OCZ Vertex Drives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

Of course it was delayed. It wasn't delayed for months though. You need to realise that people see XS as a source of information, and posting a pack of lies is irresponsible. There's perhaps a grain of truth behind each of them. Yes some people have had problems, yes it was delayed, yes eventually performance can become degraded. But why the enormous exaggerations?

---

I wouldn't say enormous exaggerations- but anyway the problem I see is that how do people even know if their drive is functioning correctly if the benchmarks are not consistent. There needs to be a way to figure out what baseline performance should be for every drive out there-

Then, if performance is not at expected levels, then there needs to be a way to distinguish improper configuration/incompatibilities versus ssd performance degradation.

From what I have seen, no one really knows what standard to expect when benching the Vertex drives, as the benchmarks I have seen are nowhere near consistent. So, I am very interested to see what the "professional" review sites will come up with.

From what I've seen on the OCZ forums, it's a lot of telling people to upgrade their hardware to hardware that was created within the last couple months, which is asinine- If there is going to be a requirement like that, there should be a very well placed disclaimer on all places where these drives are sold. Where is the compatibility list? After the Core drive issues, I would have thought a compatibility list would have been produced for all future products- As well as a proper configuration for each-

Anyone else on the same page as me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

This version works for the Intel drives, later ones don't.

---

Thanks :up:

In regard to HDDerase 3.30. You'll need to shut off AHCI in order for it to see the drives though. Also I could not get it to work with my EX58-DS4. It would lock up before recognizing the drives. I had to use use it on a different AMD system.

Hm we'll see.. respective test systems are a DFI 680i LT (2 years old - probably the last 680i alive :ROTF:) and an EX58-Extreme...

Also it won't see the drives on your 5405, you will need to plug the drive dirrectly to the mobo. (At least in my experience.)

Guys I won't be using them on my HW raidcons... nor in my personal rigs either, for that matter :(
Let's just hope the 680i doesn't totally bottleneck the poor drive lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

1. Does degradation affect real use performance? (I can answer this at least for the X25-E. No).

2. If the time taken to overwrite a cell is quantifiable the drop in performance should match depending on how much data is being overwritten. (If it isn't that would seem to raise more questions).

3. Does degradation occur quicker on smaller drivers in comparison to larger drives? (If it doesn't that would seem to raise more questions).

I'm just an end user of SDD technology trying to work this out. Thanks for hearing me out.

---

this is what people should concentrate on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karateo

this is what people should concentrate on

---

Thanks Karateo,

I've moved my post to a new thread as this is an SDD issue not a Vertex bashing issue. (And yes I blame myself for making it look that way.) Constructive views on a generic SDD level are most welcome.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...54#post3706154

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

the problem I see is that how do people even know if their drive is functioning correctly if the benchmarks are not consistent. There needs to be a way to figure out what baseline performance should be for every drive out there-

---

I think you're right on the money there. We've seen that results that are worse on ATTO are actually better in real use. The traditional low level benchmarks are pretty much useless for everything bar sustained transfer speeds, and for most purposes those don't relate to the general performance of the drive in any real way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

Then, if performance is not at expected levels, then there needs to be a way to distinguish improper configuration/incompatibilities versus ssd performance degradation.

---

Right. And from there people can see if for example their motherboard is 15% worse than it should be, etc. And from that point we can then go on to really find out what stripe size works best, what tweaks work and what don't, what effect RAID0 and RAID5 have, if a RAID controller does scale up right... etc etc. Until then we don't really have any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

From what I have seen, no one really knows what standard to expect when benching the Vertex drives, as the benchmarks I have seen are nowhere near consistent. So, I am very interested to see what the "professional" review sites will come up with.

---

Dead right there again. It was pretty much at the time of Vertex being launched that all these revelations came into the "public eye", so to speak. Up until then we'd all been focused on sustained read/write performance, and it took a fair bit of convincing to set the see-saw of opinion in entirely the other direction. I think it's pretty much widely accepted by anyone who either is interested in hardware or does a bit of research before buying that the sustained rates are not the whole picture. It's reasonable to assume that there is some link between overall performance and the sustained rates - but it's not a direct link, generally speaking a drive that's faster overall will be faster at sustained transfers too. However there's now at least 2 drives out there that have sacrificed some level of sustained performance in order to get better overall performance. We know the Intel drives have a lot of controller work in the background to smooth things out, and we know the Vertex has internal cache and an IOP favouring firmware. Perhaps the reason for the lack of reviews is simply because the hardware sites don't want to produce a review with no real benchmarks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griff805

From what I've seen on the OCZ forums, it's a lot of telling people to upgrade their hardware to hardware that was created within the last couple months, which is asinine- If there is going to be a requirement like that, there should be a very well placed disclaimer on all places where these drives are sold. Where is the compatibility list? After the Core drive issues, I would have thought a compatibility list would have been produced for all future products- As well as a proper configuration for each-

---

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you there. I think it tends to fall into a couple of categories. The first is mainly the JMicron drives where people have been advised that their motherboard SATA controllers are bad. This is pretty much true, however the workarounds do seem to get round it in the vast majority of situations. It's no surprise that motherboards are designed with what labels the manufacturer can stick on the box in mind, rather than future proof for what technology might be around the corner. The whole SATA standard is at best deliberately misleading. They don't want things labelled SATA 2 or SATA 3. They want them labelled SATA 3Gb and SATA 6Gb. My opinion is that they want to be able to shout big numbers, and the fact that the hardware just is not capable is a side issue.

The other category is where the performance from the drive doesn't meet the performance from other drives with different controllers. I don't know what OCZ can or should do about this. Expecting them to test every single motherboard out there is too much, it's not done with RAM either and that's a more mature market than SSDs. Certainly there's no disclaimers on memory that state : "This memory is rated at 1066, however your motherboard could be a 2 year old one which won't run it." I think the onus is on both the motherboard manufacturers and the SATA-IO (the standards organisation). The SATA-IO are happy to brand equipment that is patently not fit for purpose, simply because they did not anticipate anyone could use it at the rated speeds, motherboard manufacturers as I've said were happy to market hardware that worked with everything currently available, but didn't really do what they advertised. It's along the same lines as advertising a wrist watch that can withstand a nuclear bomb. Nobody is ever going to test that it can withstand a nuclear bomb, but it's good enough that a car can drive over it without the face cracking. All of a sudden SSD drives appeared and the equipment sucks.

Having said all that though, most people have either resolved the problem, or found out that their laptop is crippled to use SATA1. For those expecting their motherboard to deliver RAID0 performance I think it's nobodies fault but their own for assuming that - and again probably the motherboard manufacturer for not stating that : This motherboard is rated at SATA 3.0Gb but can't actually deliver it, and you can just plain forget trying to run RAID0 to increase performance since due to the chipset constraints we used a PCI lane (or an x1 PCIe 1.0)to connect the Southbridge to the Northbridge.

I think all in all the OCZ community has done a great deal towards advancing knowledge of SSD technology, and most of the problems are not related to what OCZ actually sells, it's down to Windows being optimised for mechanical drives and as I've said hardware not actually being capable of what the manufacturer claims (or probably more exactly what they imply). Why that has happened I don't know if it can all be put down to OCZ's credit. Perhaps the problems with the JMicron controllers helped the OCZ forum, perhaps it's just a fluke it happened with OCZ forums and not one of the other companies that sold JMicron controller drives. I believe it's at least partly due to the way OCZ operate that they're the ones who have the forum everybody reads.

As far as what's in store for SSD in the future I very much hope that SSD on SATA is not the only way. The SATA standard is not set by companies making SSDs, it's set by large PC vendors and mechanical drive makers. I don't for one second believe that they're going to turn around and admit that SSD exposed their marketing spin. Nor do I suppose they're going to go hell for leather towards doing all they can to help SSD technology. SSDs don't actually need SATA, currently SSD manufacturers are taking new technology and making it into old technology. There's no reason why things like Fusion drives can't be mainstream in a year or a few years without any need for a SATA controller to connect to the SATA controller on the drive. Just whack it into a PCIe slot.

Edit : I should probably link this page of cynical spin from the SATA-IO. Notice how they are insisting the technology must be referred to as SATA 6.0Gb for marketing purposes. The same way they wanted SATA2 to be referred to as SATA3.0Gb in marketing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

Edit : I should probably link this page of cynical spin from the SATA-IO. Notice how they are insisting the technology must be referred to as SATA 6.0Gb for marketing purposes. The same way they wanted SATA2 to be referred to as SATA3.0Gb in marketing.

---

Hehe, I LOLed at that one. Who the heck is going to call it SATA 6 Gb/s+? :rofl: Next thing they will demand "Serial Advanced Technology Attachment Six Billion Bit Per Seconds Plus". Piss off!

It's not used - it's pre-owned.
It's not a car - it's a vehicle.
It's not a mattress - it's a sleeping system.
It's not a toilet - it's a porcelain bowel movement receptacle!

Here is an Atto after I have finished installing all my games and programs. The drive is 45% full and the drive has been used as an OS drive for 4 days. I am not sure why it is faster than my previous screenshot (post 51) but I definitely havent experienced any slowdown yet.

well technology has its price.
The usage patterns also depends on who is using the drives also.
usb keys is a common and as are mp3 players so flash has been around a long time.

ssd has advance as much so several options occours,
software OS isnt done for ssd, the controller isnt good enough yet, so ssd is breaching into several different areas at the same time more or less taking the hardware manufacture and software with suprise.

1. OS not optimized.
2. Benchmarking programs not showing the picture.
3. hardware lagging.

its a mess ;)

My ssd as I use them work fine, and my desktop is snappy and as I want it to be.
However, Vertex and intels ssd, is just better due to controllers and cache.

The field havent matured yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by babalouj

Here is an Atto after I have finished installing all my games and programs. The drive is 45% full and the drive has been used as an OS drive for 4 days. I am not sure why it is faster than my previous screenshot (post 51) but I definitely havent experienced any slowdown yet.

---

babalouj, you seem to be bucking the trend:confused: Have you applied any tweaks? if so did you apply them after the first benchmark? I've attached the excel sheet if you want to keep track of how the drive performs over time. I've put a formula in the % variation cells so they will automatically change if you change the figures in column B,C F or G.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

babalouj, you seem to be bucking the trend:confused: Have you applied any tweaks? if so did you apply them after the first benchmark? I've attached the excel sheet if you want to keep track of how the drive performs over time. I've put a formula in the % variation cells so they will automatically change if you change the figures in column B,C F or G.

---

The only tweaks I have applied is turning off indexing and defrag. I am using this drive on my EP45-UD3R using the ICH10R controller and the newest .1014 Intel Chipset drivers. As far as the speed increase, it may be the new sata cable I am using. I was using a sata 1 24" cable and now I am using a sata II 12" cable.

It would be interesting to see how things develop if you can spare the time.

Where is the raid -0- Vertex benches? I bought one Vertex 30Gb now waiting for some reviews and benches on the raid -0-. But all I see is WW3 against this drive now wow. I see everyone running out buying the Intel E, and I thought this one keeps up with it for a better price am I missing something here? When ever I see a posting of this ssd it is followed by a bashing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lu(ky

Where is the raid -0- Vertex benches? I bought one Vertex 30Gb now waiting for some reviews and benches on the raid -0-. But all I see is WW3 against this drive now wow. I see everyone running out buying the Intel E, and I thought this one keeps up with it for a better price am I missing something here? When ever I see a posting of this ssd it is followed by a bashing.

---

There aren't any direct comparisons at this time. Just wait, hopefully some review site will do a proper review.

It SEEMS to be a decent drive for the money. It also seems to be slower than X25-M at most of the canned benchmarks (basically everything but sequential large writes), but it is also slightly cheaper and available in 30GB sizes. However there isn't even a single review comparing the two with the recent firmware so no real world comparisons yet, which are what's important because canned benchmarks are questionable at this point. Just wait for some to come out.

I just ordered from newegg 3x vertex 60GB and Adaptec 5405

I will set all ssds in raid0 and i will run some benchmark when i receive it :)

I hope i will not regret :D

http://ssdtoolkit.com/2009/03/10/ssd...el-x25-m-80gb/
x25 vs vertex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audienceofone

Wrong. Tony (OCZ) is saying "you have to align" with Vista 64 as well as disable indexing and prefetch on the Vertex.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=52462

---

"align is auto in vista but you may find manual align gives a littrle extra speed."

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...t=52216&page=7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lu(ky

Where is the raid -0- Vertex benches? I bought one Vertex 30Gb now waiting for some reviews and benches on the raid -0-. But all I see is WW3 against this drive now wow. I see everyone running out buying the Intel E, and I thought this one keeps up with it for a better price am I missing something here? When ever I see a posting of this ssd it is followed by a bashing.

---

Too many people upset that they emptied their bank account on X25's!
They don't won't other drives that are cheaper threatening their performance crown! Let's face it no one want's to feel like they wasted a ton of money!

I have 2x 30gb raid0 On ICH10R, performance is amazing so far as haven't used KillDisk.
Never had a SSD before, so wasn't sure what to expect! System is fluid and very snappy, system starts up extremely quickly i.e. one XP bar and then welcome screen and then fully loaded desktop. Benchmarks are still strong.

Total Cost = £220 + 6.99 postage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhys

Too many people upset that they emptied their bank account on X25's!
They don't won't other drives that are cheaper threatening their performance crown! Let's face it no one want's to feel like they wasted a ton of money!

I have 2x 30gb raid0 On ICH10R, performance is amazing so far as haven't used KillDisk.
Never had a SSD before, so wasn't sure what to expect! System is fluid and very snappy, system starts up extremely quickly i.e. one XP bar and then welcome screen and then fully loaded desktop. Benchmarks are still strong.

Total Cost = £220 + 6.99 postage

---

Thanks but I have Vista Ultimate x64 and I already have one 30GB I have 2 more in my newegg basket telling me to hurry..:p: I have no plans using a raid card only ICH10R for now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koc

I just ordered from newegg 3x vertex 60GB and Adaptec 5405

I will set all ssds in raid0 and i will run some benchmark when i receive it :)

I hope i will not regret :D

---

Don't forget to post HDtach, HDtune and CrystalDisk results...:rolleyes:

/end sarcasm...:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhys

Too many people upset that they emptied their bank account on X25's!
They don't won't other drives that are cheaper threatening their performance crown! Let's face it no one want's to feel like they wasted a ton of money!

I have 2x 30gb raid0 On ICH10R, performance is amazing so far as haven't used KillDisk.

Total Cost = £220 + 6.99 postage

---

:rolleyes:

Your 30GB Vertex' are $4.50/GB
An X25-M is $4.53/GB. I highly call that significantly cheaper.

I bought my X25-M after Vertex' release and don't regret it one bit. The Vertex' are a great budget drive, but remember they still fall significantly short in small random writes and IOPS. So no need to start flame baiting and trolling. :down:

vertex does fine in small random writes, its core/corev2 that were particularly bad at it