb drive for OS/games if they don't stutter and if they ever come out anytime soon. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Lu(ky
30GB for OS/WoW/A few apps. Possibly 2x30GB raid 0 if I see the need.
And from Cdfreaks.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
The performance of those drives has massively changed with each firmware revision. That bench was right at the start of development where we just wanted to show what we predict max speed would be for a vertex 2 if we internally raided it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
Call it a working concept.
Ohh I saw over 2500IOP's recently on Anands useless IOmeter test 10GB test file if that matter to you with a prototype vertex ;)
Tony is there a big difference in cache size in performance? 32 vs 64 in a raid -0-?
Not been able to test that...sorry.
Plus i can't post performance numbers (exactly) till reviewers do.
What were the settings? I am considering two vertexes along with my two Intels for more fast storage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
IOmeter settings?
sectors to =10GB
starting sector 1024
4k-RW ran for 2 mins
Also going from SATA controller to SATA controller makes a difference on outcome...keep that in mind
last thing regards IOmeter...you all comparing IO's from drive to drive need to understand you do NOT need 2500 or 3000 or 100000 IO's to have a fast stable stutter free system, infact less that 100 on the 4k test will be fine, in some cases less than 50.
So this IOmeter test is just turning into a bragging bench IMO...it means nothing to an average user.
That's like saying that you don't need a 50GHZ CPU because a 10GHZ will be just fine. Faster is faster.
Although, generally, I agree. I basically care only about how quick apps/games load up and for most things, CPU limit comes first anyways. I just hate waiting for things; makes my blood boil.
I think that better comparison would be core count - for home use there's just no difference whether you have 4 or 400.
The thing that matters is access time when you do your regular stuff=much under 1000 IOPS.
Measuring IOPS with 1-2 queue length would be quite similar, but with one exception: it would give Vertex less time for buffer flushing.
Tony, am I right?
Not really. More IOPS does make things faster, while more cores will do zero. The thing is, more IOPS does reduce the time for some operations to complete from like 0.1s to 0.01s so the difference probably won't be felt, but it is still there. 300fps versus 100fps is another good comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
A 1000 drive RAID 10 will make huge IOPS and be slower than a single good SSD, for a home user of course. Above some point it doesn't reduce anything. Exactly like core count.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Sure, because that HDD array will take the same 12ms (or however fast the drives are) to do 1 IO and several hundred IOs. If the task requires less than that several hundred IOs per 12ms then the number of max IOs doesn't matter anymore (it might as well be millions per 12ms) as the access time becomes the constraint.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
You have to realize that with SSDs those IOPs limits are ~100 times higher than that of the HDDs due to the access times. I highly doubt things are truly maxed out in terms of the IOPs at the current performance numbers.
Is there a program that records the number of IOs going to the array that we can run in the background to measure how much apps really use when they load?
Same here. I'm planning on starting with a single 60, then down the line adding a second for raid :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jc99
My point is you don't need 3k IOPs random write to have a fast system...many of our Core V2 and Apex users have proven this.
I said it before and I will say it again, some reviewer (as no one believes engineers) needs to sit down and find the minimum IO's needed...forget the max...tell us what the minimum is for XP...Vista and W7.
There's professional stuff to tune your arrays, but I know very little about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
OK, so what you meant is "drive can run smooth with little IOPS".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I guess that most people here want smooth and fast. And finding minimum is pointless for this purpose, we'd rather search for maximum that helps.
And seriously, how do you expect reviewers to find out?? What experiment could a person that can't change anything with hardware / firmware do? It's OCZ and other SSD vendors who should investigate it....if the problem is well defined at all.
I think its kinda like this: If money was no option, would you get the Ferrari that can do 200+MPH, or the Toyota Camery. Sure the Camery is good enough to get where you want to, and you will never get to use all the potential of the Ferrari because domestic of speed limits and such, but I know I would rather have the Ferrari :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I'm not so sure. Tony seems to be saying there's no impact, that it has no effect rather than it's got an effect that we find difficult to measure.
Some people want to know the minimum, while I am personally more interested at the absolute maximum that I can use :) i.e. at which magic IOPS number games/apps/windows will no longer load ANY faster. Although there would be too many other variables...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
That's a marketing way of putting it, Tony... if you needed just 100 write IOPS, stick to VelociRaptor... that point of yours makes SSDs useless ;)
Its nothing to do with any of what you guys are focused on...its to do with cost and selling drives. Nothing expensive is selling in large quantity at this time, fast IO processors cost money hence drives are expensive. I need to sell drives to 100k people...NOT 100 who want to break world records etc.
So my point is totally valid...i want to build an SSD that is dirt cheap, meets specs for IOPs so windows works just fine and sell them by the bucket load all over the world.
Now we have a fast drive, from what I have just seen Vertex doing im pretty damn impressed and you will be also...but i still want a cheap drive...a $50 special if you will that is perfect for Joe Blow who is not a speed freak.
To help assess studdering, "maximum write response time" in iometer is what you want to look at, under different scenarios, %reads/writes, %random, different queue depths
I don't think you can say at "x number of iops you will/will not get studdering" - it will vary by scenario, queue depth, size, %writes, % random etc...
e.g. Mechanical hd score tiny # of iops, but their "maximum write response time" isn't 900-1000ms like some of these cheaper ssd's - they don't studder and their max write latency 5-10x less than the cheap jmicorn mlc ssd's. Same thing can be said about Mtron SLC mobi -e.g. they get only get ~20-30 iops @ 4k 100% write , but the max write latency is 50-150 under most workloads - so you don't get any perceptible studdering
But Tony is right - most desktop users shouldn't even care about iometer - usage patterns are much different
This is XS? no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Yes but you comment on cheap value drives as if they are high performance drives...just look at the bashing Core got on here and you will understand my point.
When OCZ release a value part you guys still think it should be good for breakin records, fact is to make money these days you have to focus away from the top end enthusiast as the market is to small until the price of the high end components comes down.
Sorry fact but true.
Its like selling top line enthusiast motherboards, 500 to 1000 pieces made total, mid range boards...40 to 50k Pieces made...
I have a feeling you guys are going to see less high end parts coming thru due to the recession.
Why are you blaming us for thinking of them as high end drives when one of the stickies on your own forums says something along the lines of core V2 drives breaking some world records?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I agree entirely with what you are saying about making money, ESPECIALLY in the recession, but when there are admins on your own forums saying that a few core drives will beat the Intel drives (I know you stopped that now, but things like this were said in the past, and is why I bought my two core V2s before buying Intels) how do you expect us not to compare them and think of them as same segment products?
I wanna see how many will cap ich10R... that's how much I'll be getting!
:D
Im not blaming anyone...the world record was broken with cheap drives on high end raid with MFT...
I just think you guys are fixated with IOmeter when there is no need. I just noticed hdtune pro has a nice feature where you can monitor the HDD for reads writes and IO's. Run it just before you start PCmark vantage HDD suit and watch what the drive actually does. i have seen the odd spike to 4k IO's (writes)but 99% of the time its sat at 0>50
Interesting to actually watch what is happening real time.
Personally, and I do say this without bashing anyone/any company ...
As a consumer:
If I am to give that kind of amount for SSDs I want performance that does surpass VelociRaptor in most things... not just boot...since VR @200 is 300GB, and an SSD is max 60GB. Apex/Core aren't that :(
As myself, for what I need hard drives:
I want something faster than VR... not because of the price, not asking for 0.01$/GB prices or anything close, I jut want something much faster than VR.
Don't tell me I'm not an average consumer, this is not an average forum :D
Well, regarding the "low cost drive" vs the "High cost Intel" - If you look at the latest prices for Vertex and Intel x25-m on Amazon, you'll find:
Vertex 60G = $285.99 divided by 60 (gigs) = 4.77/GB
X25-M 80G = $369.00 divided by 80 (gigs) = 4.612/GB
So much for being a cheaper alternative that's almost as fast- does that make the Vertex a Cheap drive at a High Cost?
That is very true when you look at it like that. Is the X25-M really that much better then everything on the market? If it is then I will have to get me one of those instead of the vertex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
There are no Vertex reviews yet, nobody knows how does it stack against X-25M. Intel drive isn't a wonder, has problems too, but probably is better than anything cheaper on the market now. ;)
I don't think the price per GB is a useful way to compare them. I think what's probably more useful is comparing the total cost of the end product. For the 80GB Intel that's probably all you would buy, and it'd make a decent fast PC. For anyone on X58 2 Vertex drives would (based on what we know so far) beat the Intel in every department. What we know so far is 200MB/sec, no JMicron problems and 32MB of cache on each drive. I think it's really about how much you want to spend and from that point either OCZ or Intel will provide the best bang for buck. The prices used in the comparison don't look like the prices I see in the UK. The 60GB Vertex is £207 while the Intel is £362. For the price of the Intel you could get 3 30GB Vertex drives. Of course by that point you've gone past what motherboards can do. :)
The Vertex, according to the spec sheet, will have higher write speed and slower read speed compared to intel MLC unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
Therefore, it should be better for a IOP intensive environment.
Typical desktop usage is 80% read and 20% writes.
Heavy multitasking will also benefit from faster writes.
Like most people here, I'm waiting for a comparison between these units.
About the price, it's also a matter of capacity and raid setup. Smaller capacity is actually a benefit. I'll use either 30 or 60gb units, those 80GB are still too expensive *per drive*.
That was the point I was trying to make :)
4 30GB Vertex for me, and likely a 5805.
Me too first I will try the onboard on my Asus P6T Del, then move to something better if I need it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
I'd do some research on raid cards if you are thinking of 5805. And some general research as well looking at your other posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
You're such a tease. I'd RAID a 30gb pair of those and flash with your secret sauce FW if it to be released into the wild. What's funny, is that Vertex2 will probably follow pretty soon. They'd better adopt SATA3 for those...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I have to say, OCZ Forums is probably one of the strongest marketing forces out there. Good for ya, guys. Your forums probably sell more than all Internet ads combined ;-)
If you want balls out speed the 120's and 250's are the fastest. 30's are 60's are a little slower. Dailytech made mention of why...Quote:
Their 120GB and 250GB models will exhibit faster speeds due to the fact that the controller has access to a greater number of channels, providing a significant boost to read and write speeds over what was previously announced.
So 30s are gonna be slower...Fine, having upper bound is useful too, but the lower one would surely be better. ;)
But thanks anyway.
That's unfortunate given that I believe most are hoping Vertex can eliminate stuttering on ICHR. If the smaller drives are slower then it will be less attractive to desktop users since most enthusiasts will prefer 2+ smaller drives in RAID0 to a single larger drive. Really large SSD's w/o stuttering issues will be attractive to notebook users. Bummer.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with stuttering so not sure how the smaller drive is an unfortunate situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimoneX
The current topic appeared to be 30 & 60GB Vertex drives' lower performance compared to 120 & 250 Vertex drives. Sans the JMicron controller & with cache added I certainly wouldn't expect any stuttering issues. Thought we moved past that topic pages ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Praz
I think alot of people(enthusiasts) are in a holding pattern with regard to SSD's due to stuttering issues with drives equipped with JMicron controllers. Vertex is highly anticipated because it is the first OCZ SSD product without these controllers. I find the news that 30 & 60GB Vertex's will be lower performing parts to be disappointing given the hype surrounding this product. I believe these will be(would have been?) the drives of choice for most enthusiasts. 2x60GB drives would have been my first choice since 120GB's of SSD would suit my desktop needs perfectly.
Edit: Vertex is the first OCZ SSD MLC product without the JMicron controller...at least to my knowledge.
How cute, so much Intel talk in that thread, but when people mention it under a different context they get... gasp.... banned? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
1. Que is 10 = unreal results
2. Drive is not what will ship out
3. Fast small writes are due to cache
4. Same type of results that showed the V2 to have 170mb/s reads, when in reality even 150 was entirely unbreakable on the overwhelming majority of systems out there.
Good marketing.
The 30 and 60gig apex drives are slower as well.
I was thinking I would pick up some cheap JMicron drives to HW raid0 but it seems like Vertex might be almost as fast with just one drive. I guess I'm back to waiting to see user reviews of the drives before I buy anything.
I am thinking it's all just good marketing as well- But, I'm hoping that these Vertex drives really do perform as well as OCZ is leading us all to believe. It can only mean greater things for customers. More competition is always good.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
This new indilinx controller has HUGE shoes to fill after all this anticipation- However, if it really is what it is- then i'll be picking up a few. If it's not, well I hope the OCZ crew is ready for some backlash from the community- Speeds are one thing, reliability and compatibilty are another.
I wished mate. If one 60Gb vertex was as fast as two Core V2, it would make it 310MB/s at sequential reads (I get 155MB/s on ICH9) which I find hard to believe. My bet is that single 120Gb vertex will manage in 200-230 range, but not 300. Vertex2 might be different story...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oats
Anyone know if any other companies area going to be using this new Indilinx controller? I assume G.Skill, Patriot, and Super Talent will be releasing their drives with this controller soon as well.
I believe the X25-E will be better than the Vertex but I will wait for the Benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxRacR17
Don't judge performance only by throughput numbers. Alone they are almost worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by F@32
Gentlemen..the 30 and 60 are slower due to less nand in the drives...same controller, same FW less channels used by the conrtroller...Dailytech explain why they are slower fully.
I have not banned anyone who is constructive with comments on my forum, I banned one person for disrespecting me on another forum.
lastly, I can not bench my drives and show you everything you want, i have just heard my drives are 3 generations back from what shipped to reviewers, If i show you everything will it be as true representation of what you will buy?
If you read my thread on OCZ I have said the bench was in an ideal world, no data, spare...etc, i also fully know the drives will slow with an OS on them. I have never hidden this fact...just look at my Apex numbers on my old HP laptop...do they look as good as Gskills??? I think NOT.
Man I try to do the right thing by you guys and you moan at me...im here to sell ocz product yes...but I also listen. maybe i should just do what the motherboard pimps do... post and vanish?
Still no ETA on the drives Tony? And from when you "release" them how long will it take before they're widely available? I live in Norway..
Ignore the haters Tony. You've always been a straight shooter in my book.
The only SSD benches I've seen on the raid card that I have (Perc5i) was with 3 Solid drives and the write speeds were about the same with reads being about 150 higher than the Vertex in ATTO. CoreV2s are faster than solid but I would only be using 2 drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by F@32
There are other user posted benchmarks of 2xCores on an adaptec 2405 scoring a little under 200 write / 250 read
Sorry for the rollback...Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
I've seen this in a previous post...
Does this mean that this version of Vertex drives already use the Indilinx controller and not JMicron ?Quote:
(...) OCZ will use a version of the Barefoot SSD controller from Indilinx for the first time in its Vertex series of SSDs (...)
Yes. That's the main reason why people have high hopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
This to me looks like a ES of the vertex before they knew what they were going to name it. Reason being the on-board cache, and the reviewer guessing it's a samsung controller, which I bet it isn't.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=666
The numbers look very similar to what Tony posted on the ocz forums. His tests were on a bare dive with no software installed on it, which is why his numbers would look better.
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=51112
Nice find !!Quote:
Originally Posted by gergregg
As the review is dated 16-2-2009, i'm pretty sure this is Vertex :)
Maybe OCZ send them 'undercover' to not let reviewers expect to much or overhype things.
So March it will be......
ok NOW, I'm totally confused.
Summit...? I hope that's a fake name for VERTEX, but then why?
Available in march...?
Filecopy tests show VR still being the top dog... damn I was hoping for a clean win of ssd this time.
Also if the smaller capacity drives will be slower, what will that make them...
Hmmm, VERY confusing it is starting to be...
:D
Yes was thinking myself the same, would opt for some 30 gb drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
But if these are slower than 120 gb as tony stated on OCZ forum, it might be interesting to look for the Intel 80gb X25-M.
Almost same price/gb , faster than Vertex and available today ;)
Hope to see some (more) VERTEX reviews soon.
For a fair comparison to the "Skunkworx" ATTO benchmark- Here's my new X25-M on an ICH10R, running Windows 7 at the time of the benchmark. I've put the queue up to 10, to match. Settings are all exactly like theirs. This should show you a more fair comparison...
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3...0rw7q10qv1.pnghttp://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2...nyedit1wi2.png
Yes, the intel's write max is slower, but it hit it's max throughput, actually more than it's spec'd max write throughput at only 2k transfers. And notice the almost 280MB/s reads at 256k-
So, both are fast drives- However, it will be interesting to see the Vertex after release. It looks like it's going to come down to a small price difference, and whether the write throughput on larger files is important to you or not.
If that is actually vertex in that review.... then it has been horribly over hyped; doesn't deal with small files well at all. X25-M FTW for that price level.
Never mind, apparently this is another product offering coming from OCZ. Doesn't make much sense business wise to release so many similar products. Cannibalizes sales of your other products.
Here is the quote from the ocz forums.
"This is indeed an engineering sample, but of the SUMMIT line of SSDs, not the Vertex. They are completely different product lines - the Vertex uses Indilinx while the Summit uses Samsung. I know staff on here aren't commenting on anything so I thought I'd just make that clarification."
Here are some real numbers on the vertex.
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=51200
The 120GB units sound like intel killers, but the smaller ones... more doubts for my setup :(
Intel Killers? Did you not see the benchmarks for Vertex and Summit? Yeah, the max theoretical throughput is higher on the writes, but in applications x25-m comes out on top of the vertex in every test, and on top of the summit in every single test except one...Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
So really, the intel is still better than what OCZ will be offering in 2-3 months from now. I don't understand where you're getting intel "killer" from. :p:
I'm glad OCZ is pushing intel though- It'll be fun to see what comes out by the end of the year.
we'll need to see proper reviews of course, but it seems like just another slow drive from OCZ, although this time it costs more per GB than the Intel counterpart. I had high hopes :(
It will still sell well due to the stellar marketing and the largely uneducated public so hopefully that money actually gets to R&D this time around.
Yes but not everyone wants to spend the $400+ on an X25-M. I don't need an 80GB SSD for an OS drive and unfortunately that is the smallest X25-M Intel sells.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
It hardly looks slow, but an Intel SSD killer it does not appear to be.
You don't need 80 yet you currently have 128?Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
Ι bet he meant "not everyone needs 80GB"....plus 4x32 is in Raid-0 on Areca...i'm sure it's for performance not for size...
I just want like a 30GB for an OS drive :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
I suspect you did not have high hopes since most of your posts appear to be having a go at OCZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
3x30GB Vertex is cheaper in the UK than 1xIntel mainstream 80GB. It has higher capcity, and from the figures that have been shown so far would outperform Intel everywhere. It's not yet apparent if the OCZ will suffer from the same issues as the Intel, it might.
Then again with the Intel you don't need a RAID controller. But then again with Vertex not on a RAID controller the small size writes/reads shouldn't be affected.
I just don't see why it has to be the case that one product is the ultimate champion and one is lying in the gutter.
Both look like good products to me. Clearly one of them *IS* a good product. Everytime Intel's dominance in a particular area gets threatened prices drop. From that perspective, this is all good stuff.
I am not even going to bother explaining anything since you are one of those people that probably thinks more sequential MB/s is more performance. Go ahead and buy vertex drives; they are meant for people like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halk
Pricing in North America is about 2.5 vertex 30GB for one X25-M 80GB.
I didnt find any review from the sites I trust. So I commented only based on Atto bench results. Atto has always been very reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff805
I'm waiting for crystal disk mark and everest. BTW, I'm talking only about the Vertex which this thread is about.