OCZ to come out with new VERTEX SSD,S equiped with 64MB OF CACHE starting at $129

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

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.

---

2x 60gb v2 jmicron............

what's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiftex

2x 60gb v2 jmicron............

what's your point?

---

My point was that you can setup ATTO to make a drive look better-

What's yours?:shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

My point was that you can setup ATTO to make a drive look better-

What's yours?:shakes:

---

moot at best......point made

hopefully ... Tony can get vertex released with firmware 10 or 9.5 for us overclockers lol

Here's PC Perspectives' new review of the Vertex 120:
http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=670

Outperforms Intel's in most test, and better cost/GB to boot! Curiously, they don't list a 30GB version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headala

Here's PC Perspectives' new review of the Vertex 120:
http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=670

Outperforms Intel's in most test, and better cost/GB to boot! Curiously, they don't list a 30GB version.

---

Lol, did you actually read the whole biased review? :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

Lol, did you actually read the whole biased review? :ROTF:

---

did you even read the review? :rolleyes: Obviously not.

I fail at posting preview news!

Already posted :)

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=51364

A poll has been added to show on how they should configure the firmware on Vertex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

Lol, did you actually read the whole biased review? :ROTF:

---

Could you please post what you see as discrepancies with other non-biased reviews? I would like to learn from your wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headala

Could you please post what you see as discrepancies with other non-biased reviews? I would like to learn from your wisdom.

---

If you can't see the bias in that review, then there's no point in wasting my time talking to you...

Doesn't really matter anyway, I'm happy with my drives.

personally I think that by the time the Firmware has been decided for Vertex and it will be in retail channels, Summit will be so close who will even care about Vertex?
Should have been out at the same time of Apex launch


looking at the poll, low b/w but high IOPs is winning by a fair margin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miwo

looking at the poll, low b/w but high IOPs is winning by a fair margin

---

People are starting to understand something it seems. Good news for all of us. Manufacturers design SSDs to sell to the average consumer and if the average person knows that it is not about the sequential rates, hopefully SSDs will evolve to something that is actually fast and not "fast" in hdtach/hdtune/etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

If you can't see the bias in that review, then there's no point in wasting my time talking to you...

Doesn't really matter anyway, I'm happy with my drives.

---

That's exactly what I thought you would say. :clap: I really don't think you ever even read it; you just made an incendiary remark and then refuse to back it up. :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter to me if the review is biased or not, it's not a personal thing to me. I simply would like to know what there is about it that is biased. Simple question. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

People are starting to understand something it seems. Good news for all of us. Manufacturers design SSDs to sell to the average consumer and if the average person knows that it is not about the sequential rates, hopefully SSDs will evolve to something that is actually fast and not "fast" in hdtach/hdtune/etc.

---

One can only hope. I see all those silly HDTach posts and I ask...okay perty picture...but is it fast? Does it clog up when you try to check your email?

Wow a poll now.. We have been waiting thinking they are ready being firmware fine tuned already and now this poll. Now after this poll it would take atleast a week to fix these then reship out.. GRrrrr No offense but tired of waiting for something that still maybe not pass the Intel SSD and save a buck or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lu(ky

Wow a poll now.. We have been waiting thinking they are ready being firmware fine tuned already and now this poll. Now after this poll it would take atleast a week to fix these then reship out.. GRrrrr No offense but tired of waiting for something that still maybe not pass the Intel SSD and save a buck or two.

---

It definitely will not pass the Intel SSD for performance, but it will be cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

It definitely will not pass the Intel SSD for performance, but it will be cheaper.

---

I was checking out your reviews you did Hertz good job. I think I will bight the bullet when I get home and buy the 2 Intel E Extremes 32GB :up:

Yeah, the presence of a poll worries me as well; I'm thinking, "shouldn't that have been done back in early December when they were announcing the drive???"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by headala

Yeah, the presence of a poll worries me as well; I'm thinking, "shouldn't that have been done back in early December when they were announcing the drive???"

---

But people didn't start complaining about the IOPS till previews of the drive started popping up this past week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lu(ky

I was checking out your reviews you did Hertz good job. I think I will bight the bullet when I get home and buy the 2 Intel E Extremes 32GB :up:

---

Just a quick note: 2x X25-Es in raid 0 was the same performance as 1 for me in all apps. Just in general raid 0 gives little benefit to performance (read the raid sticky if you want to find out why) and in this case it shows even more because single drives are already so fast. I only got two because I needed 64GB of space. If you are fine with 32GB then save your money and get just one; performance is the same.

Another quick note, besides the cache, the adaptec 5405 I have actually SLOWS DOWN the drives versus onboard. You will be perfectly fine with onboard. In fact, I am selling my 5405 and moving to onboard because it is faster in most things and I dont have to deal with 45sec being added to my boot time due to the controller.

Also overall real world write performance degrades about 20% after a lot of use. The only way to get it back is to format the drive. I reformat my array after every month; I have a system set up now that takes an image of my boot array and writes it to one of my storage HDDs then I wipe then I stick the image onto the array again; takes 1.5h-2h overall to do a "refresh".

Sorry for the off topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowfat

But people didn't start complaining about the IOPS till previews of the drive started popping up this past week.

---

LOL, that's true, thanks for pointing that out. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowfat

But people didn't start complaining about the IOPS till previews of the drive started popping up this past week.

---

No, people were complaining about IOPS since the Core drives were first released... I know, I was there- They've known about this for a long time. That's why I don't understand why higher IOPS is not a priority for their Vertex drives-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

No, people were complaining about IOPS since the Core drives were first released... I know, I was there- They've known about this for a long time. That's why I don't understand why higher IOPS is not a priority for their Vertex drives-

---

It WAS a priority and it was MARKETED as a high IOPS drive but look what happened. They might fix it after all. I mean, I am sure Intel faced the same decision when they designed the X25-M of high seq writes versus high IOPS and they went the IOPS route. Intel isn't filled with idiots last time I checked.

Well I dont know what i'm going to get now. I want to get an SSD just as my OS drive, so I imagine I would want a drive with high IOPS right? Does the X25-M fit that need? If it does I may just end up getting that 'cause i'm tired of waiting for the vertex because OCZ is putzing around with the firmware and cant decide what they want to do with the vertex. I, like most people I assume want a drive that opens all my applications super fast and boots my computer super fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxRacR17

Well I dont know what i'm going to get now. I want to get an SSD just as my OS drive...

---

dont let these super RAID guys concern you too much. as a single OS drive (WXPSP2) 30gb V2 runs perfectly fine with the simple reg/OS tweaks and FAT32. you dont need a ramdrive or nothing like that.

my 30gb V2 is about 40-50% faster then my 74gb Raptor according to HDTach.

Your words about HDTach show exactly how much you have a clue about hard drives - please leave any storage discussions mate, you're not helping ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfaunits

Your words about HDTach show exactly how much you have a clue about hard drives - please leave any storage discussions mate, you're not helping ;)

---

im sorry, you misunderstand me. im not saying HDtach is my proof, im just saying that for a single OS drive it runs very well. no quirks, no problems, much noticable improvment over my raptor, im very happy with my V2.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

It WAS a priority and it was MARKETED as a high IOPS drive but look what happened. They might fix it after all. I mean, I am sure Intel faced the same decision when they designed the X25-M of high seq writes versus high IOPS and they went the IOPS route. Intel isn't filled with idiots last time I checked.

---

Are you implying that OCZ is? No company is perfect. Intel haven't always been right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

Just a quick note: 2x X25-Es in raid 0 was the same performance as 1 for me in all apps. Just in general raid 0 gives little benefit to performance (read the raid sticky if you want to find out why) and in this case it shows even more because single drives are already so fast. I only got two because I needed 64GB of space. If you are fine with 32GB then save your money and get just one; performance is the same.

---

Yeah... But i need 150+GB and I have no choice, if not waiting for 32nm SLC or some more creative MLC version.

Quote:

---

Another quick note, besides the cache, the adaptec 5405 I have actually SLOWS DOWN the drives versus onboard. You will be perfectly fine with onboard. In fact, I am selling my 5405 and moving to onboard because it is faster in most things and I dont have to deal with 45sec being added to my boot time due to the controller.

---

I also agree with this. I'm hoping to NOT need a controller. On the other side, one with 2+GB of cache will help handling big video files that i have on the platter disks.

Quote:

---

Also overall real world write performance degrades about 20% after a lot of use. The only way to get it back is to format the drive. I reformat my array after every month; I have a system set up now that takes an image of my boot array and writes it to one of my storage HDDs then I wipe then I stick the image onto the array again; takes 1.5h-2h overall to do a "refresh".

---

Was this supposed to be fixed in the newer batches of units?

Thanks for the OT ;)

Well, I cannot read your mind, what you type is all I can go with, and what you typed was exactly as I interpreted it, there is no place for mistakes.
That it runs good for you? Sure... does that mean that it is better than Raptor even in any way? Hell no, my old 13GB drive runs good, but I sure wouldn't use it nowadays!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThugsRook

im sorry, you misunderstand me. im not saying HDtach is my proof, im just saying that for a single OS drive it runs very well. no quirks, no problems, much noticable improvment over my raptor, im very happy with my V2.

:)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

Are you implying that OCZ is? No company is perfect. Intel haven't always been right!

---

The point I think was that, Intel's drives have been kicking ass for 5 months in desktops tasks and benchmarks due to their high IOP/S. So fiddling around at this time with a delayed product.. Well. you decide ;) Then again OCZ is just a sales company, you can afterall start your own right away if you want to. So they have in all likelihood nothing to do with the delay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilhooley

due to their high IOP/S.

---

How can we tell it's because of the high IOPS? As far as I'm concerned the reason the Intel drives are so good is because of their ability to write/read small sizes fast. The IOPS may or may not be related, people are jumping to that conclusion but I'd like to see some evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

How can we tell it's because of the high IOPS? As far as I'm concerned the reason the Intel drives are so good is because of their ability to write/read small sizes fast. The IOPS may or may not be related, people are jumping to that conclusion but I'd like to see some evidence.

---

LOL is all I have to say at that post. What do you think IOPS means? Inputs/Outputs per second. In other words, the ability of the drive to handle small files quickly, sequentially or randomly. I am going to be laughing at you a little all day long. Thanks, I needed that this Friday :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

LOL is all I have to say at that post. What do you think IOPS means? Inputs/Outputs per second. In other words, the ability of the drive to handle small files quickly, sequentially or randomly. I am going to be laughing at you a little all day long. Thanks, I needed that this Friday :ROTF:

---

Can you prove that IOPS means Inputs/Outputs per second? I want to see some evidence.. Who told you that? I think you're jumping to conclusions- :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

....

---

:slap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

LOL is all I have to say at that post. What do you think IOPS means? Inputs/Outputs per second. In other words, the ability of the drive to handle small files quickly, sequentially or randomly. I am going to be laughing at you a little all day long. Thanks, I needed that this Friday :ROTF:

---

Heh. That's not quite what I meant :P

I'm meaning if there's a spike in a benchmark and it reports 4,000 IOPS that doesn't mean the best drive would be one that can sustain 4,000 IOPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

Heh. That's not quite what I meant :P

I'm meaning if there's a spike in a benchmark and it reports 4,000 IOPS that doesn't mean the best drive would be one that can sustain 4,000 IOPS.

---

I can agree with that sustaining high IOPS for too long is probably unnecessary for most users. It has to be able to spike high though. I see 20k+ IOPS (reads) spikes when loading games but the loading times are quite short and when the game is already running its always sub 100.

LOTS of lulz to be had in that OCZ thread. For example someone said

Quote:

---

"IOPS is huge for many of us. That's specifically why I use RAID0."

---

Of course he is right if he is talking about operations with files that are larger than the stripe size, but I don't think he is lol.

~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...&postcount=156

Why did sequential small writes take such a big dump? Tony?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

I can agree with that sustaining high IOPS for too long is probably unnecessary for most users. It has to be able to spike high though. I see 20k+ IOPS (reads) spikes when loading games but the loading times are quite short and when the game is already running its always sub 100.

LOTS of lulz to be had in that OCZ thread. For example someone said

Of course he is right if he is talking about operations with files that are larger than the stripe size, but I don't think he is lol.

~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...&postcount=156

Why did sequential small writes take such a big dump? Tony?

---

That thread you linked to is very interesting... I thought they might actually get the Vertex to work well, but looking at those numbers is not very encouraging.

Yeah, the IOPS are up, but the speeds are way down. I wonder if that controller is up to the task-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

I see 20k+ IOPS (reads) spikes when loading games but the loading times are quite short and when the game is already running its always sub 100.

---

That's exactly what I'm saying we need more evidence about before we leap to any conclusion.

Sure a drive that drops a lot of sequential speed to run higher IOPS is going to chew through that particular usage example. But when the game is running and it's 100 IOPS then the drive with higher sequential speed would do better.

We just don't know which drive will do better over all. I'm not meaning Intel vs Vertex here, I'm meaning Vertex Firmware vs. Vertex Firmware.

Everybody has leapt aboard this IOPS bandwagon with the assumption that higher IOPS means higher overall performance, but there doesn't exist any proof.

The Intel drive isn't proof of it, since the Intel drive might well achieve such good results because it's simply a better drive, and the higher IOPS capability might just be icing on the cake, or incidental.

I think the only way we're going to see any real evidence one way or the other is if OCZ bench the Vertex with the superfast throughput firmware, and also bench the Vertex with more emphasis on IOPS. Tony did say the superfast throughput firmware did do better on a simulated Windoes load benchmark, but I'd be looking for a bit more of a deeper look. What I suspect is that what one firmware gives, it also takes away, and we'll not see a huge difference overall.

You did mention stripe size, and when my drives arrive I'll be looking at putting a smaller stripe size than 128K on, just to see if it helps with the smaller numbers.

Ultimately though the real world performance of any drive is a blend of how it performs with reads, with writes, with small reads, with small writes, with small writes while it's being asked to do big reads, with small reads while it's being asked to do big writes, with small writes while it's doing small writes somewhere else, etc. Just looking at an ATTO benchmark isn't really going to show that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

LOTS of lulz to be had in that OCZ thread. For example someone said

Of course he is right if he is talking about operations with files that are larger than the stripe size, but I don't think he is lol.

---

Hey Brainiac, that was my post and YES I meant files larger than my stripe size. What about my statement is so surprising to you?

Have you ever watched a Crysis level load before and after you RAID0'd your storage? Or, boot times? Or massive disk to disk / LAN backups? Ok then, STFU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfaunits

...does that mean that it is better than Raptor even in any way?

---

yes, it runs as good or better then a single Raptor.

...im very happy to be off the mechanical monsters :up:

NEWS for the vertex ... new firmware will have MAX IO performance read post #192
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=51364

It looks like OCZ might actually have a good drive with the Vertex if they use that high IO firmware. However, they've only had a very short amount of time to test the firmware and find any issue. I'd be leery of jumping on the Vertex boat right at launch. Might want to wait and see how they actually perform when people get their hands on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

Have you ever watched a Crysis level load before and after you RAID0'd your storage? Or, boot times? Or massive disk to disk / LAN backups? Ok then, STFU.

---

Crysis - no, but all these games: AOE3, left 4 dead, warcraft 3, fallout 3, fear, doom 3, oblivion, silent hill 4 showed no improvement in any loading times in R0 versus single drive. Boot times are consistently a tiny bit slower in R0 versus one drive in windows xp 64 bit and windows 7.

Did they mention a ship date?

For reference...

It looks like OCZ might have realized the error of their ways- Things are looking a little brighter for the Vertex:

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/111498/Pi...VertexHIIO.png

Of course, this is just one benchmark. I'm interested to see the others. Good thing Halk ain't running things over there, or else they'd have a 1 IOPS drive that does 800MB/s... :p:

LOL

Yeah you try checking your email while virus scanning and the file system pops up a window and says GET OUT AND PUSH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimoneX

LOL

Yeah you try checking your email while virus scanning and the file system pops up a window and says GET OUT AND PUSH!

---

Actually, I don't know if it'd be able to even have the Pop up window come up till the virus scan ended...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

Crysis - no, but all these games: AOE3, left 4 dead, warcraft 3, fallout 3, fear, doom 3, oblivion, silent hill 4 showed no improvement in any loading times in R0 versus single drive. Boot times are consistently a tiny bit slower in R0 versus one drive in windows xp 64 bit and windows 7.

---

Wow man, you've got somethin' SERIOUSLY wrong with your R0 setup then. FO3, L4D, FEAR 1 & (2 I'm sure as well) (only games I've tried that you listed) FC2 etc., all are almost halved in load times. I remember going from a 2 VR R0 setup to a 3 VR setup and I specifically remember all of my games showing about a 1/3 decrease in load times. Don't know what you're doin' wrong, but R0 lives up to it's benches when it comes to large file reads and writes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

Wow man, you've got somethin' SERIOUSLY wrong with your R0 setup then. FO3, L4D, FEAR 1 & (2 I'm sure as well) (only games I've tried that you listed) FC2 etc., all are almost halved in load times. I remember going from a 2 VR R0 setup to a 3 VR setup and I specifically remember all of my games showing about a 1/3 decrease in load times. Don't know what you're doin' wrong, but R0 lives up to it's benches when it comes to large file reads and writes.

---

I think what may be happening is that a single X25 has more than enough IOPS for the programs that One_Hertz is using. Whereas your Titan and Raptors are not capable of completely satisfying the programs you were using, thus when you added a drive it improved because your IOPS improved slightly. I do not believe that IOPS improve as well as Throughput on RAID0 configs though. Well, that's my theory at least.

X25- capable of more than enough IOPS by itself
Other MLCs - capable, but can't provide enough IOPS on its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

Wow man, you've got somethin' SERIOUSLY wrong with your R0 setup then. FO3, L4D, FEAR 1 & (2 I'm sure as well) (only games I've tried that you listed) FC2 etc., all are almost halved in load times. I remember going from a 2 VR R0 setup to a 3 VR setup and I specifically remember all of my games showing about a 1/3 decrease in load times. Don't know what you're doin' wrong, but R0 lives up to it's benches when it comes to large file reads and writes.

---

my results are pretty consistent with that review:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16291/5

Back when I went from two raptors to 4 raptors there was also no changes to anything. One to two there was some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

For reference...

It looks like OCZ might have realized the error of their ways

---

First off. Thanks for engaging in the debate. I honestly believe that without people saying "Hang on. I don't agree" then we'd get nowhere.

I do have to ask though, no matter what OCZ do you seem to have a hard on for abusing them.

They don't have a product in line with Intel. It's clear from the price. Who do you spread so much hate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

First off. Thanks for engaging in the debate. I honestly believe that without people saying "Hang on. I don't agree" then we'd get nowhere.

I do have to ask though, no matter what OCZ do you seem to have a hard on for abusing them.

They don't have a product in line with Intel. It's clear from the price. Who do you spread so much hate?

---

It's not hate. OCZ is a company- A Company's main goal is to make a profit.

I am a consumer, my main goal is to get the best product for a price that is fair to me.

As a consumer I have to make sure that a company is not selling me a product that doesn't live up to their marketing-

The OCZ core drive was a product that did NOT live up to their marketing. Not one word was mentioned about stuttering or having to tweak anything to have it operate as written on the box the drive came in. Not only did that waste my money, it wasted A LOT of my time, as I spent well over 60-70 hours working with OCZ to try and get them to work properly.

Now, I understand that SSD is a new technology, but their marketing did not mention 1 thing about incompatibilities with different motherboards and controllers. On the box it stated RAID Support, however they DID NOT work on my RAID controller- They actually became corrupt after a few days use, no matter what configuration they were in.

When I went to the OCZ forum, I was the first or second person to open a thread about the Core SSD drives. You won't see that thread now because they "moved" it. They had no idea about any of these issues that I was having with my drives. This angered me as it showed me that they DID NOT do any kind of thorough testing before releasing a very expensive product. As everyone now knows that it was a very common issue. All I got back from OCZ for a while was that they couldn't recreate the issue in the office, so in their eyes, there was no problem, it's just my system or faulty drives. Actually they didn't even have any drives to work with till about 3 weeks after my first post. I was the one who had to go out looking for a solution, thats when I found MFT and was extremely hopeful about it as I had a nice long talk with Sam Anderson at EasyCo and he helped me get MFT up and running for the first time on a Core drive. I brought it to Tony and Ryder's attention. But in the end, I still had corruption issues due to the drives themselves. I don't care if every other SSD has this issue, as a consumer I am appalled that any of the SSD companies would release a product without proper testing and quality assurance.

As consumers we should not accept this kind of practice from companies that want our hard earned money-

It all boils down to the company did not deliver on promises it made to me, the customer, and only after weeks of "beta" testing for OCZ did they make the situation right. They got their money's worth out of me and the other guys on that forum. I don't want other consumers out there getting taken for a quick buck- So yes, I am going to be hard on any company that touts their product as being great, because I don't want others to be blinded by slick marketing and great reviews.

You may feel like you can trust OCZ Forum employees, But you have to remember that they work for a company that is trying to make money off of our desire to have the best of the best. They make a living off of us purchasing their products- and I am fine with that, I understand completely- They also have to answer to someone about what they write on the forum. OCZ may do few things differently than other companies, and I do like some things about OCZ- But they are still a company selling a product.

I'm just here trying to make sure people make purchases they don't regret- Without people being a pain in the butt on the OCZ forum, Vertex would not be shipping with this new firmware- They would probably have released the Vertex with a different JMicron controller- or whatever was cheapest at the time.

Last thing... the X25-M is not that much more expensive than the Vertex. At launch, yes it was- but as of now, they are in the same price range. $30-40 is not a lot of money when you're talking about $200-300 drives that will be most likely put in pricey desktops- or of course laptops. So don't give me that crap about not being in the same category/class of drive-

Alright- I'm done... you asked Halk, that's why-

While all of the input from the various parties here is very interesting and informative, I am astounded by how upset and rude people can get over personal computer hardware.
If someone bought a Core they should have known that they were stepping into uncertain waters and might get burnt by the pretty new fire. We who bought them were pioneers. It now seems Vertex is shaping up to be a really nice disk with a greater degree of certainty behind it's functionality.

While I agree somewhat, I also think it's inappropriate for hardware...or software manufacturers to essentially beta test products on consumers without their knowledge before hand. It's more than a little difficult to believe SSD manufacturers were unaware of the JMicron controller's inability to handle even small OS tasks without stuttering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saint-francis

While all of the input from the various parties here is very interesting and informative, I am astounded by how upset and rude people can get over personal computer hardware.
If someone bought a Core they should have known that they were stepping into uncertain waters and might get burnt by the pretty new fire. We who bought them were pioneers. It now seems Vertex is shaping up to be a really nice disk with a greater degree of certainty behind it's functionality.

---

So you actually buy hardware that might do nothing more than act as a paperweight? I know there's quirks with new technology, but a hard drive that can't keep good data? or deliver data in a timely manner?? Come on- do you not have any standards for companies?

If you bought the core drive thinking you might not actually be able to use it, then you're an XXXX yeah, I'm being rude again-

It depends how much moola someone shelled out for those first drives. And I know when they first came out they weren't cheap.

Griff

Did OCZ not look after your issue with your drive(s)?

Im getting to the point where i am asking myself what you bring to my forum...and yes it is my forum..I run it.

Please consider OCZ do try to do our best with all our customers, we offered refunds to some which meant we lost heavily on those purchases just to keep those end users happy. We are trying to bring new technology at a price people can afford...not everyone can afford $400 or $500 drives.Yes i was not as knowledgeable about SSD at the start as i am now, im not a flash engineer, but i have researched, tested...battled to gain answers and pulled together a bunch pf people who have even educated the likes of M$. We published partition alignment on SSD way before anyone else, we have also now discovered 128K stripes are just not cutting it with SSD...heck we even published the steadystate work around which other websites are now saying is a good workaround for the slow downs Intel drives have.

I have read your say, and i would hope you will not bring that tone to the OCZ forum...

Did ocz deliver what they promised with the drives?
No.
Did they try to help the customer to get the best out of the drives?
yes.

It shouldnt be suprising you get a ton of crap as you didnt deliver on what was stated.
Your also not ducking the head in the sand regarding the issues.
Which is a great customer benefit.

Vertex looks promising and exactly is what most who want a great desktop expereince needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony

Griff

Did OCZ not look after your issue with your drive(s)?

Im getting to the point where i am asking myself what you bring to my forum...and yes it is my forum..I run it.

Please consider OCZ do try to do our best with all our customers, we offered refunds to some which meant we lost heavily on those purchases just to keep those end users happy. We are trying to bring new technology at a price people can afford...not everyone can afford $400 or $500 drives.Yes i was not as knowledgeable about SSD at the start as i am now, im not a flash engineer, but i have researched, tested...battled to gain answers and pulled together a bunch pf people who have even educated the likes of M$. We published partition alignment on SSD way before anyone else, we have also now discovered 128K stripes are just not cutting it with SSD...heck we even published the steadystate work around which other websites are now saying is a good workaround for the slow downs Intel drives have.

I have read your say, and i would hope you will not bring that tone to the OCZ forum...

---

I only brought this up because Halk asked. And no, I am not bringing this "tone" to the OCZ forums. You can look at my previous posts there, and you'll see that all I am doing is trying to make sure people look at all performance aspects of SSD, not just the max throughput. I know most don't think highly of me, but I know there's a few that appreciate the points that I talk about.

Yes, OCZ is now doing things very differently than before it seems. Which is great- However, as I referenced in the previous post, that kind of support was not always there. I keep reading people on your forum stating to people who are frustrated with their drives, something along the lines of "Customers who buy SSDs should know that you have to tweak things about them to get them to work right" and yet when the Core drives were released, you and everyone else on the forum knew nothing of SSD tweaking. As far as you knew, the Core drives were perfect. So, that's my point- it's very hypocritical to expect all SSD customers know what they are getting into. I'm just looking out for the customers- I'll stop talking about SSD if no one else wants me to. You can ban me, I don't mind. I won't even mention OCZ on this forum anymore if that's what people want-

I do like the new tone that OCZ is taking on the forums though- I was VERY surprised by the firmware decision. Just hope they remember that the average customer doesn't know ALL there is to know about SSD.

Well, I'm done. I don't really feel like talking about this anymore-

Halk brought it up as i feel he was getting a little tired of hearing you moaning.

You have just admitted you prefer what you see on the OCZ forum now, OCZ are learning, they trust what i do with the forum and as yet have not had to tell me to do anything specifically..all you see there especially on the SSD forum is my doing.

I suggest you move on now...im getting tired following you around. Enjoy your new drives...its just a shame they did not work on your raid card to well...same card the core drives were poor on?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=93

Quote:

---

I picked up an X25-M and tried running it on an Adaptec 31605 and it benched like crap. Read/Write speeds were all over the place. With cache on, it did horrible, with cache off, it did not as horrible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

It's not hate. *snip*

---

Same idea with me. I bought two OCZ Core V2 60GB drives right at release (which was just under $500USD mind you), after a few dozen hours of tweaking and trying everything I figured out they were not usable on onboard controller, so I went out and spent another $350-400USD on a good controller to try to fix everything. Dozens more hours later it is still unusable and I am out almost $900 bucks. At that point I just bought Intels. Both the cores and the adaptec 5405 (which turned out to be a horrible raid card for SSDs, which OCZ reps recommend for some reason to this day) are now paper weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony

Halk brought it up as i feel he was getting a little tired of hearing you moaning.

You have just admitted you prefer what you see on the OCZ forum now, OCZ are learning, they trust what i do with the forum and as yet have not had to tell me to do anything specifically..all you see there especially on the SSD forum is my doing.

I suggest you move on now...im getting tired following you around. Enjoy your new drives...its just a shame they did not work on your raid card to well...same card the core drives were poor on?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=93

---

Ha, No, it's the same card (I bought in attempts to get the drives working right, due to recommendation by OCZ) the Core drives didn't even communicate with. At least with the Intel's I could actually use them as a hard drive.

Move on? Yeah, figures companies wouldn't want their crap brought to light-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

the adaptec 5405 (which turned out to be a horrible raid card for SSDs, which OCZ reps recommend for some reason to this day) are now paper weight.

---

Strange you would say that. Sure are a lot of people using that card with success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praz

Strange you would say that. Sure are a lot of people using that card with success.

---

It cuts random reads by 30% or more. It adds latency. Most people aren't aware, simple as that. Sure the cache helps, but there are other raid cards that don't cut the reads and also have cache.

praz heres per one_hertz post^

arc1231 - 512MB
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6756/1231512.png

asr5805 - 512MB
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7968/5805512.png

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=134

^^^^^

Yep. The difference is even more drastic on X25-Es.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony

..all you see there especially on the SSD forum is my doing.

---

Btw, nice of you to take the credit for all the work your customers did on that forum. Just a reminder, you're not the only forum out there that takes input from it's customers. I use other products that have forums where I can actually speak with the software/hardware engineers directly. As well as speak directly with the company VIPs. No need to go through some PR guy who doesn't even know anything about what he's supporting-

Griff, I've got a feeling playtime is about over with.

X25-E is better than the Vertex no? Please some Benchmarks between both SSDs.

[LEFT]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GNU

X25-E is better than the Vertex no? Please some Benchmarks between both SSDs.

---

I'd like to see benchmarks between an X25-E and an array of OCZ drives, preferably Vertex. However I don't think anyone is going to argue that a single X-25 is better than a single Vertex. The Vertex with the new IOPS friendly firmware seems to close the gap a little - it turns out there's a clear advantage with the new firmware.

The X-25 controller would seem to be the best around at the moment. I suspect a higher proportion of the cost of the drive is on the controller than anyone elses.

The Vertex's advantage is price, and when you look at the 30GB drive it just seems to be asking for RAID0.

X-25 owners have said that RAID0 doesn't seem to give any noticable speed increase. Either that means RAID0 doesn't do much, or the drive is already so fast any speed increase isn't going to deliver any real world performance increases. Something factual and absolute is that any file sizes around the stripe size or smaller gain no benefit from RAID. If these file sizes are the ones taking up your drives time then RAID0 isn't going to do anything.

Most reviews of the drives don't look at RAID0, so we'd be relying on an end user who had both an X-25 and a couple of Vertex in RAID0 doing proper testing, and not having an agenda. I just can't see someone who owns an X-25 buying Vertex drives, or vice versa.

At least the good news is that more and more information is coming out about SSD related things, which can only lead to better products, better configurations and pitfalls being avoided.

Ultimately though if an application was going to open in 5 seconds on a mechanical drive, and opens in 1 second on an SSD drive, then RAID0'ing it to shave that down to 0.75 of a second isn't really much of a benefit.

I was quite dubious about the IOPS performance of drives, until the Vertex drive was shown with both a firmware which allows high sequential speeds, and a firmware which facilitates as many IOPS as possible (I assume within reason). The result was lower "simple" benchmarks (which don't mean anything) and better results in simulated "real world" benchmarks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GNU

X25-E is better than the Vertex no? Please some Benchmarks between both SSDs.

---

In what way? Raw performance? I think yes, though many disagree. Performance & value together? I don't think anyone says that.

Vertex isn't even out yet. People can agree and disagree but in the end- no one really knows how it will perform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

[LEFT]However I don't think anyone is going to argue that a single X-25 is better than a single Vertex. The Vertex with the new IOPS friendly firmware seems to close the gap a little - it turns out there's a clear advantage with the new firmware.

---

Wrong. I am going to argue. Overall performance is totally unknown. Don't jump to conclusions that early. Preview results were disappointing, but it may have the potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

Wrong. I am going to argue. Overall performance is totally unknown. Don't jump to conclusions that early. Preview results were disappointing, but it may have the potential.

---

Fair enough. And I suppose that's a good point, the drive isn't out yet. I think X-25 beating performance is just too much to ask though. I disagree that the preview results are disappointing. The results that have been seen so far shows it's not too far behind the X-25, and the drive looks to do exactly what it was designed to do - offer top drawer SSD performance for a good price. I've yet to see an X-25 owner say their system doesn't go very fast, if the Vertex performance is close to the X-25 then that will hold for the Vertex too. And the Vertex can be had for a little over £100 for a 30GB drive which is tight, but big enough for XP, a few apps and games.

I've been comparing my X25-Es to everything they show on OCZ forums in terms of vertex benchies and the X25-E is very consistently at the very least 20% faster. 33K in vantage for a single drive for the X25 vs 23k for vertex, the small writes in ATTO are MANY times faster, small reads a few times faster, IOMeter a few times faster on all settings they showed... Zero tweaks on my end on windows 7.

There isn't even a comparison to begin with as the vertex is aimed at X25-M.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

And the Vertex can be had for a little over £100 for a 30GB drive which is tight, but big enough for XP, a few apps and games.

---

A Samsung SLC 32Gb can be had for even less. SLC alone is superior to MLC and add to that the much better Samsung ARM processor inside these SSDs, and you can completely avoid the risk involved when messing with the OCZ products.

Sure the Vertex's theoritical 2xx Mb/sec transfer rate is big enough to impress people who don't know what really counts in an SSD, but I personally wouldn't want to queue up in the OCZ support fora... again.

I'm not giving OCZ another chance, they had more than one opportunity to provide a decent product and they failed majestically.

I'll stick to my cheap, almost-a-year-old Samsung SLC technology of £70 a pop:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5648/sixsamsungs.jpg
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2...xsamsungs2.jpg

If I were looking to purchase a Vertex, I would be pushing OCZ to put out some defined, expected performance numbers. You think they'll post them before everyone buys the initial batch? ;)

They have ensured that reviewers have the firmware that ships with the drives in time (not a huge amount though!) to get reviews up before the drives come into stock. If they really did have something to hide they wouldn't be doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

They have ensured that reviewers have the firmware that ships with the drives in time (not a huge amount though!) to get reviews up before the drives come into stock. If they really did have something to hide they wouldn't be doing that.

---

I see. Did not see that stated on the forum. Looking forward to it-

Then how come they are contemplating a new firmware with more balanced real life performance...
When will they have the time to send that to reviewers in time...

All to confusing...

What exactly are those Samsung SLC drives you are running Chosen. How many do you have and on what controller?
:)

They've already decided on the new firmware, and have passed that out to (at least some of) the reviewers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XS Janus

What exactly are those Samsung SLC drives you are running Chosen. How many do you have and on what controller?
:)

---

This one, got few of them at £68 each, same place now sells them at £85/ea.
In the screenshot you can see 6 of them (as many as I can fit) on the P5Q Deluxe's ICH10R.
My £400, 192Gb "FusionIO" drive :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chosen.

This one, got few of them at £68 each, same place now sells them at £85/ea.
In the screenshot you can see 6 of them (as many as I can fit) on the P5Q Deluxe's ICH10R.
My £400, 192Gb "FusionIO" drive :D

---

Anyone know why newegg doesnt sell that drive anymore? Is there something wrong with it? I really want to get a SSD to complete my new build but i'm torn between waiting for the vertex, or get the x25-m, or maybe this samsung if I can find it around the same price range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chosen.

A Samsung SLC 32Gb can be had for even less. SLC alone is superior to MLC and add to that the much better Samsung ARM processor inside these SSDs, and you can completely avoid the risk involved when messing with the OCZ products.

---

SLC is twice the cost compared to a MLC drive.
There is no difference between those formats in reads which btw is about 80% of the use.

SLC is obviously a better flash format, and one day the costs comes down to a level which make sense to buy.

flopper
i got a 60gb slc samsung for £114

the same did chosen along with another 500 people in the UK

the problem is that now they are out of stock :D
i don't know if Chosen knows any other source to get them that cheap...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chosen.

This one, got few of them at £68 each, same place now sells them at £85/ea.
In the screenshot you can see 6 of them (as many as I can fit) on the P5Q Deluxe's ICH10R.
My £400, 192Gb "FusionIO" drive :D

---

I cannot afford to spare not even 4 ports on the ich9r, but I do need less overall throughtput. 3 or 4 of the 64gb version would do it with an arc1531ml and total cost <800€

But real prices in eu are several times higher than what chosen paid:
http://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/...tCategory.html

Looks like it was an overstock.

Its just one of those one off deal things (normal pricing is like £380+ in UK), AFAIK they were Korean OEM imports, so only 1 year warranty with the retailer.
I got two of the 64GB Samsung SLCs, intend on RAID 0.
Novatech are going to stock many hundreds of the MLC version for £100 inc VAT (100+ already pre-ordered)
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/s...ml?SAM-SSD64M#
Again still far cheaper than normal price
Only review I can find
http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/743/
Not too shabby.

are you sure the review is of this ssd?

here is the datasheet from samsung, 90 read 70 write

Looks like Raiding them doesn't improve anything much, other than synthetics...
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/149...d_0/index.html

Would love to see SLC drivers compared to Vertex soon and the impac of RAID on real life situations...

When is that big Anandtech SSD review due out?

don't remember if this was posted...
120gb vertex review here:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=299&Itemid=60

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XS Janus

Looks like Raiding them doesn't improve anything much, other than synthetics...
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/149...d_0/index.html

Would love to see SLC drivers compared to Vertex soon and the impac of RAID on real life situations...

When is that big Anandtech SSD review due out?

---

Interesting review there. Even the areca card adds a bit of latency it seems (0.2ms)

This is their conclusion on current SSD testing methods...
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...&limitstart=11

A good standardized tool is needed that will show real life performance... hopefully someone will make one soon and end this endless hype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XS Janus

A good standardized tool is needed that will show real life performance... hopefully someone will make one soon and end this endless hype.

---

If they came out with one, what would we do here on the forum all day?? :eek:

It would be nice though if there was a reliable standard of hard drive benchmarking. It seems that all the ones that exist today are taken out of context. The Benchmark software is fine for the most part, but the results are not interpreted correctly, or they aren't configured correctly to show the proper result.

Well according to Tony over at the OCZ forums, the Vertex will finally be shipping in volume this week, and should be in most online etailers by the end of the week or early next week. Guess I will be holding off on getting an X25-M or E until I see what the consensus is about the 120GB vertex.

I can't wait until Anandtech's review. They sure are taking their sweet time though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxRacR17

Well according to Tony over at the OCZ forums, the Vertex will finally be shipping in volume this week, and should be in most online etailers by the end of the week or early next week. Guess I will be holding off on getting an X25-M or E until I see what the consensus is about the 120GB vertex.

---

Yeah, can't wait to see reviews.

120GB SSD SATA2 Vertex Series Solid State Drive OCZ
OCZSSD2-1VTX120G ETA: 10/03

60GB SSD SATA2 Vertex Series Solid State Drive OCZ
OCZSSD2-1VTX60G ETA: 27/02
http://www.drix.be/supersearchb_page...archterm=solid

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/p...x1y0z1p0s0n0m0

:clap:

I wanna see 60GB drives reviewed as single and raid0 configurations and see how much do they really improve load times and user experience like file copy or installs. I already know that synthetics will look awesome.
If there will be no tangible real application improvement over single drive... I'll most likely be getting one 120GB drive.
But I don't wanna buy two drives myself to test this... and find out for my self... to expensive adventure for me:D Althoug these days if you wanna have new texh you better fork it out... (thinks of his i7, ddr3 sticks and damn overpriced Giga DS4 x58 mobo).... :D

BTW, the prices are too high, and the crippled 30/60gb versions makes a choice even more difficult.

2x80gb intel mlc in raid0 can be a better choice for most.