SSD Corsair Force 3 120/240Gb annunced

Based on Sandforce SF-2xxx:
http://www.corsair.com/solid-state-d...ard-drive.html


http://www.corsair.com/media/catalog..._top_240gb.png

240Gb (499$):
Sequential Read/Write (using ATTO Disk Benchmark)
550 MB/s sequential read — 520 MB/s sequential write 85K IOPs (4K aligned)
.
Interface
SATA 6Gb/s


120Gb (220$):

Sequential Read/Write (using ATTO Disk Benchmark)
550 MB/s sequential read — 510 MB/s sequential write 85K IOPs (4K aligned) :eek:


Really good 120Gb price and I will hope confirm 4k iops :up:

Nice nice! :) Unfortunately, the marvel controller on my ud7 doesn't support raid0 ... and i already have 2 F60's in Raid0 ... so ... meh ... i'll upgrade my SSD's when i upgrade my platform :D

all that speed and no cache.
but it uses asynchronous nand , which is like ddr mlc vs sdr mlc
133mbit vs 40mbit

Available in 60GB also

very tempting getting one of those...

Nice speeds, and great price.

How reliable are they compared to ocz drives?

crazy crazy speed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kam03

How reliable are they compared to ocz drives?

---

if you want reliability go with samsung or intel and stay away from all indilinx (they're the worst) and sandforce based drives ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

if you want reliability go with samsung or intel and stay away from all indilinx (they're the worst) and sandforce based drives ;)

---

so which model should i buy that will offer me the best performance and reliability?

Thanks

Anyone know if this are the force gt that was previously announced ? or this is just another different model ? the specs looks the same, but the force gt had a red enclosure ! :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kam03

so which model should i buy that will offer me the best performance and reliability?

Thanks

---

for ultimate reliability i'd go with the Samsung 470 series because samsung is the only manufacturer with a 100% clean track record in terms of firmware updates + hardware (there were no major issues at all with samsung drives) despite their weaker performance

Intel SSD320 is a better performer and should be just as reliable (the controller on this drive has gone through 3 revisions by now and can be found on X25-m G1 and G2, the only thing they changed is the firmware and NAND)

i'd try to stay away from other drives for some time because they still have to prove themselves to be very reliable and alot of controllers created some serious problems over time (there is a reason why most OEMs stick to samsung and intel)

Waiting a test between this one and the Vertex3 ... In term of performance, the Corsair 120gb, will maybe be the choice vs the 120gb one ..... for the other density, it's another problem.

Aligned?Who cares about aligned?The M4 remains a bargain and better performer compared to SF based drives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

crazy crazy speed

---

Hate to agree wit hyou.... :shakes:

So when will James do another PCmark round!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

for ultimate reliability i'd go with the Samsung 470 series because samsung is the only manufacturer with a 100% clean track record in terms of firmware updates + hardware (there were no major issues at all with samsung drives) despite their weaker performance

---

I assume you are limiting your discussion to SSDs. They had HDD faults.

How good is the Intel 510 series? is it as reliable as 320?

I wonder what the random 4K R/W are? If they're not bragging about them, it's a potential cause for a concern. DRAM type is also unknown.

The performance facts will come out in a good head to head review. Regardless, I'll likely be going ahead on the Vertex 3 MaxIOPS 240GB, simply because I don't feel like waiting until July for these new drives to materialize. Overall performance is likely to be closely comparable, with one drive winning some benches and the other winning some, not enough to justify waiting a full month or more.

Also noticed the MTBF for the Corsair is 1,000,000 hours vs the 2,000,000 for the Vertex 3...may just be marketing BS, but it's a spec nonetheless.

ram cache is n/a
seems like the vertex 3 didn't have a ram cache either , from the reviews showing its insides
these drive seem to be using ddr mlc 2.0 , with 133 m/t
the corsair just a different brand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg83

ram cache is n/a
seems like the vertex 3 didn't have a ram cache either , from the reviews showing its insides
these drive seem to be using ddr mlc 2.0 , with 133 m/t
the corsair just a different brand

---

Sorry, meant to say NAND type...Intel/Micron 25nm or 35nm toggle like the MaxIOPS?

Also no information as to UBE ratios. A habit from nearly all SSD companies that I find distressing (as it's not alleviating any concerns on data integrity). I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with the SanDisk/Pliant purchase.

Guys...you do know they are quoting 85k SEQUENTIAL 4K IOPs?

This drive is basically the same as Agility3....vertex3 and MaxIO are faster drives

This is my next drive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony

Guys...you do know they are quoting 85k SEQUENTIAL 4K IOPs?

---

According to this post :http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...5&postcount=70

It's 85k IOPS for random write 4k aligned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khoral

According to this post :http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...5&postcount=70

It's 85k IOPS for random write 4k aligned.

---

LOL oh really

if thats the case ask them to supply the test file they used ;)

^ Don't know if you missed the edit:

Edit : Finally got it from Corsair by mail
"The 85K IOPs number is 4K, 100% random, 100% write, 4K sector-alignment, using IOmeter 2008. This was done using an Intel P67 system, using the latest Intel RST drivers."

if this is random writes I would like to see the bench run independantly on a 120GB unit with the whole of the drive used for a test file...NOT the 8GB or so we here some use ;)

OCZ spec drives with the whole of the drive used for test...

The OCZ forum uses 22000000 sectors or 11GB as we don't like customers wearing drives out needlessly.


If force3 is built with async nand the is no way its faster than Vtx3 as thats sync nand.

I smell dodgy marketing LOL

who ever sent that email to Corsair, get them to send you the test config they used for IOmeter, pass it to me so I can play here with my drives

Because ocz can only have the fastest drives

Why someone compare Force3 120GB and his 220$ with Vertex3 @300/320$ and not with Solid3 120GB @230$?
After that, we can continue with dodge marketing like iops, data set dimension and long QD and don't forget compressible/incompressible files...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

Because ocz can only have the fastest drives

---

ha. nice try. :rofl:

if the difference is too big, something is up, by now you should have figured out that differences between products are all within a "believable" margin :)

Hope that random numbers are true, I'll wait to see the price or I'll get a M4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

ha. nice try. :rofl:

if the difference is too big, something is up, by now you should have figured out that differences between products are all within a "believable" margin :)

---

I have some ocz ddr 3500 ram that never did what the review sites got with there kits.

Ohh wait ocz is the fastest and best and no other company can make fast drives,not even corsair! :down:

seeing someone from ocz post in every ssd thread putting down the other drives is getting old.

asking for how they did their test != "putting down other drives".
but meh.
go on and believe in the most sensationalist story you want ;)

UPDATE:
http://www.corsair.com/blog/corsair-...gn=SocialMedia

Test Procedure
ATTO is a relatively easy setup.

Sequential Read/Write Performance Test (ATTO)
1. Run ATTO Disk Benchmark
2. Select Queue Depth=10
3. Select the target drive letter and click start

http://www.corsair.com/media/cms/Blo...ies_3/F3_1.jpg

IOMeter 2008 IOPS Test (4k Aligned)

Here are the settings and procedures we use to measure IOPS.

http://www.corsair.com/media/cms/Blo...ies_3/F3_8.jpg http://www.corsair.com/media/cms/Blo...ies_3/F3_2.jpg

http://www.corsair.com/media/cms/Blo...ies_3/F3_4.jpg http://www.corsair.com/media/cms/Blo...ies_3/F3_6.jpg

Those screenshots tell the story.

UPDATE Force3 120/240GB with PCmark Vantage:
http://www.corsair.com/blog/corsair-...tage-advantage

Force Series 3 120GB

http://www.corsair.com/media/cms/Blo...ntage_copy.jpg

Force Series 3 240GB

http://www.corsair.com/media/cms/Blo...ntage_copy.jpg

Compare:
http://thessdreview.com/wp-content/u...ge-SATA-31.jpg

Force3 120GB: want:)

When is it going to be available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Force3 120GB: want:)

When is it going to be available?

---

Next days: in Germany, from 28/5 to 31/5 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Force3 120GB: want:)

When is it going to be available?

---

Mine is already ordered from Inet.se in sweden :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Force3 120GB: want:)

When is it going to be available?

---

Is available @newegg now

Im tempted, really,.... but i have 2 solutions, take a second good old C300 and make a raid0 so i will get a bigger "partition" for my main C: , or take a OCZ III or this corsair, use it as main C, and use the old C300 for "additional softwares " ... The C300 raid 0 will still stay limited on the write speed vs VertexIII or ForceIII.... And i can still buy a second Corsair then for do a Raid0..

Got mine ordered early yesterday morning before anyone else knew it was in stock, in transit out of NJ. Price was $219 after $15 coupon and Fatwallet CB. I hope this is faster than my c300's and look forward to being blown away on my old ip35 sata II board:rofl:
at the least I hope the random reads are a lot better. I've thought of puting my c300's in raid but I'd had to lose trim. Fudzilla posted yesterday about the misleading MAX 4k IOPS of 85,000 being only a maxium transfer over a small portion of the drive. Not really sure I understand that but I hope it's not significant.

I think i'll get a 240GB one when I'm building my new RIG :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

Is available @newegg now

---

$234.99:clap:

It's much cheaper than Vertex 3.:up:

The 240GB is out of stock on amazon! and it's cheaper than the Vertex 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

$234.99:clap:

It's much cheaper than Vertex 3.:up:

---

We should be comparing the Force Series 3 with Agility 3. Both are using Asynchronous NAND
OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB $234.99 ($209.99 after mail-in rebate card)

Vertex 3 is using Synchronous NAND (MSRP $249.99)
OCZ Vertex 3 VTX3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB @299.99

With OCZ you cant be sure you will get what they tell you will get.
Companies should pay the price for being dishonest with their clients.
Im not big fan of sandforce tho either way :-/ .Seems like crucial or intel is the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

We should be comparing the Force Series 3 with Agility 3. Both are using Asynchronous NAND
OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB $234.99 ($209.99 after mail-in rebate card)

Vertex 3 is using Synchronous NAND (MSRP $249.99)
OCZ Vertex 3 VTX3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB @299.99

---

Why would you not compare it to the vertex 3? its performance is right there with it.

my first and last sandforce drive...

i buy and used for 2 week one agility3 and vertex3.....

throttling is near the corner and i hate this sensation on instability/low performance incoming.....

today i buy a Crucial M4 128gb..... bye bye ocz.... and sandforce....

Andea, you experienced throttling issues ? Can you give some examples of your usage ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felix_w

Andea, you experienced throttling issues ? Can you give some examples of your usage ?

---

2 accidental event...

one defrag (scheduled)

one avi file not compressed.


ok is accidet, but with my drive i wanna make everythink.... not worries about longevity.... but i need costant performance from the first to the last days....

Ok, i see..

defrag issue will be the same with every ssd product i guess....but since compressed/incompressed file performance of SF drives has a large gap, M4 may be a fine solution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felix_w

Ok, i see..

defrag issue will be the same with every ssd product i guess....but since compressed/incompressed file performance of SF drives has a large gap, M4 may be a fine solution

---

ok defrag is useless, but if i accidentally run on NON SANDFORCE drive, the performance remain the same....

with sandforce.... 2 solutio:

secure erase (too much time to do it)
Whait a pair of day's (LOL)

sandforce FAIL (for me)

SSD are still too ridiculously expensive. I just cannot see spending that kind of money and trusting my data on a drive/technology that has not been time tested to the extent that Magnetic HDD storage has been.

I would have thought after what 3 years now these things would be at a reasonable price point to encourage people to start transitioning over by the masses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

We should be comparing the Force Series 3 with Agility 3. Both are using Asynchronous NAND

Vertex 3 is using Synchronous NAND (MSRP $249.99)

---

What is the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

SSD are still too ridiculously expensive. I just cannot see spending that kind of money and trusting my data on a drive/technology that has not been time tested to the extent that Magnetic HDD storage has been.

I would have thought after what 3 years now these things would be at a reasonable price point to encourage people to start transitioning over by the masses.

---

I agree with you, this put the To at more of 1000 dollars (and again, here it's more 1600dollars ( 400dollars for a 240-256) .... who is completely crazy when you can buy a WD Black 1To Sata6 for ... less of 100$ ..

But personally i use SSD's only for the software and main C:, all files are stored in 2 HDD of 1to + i have 2 old WD blue 500go for my old files ....
There's absolutely no interest to use a SSD for storage..

1st user reports, I wish I knew enough japanese to ask this guy some questions.
http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns

http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns

Edited post. (wrong ssd previously, here is Force 3) http://club.coneco.net/ImgPopUp.aspx...&rd=66707&ps=1

here is another post which looks good: http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

I agree with you, this put the To at more of 1000 dollars (and again, here it's more 1600dollars ( 400dollars for a 240-256) .... who is completely crazy when you can buy a WD Black 1To Sata6 for ... less of 100$ ..

But personally i use SSD's only for the software and main C:, all files are stored in 2 HDD of 1to + i have 2 old WD blue 500go for my old files ....
There's absolutely no interest to use a SSD for storage..

---

My reluctance is with the initial data writing to the O.S prior to it being written to the storage Array. Most people work with Data within the Operating System prior to saving it. Like I initially stated the technology has not been put through the paces for years by the majority so I will not trust it for my data prior to that being done. So, I will stay with time proven and tested slower magnetic recording technology until that time comes. Although SHA-1 & MD5 Checksum generation and validation on the grounds of a personal scientific study could answer these questions and concerns that I raise.

Perhaps at some point I may be inclined to carry these tests out to satisfy my own personal curiosity.

here are benches from different people http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6994/ssdze.jpg
Not as impressive as I had hoped considering this program shows maximum throughput.

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...pgsVfpGkZ_7yOw

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3041/26590586.jpg

AS SSD (my c300 does better than this):
http://www1.axfc.net/uploader/Sc/lin...=Sc_239109.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

Why would you not compare it to the vertex 3? its performance is right there with it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

What is the difference?

---

Corsair Force Series GT ~ OCZ Vertex 3
Corsair Force Series 3 ~ OCZ Agility 3

The Force GT and Vertex 3 uses Synchronous NAND which are more expensive than Asynchronous NAND and are faster with uncompressed data

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

SSD are still too ridiculously expensive. I just cannot see spending that kind of money and trusting my data on a drive/technology that has not been time tested to the extent that Magnetic HDD storage has been.

I would have thought after what 3 years now these things would be at a reasonable price point to encourage people to start transitioning over by the masses.

---

I always have the exact same thoughts. I'm always on the fence on buying an SSD BUT I simply can't justify the purchase. I can deal with the slower load times and such because the money for one really isn't anywhere near worth it at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by th3pwn3r

I always have the exact same thoughts. I'm always on the fence on buying an SSD BUT I simply can't justify the purchase. I can deal with the slower load times and such because the money for one really isn't anywhere near worth it at this point.

---

Well, ssd for data storage is absurd for the time being.
However, i see you bought 36gig raptor which was around 30% faster than normal 7200 drives and cost per GB was 3x.
SSD for system/programs gives you MUCH MUCH MUCH more speed than 30% .Theres no point at this time to NOT have an ssd for a boot drive.
It really makes all this inefficient windows os/NET framework much more bearable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

Corsair Force Series GT ~ OCZ Vertex 3
Corsair Force Series 3 ~ OCZ Agility 3

The Force GT and Vertex 3 uses Synchronous NAND which are more expensive than Asynchronous NAND and are faster with uncompressed data

---

Im new to this but what do you mean by uncompressed data?I just got a corsair force sata 2 ssd and dont know if I need to compress it to get faster performance.

So the force gt is going to be even faster than this drive?Im about to upgrade to a faster drive and will hold off if the GT is that much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XRL8

Well, ssd for data storage is absurd for the time being.
However, i see you bought 36gig raptor which was around 30% faster than normal 7200 drives and cost per GB was 3x.
SSD for system/programs gives you MUCH MUCH MUCH more speed than 30% .Theres no point at this time to NOT have an ssd for a boot drive.
It really makes all this inefficient windows os/NET framework much more bearable.

---

Yea, I bought that drive back when I was like 20 years old(I'm now 26) and living paycheck to paycheck while living in a craphole, party apartment with 4 buddies =/ These days I wouldn't spend on something like that. I'm actually surprised the drive is still going to this day, my cousin purchased one from the same batch and his went down over a year ago.

5 reviews so far. Not stellar. I'm disappointed in this, thinking of refusing the order. Which drive is as reliable as the c300 but will be noticably faster other than M4?
http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scwam

5 reviews so far. Not stellar. I'm disappointed in this, thinking of refusing the order. Which drive is as reliable as the c300 but will be noticably faster other than M4?

---

Intel 510 is fast as M4.

(Intel 510 250GB = Crucial M4 256GB performance, perhaps 120GB little less than 128GB).

Really. Why have a lot forums said the Intel 320 is faster than the 510? I kept reading people recommending it over the 510. If it's faster than the 320 than I might get the 510 instead because I was considering the 320. I'm strictly speakign of the 120gb models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scwam

5 reviews so far. Not stellar. I'm disappointed in this, thinking of refusing the order.

---

Same performance as the Agility 3 and Solid 3 drives I have here. People are jumping head first because of the 85000 IOPs marketing. Once the IOMeter configuration screenshots were posted this result should have been put in perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praz

Same performance as the Agility 3 and Solid 3 drives I have here. People are jumping head first because of the 85000 IOPs marketing. Once the IOMeter configuration screenshots were posted this result should have been put in perspective.

---

Yes, and OCZ wasted no time to "correct" specifications: :D

http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-ver...i-2-5-ssd.html
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-ver...i-2-5-ssd.html
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-agi...i-2-5-ssd.html

"Maximum 4K Random Write: 85,000 IOPS"

"Small file I/O performance is measured using Iometer2008, Queue Depth 32, 4KB Aligned; Logical Block Address (LBA) range: 85% of total drive capacity"

"Small file I/O performance is measured using Iometer2008, Queue Depth 32, 4KB Aligned; Logical Block Address (LBA) range: 8GB Incompressible"

Oh, I love marketing :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilgamesh

Yes, and OCZ wasted no time to "correct" specifications: :D

http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-ver...i-2-5-ssd.html
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-ver...i-2-5-ssd.html
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-agi...i-2-5-ssd.html

"Maximum 4K Random Write: 85,000 IOPS"

"Small file I/O performance is measured using Iometer2008, Queue Depth 32, 4KB Aligned; Logical Block Address (LBA) range: 85% of total drive capacity"

"Small file I/O performance is measured using Iometer2008, Queue Depth 32, 4KB Aligned; Logical Block Address (LBA) range: 8GB Incompressible"

Oh, I love marketing :rofl:

---

who was it who bit into the corsair spin??????

all we did is show apples to apples which is what people blinded by spin need to see ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony

who was it who bit into the corsair spin??????

all we did is show apples to apples which is what people blinded by spin need to see ;)

---

For me, this was a good opportunity to reveal that Ocz tests its ssd with 85% of total drive capacity and not with "whole drive used for test file" ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilgamesh

For me, this was a good opportunity to reveal that Ocz tests its ssd with 85% of total drive capacity and not with "whole drive used for test file" ;)

---

Your post was in response to mine. And IOMeter tests had nothing to do with my post. The CDM/AS SSD results that users are starting to post are the same or slightly less then what I am getting with the Solid 3 drive. So users are paying a $30.00 - $40.00 premium for a product that brings nothing more to the table over the Solid 3. And as long as you are going to quote OCZ specified performance claims why not also post that AS SSD results are also shown? Or would this not fit the current agenda?

Finally one review. Just hope it's not biased and another comes in soon
http://www.kitguru.net/components/ss...gb-ssd-review/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praz

Your post was in response to mine. And IOMeter tests had nothing to do with my post. The CDM/AS SSD results that users are starting to post are the same or slightly less then what I am getting with the Solid 3 drive. So users are paying a $30.00 - $40.00 premium for a product that brings nothing more to the table over the Solid 3. And as long as you are going to quote OCZ specified performance claims why not also post that AS SSD results are also shown? Or would this not fit the current agenda?

---

...an same of Agility3. So user are paying no premium price for Force3.
Perhaps will pay for Force GT, who known?

And my reply have to do with this:

"Once the IOMeter configuration screenshots were posted this result should have been put in perspective."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilgamesh

And my reply have to do with this:

"Once the IOMeter configuration screenshots were posted this result should have been put in perspective."

---

And what was the problem with that comment that I made? You could not see how the IOMeter config files were tuned to reach a predetermined outcome? If those files didn't put things into perspective for you a benchmark that cannot be altered should.

http://www.pilipali.info/misc/asbench.jpg

http://www.overclock.net/ssd/1028614...corsair-2.html

Huum i dont see how the sequential and random can be so bad ..

ATTO show 500+mb in write and speed and ASSD 250 ? lol something is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

Huum i dont see how the sequential and random can be so bad ..

ATTO show 500+mb in write and speed and ASSD 250 ? lol something is wrong.

---

fairly sure atto uses compressible data and assd dose not so the different tests are just pointing out strengths and weakness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praz

And what was the problem with that comment that I made? You could not see how the IOMeter config files were tuned to reach a predetermined outcome? If those files didn't put things into perspective for you a benchmark that cannot be altered should.

---

Can't be altered is a big word :)

http://i54.tinypic.com/2hi7zeu.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dasa

fairly sure atto uses compressible data and assd dose not so the different tests are just pointing out strengths and weakness

---

they are annonced at 550-520mb/s, and ASSD will show this in the Sequential read and write ... they can be some difference but not of 300mb/s ....

here`s mine ( raid0 of C300 128gb ( 128gb have low Write speed of 140mb/s vs the 256 version ), as you see, numbers differ but not so much...

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6526/cm2p.png

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4259/sansrel.png

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/9846/atto.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

they are annonced at 550-520mb/s, and ASSD will show this in the Sequential read and write ... they can be some difference but not of 300mb/s ....

---

You probably dont understand how sandforce controller works.
It can only achieve its peak performance with files that are easily compressible.And with files that are not compressible at all, it drops like a stone.Sandforce doesnt move 100% of the data, but only parts of it that it cant compress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cx-ray

Can't be altered is a big word :)

---

LOL. This is a joke, right? Altered as in user configurable setup files. Wouldn't have thought this needed to be spelled out.

Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD Review @Guru3D
http://www.guru3d.com/article/corsai...gb-ssd-review/