Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Anand Vertex 3 Review

  1. #1
    SLC
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953

    Anand Vertex 3 Review

    Ok this graph really grinds my gears:

    Image removed because Anand fixed the issue

    Looking at all the other Vertex3 reviews, the ~190MB/s values for 4KB reads are actually the result from using QD32 NOT QD3 like Anand is claiming. Extrapolating from all the other reviews, the real QD3 numbers should be around half of the result he claims, if not less. By definition, the numbers from QD1 can not increase more than 3 times for QD3. Since QD1 is 3XMB/s or less, QD3 can not possibly be 190MB/s.

    Does anyone here talk to the guy? Could you drop him an email? He is going to keep reusing this most likely false info (like he did in the Intel 510 review).
    Last edited by One_Hertz; 03-02-2011 at 08:36 PM.

  2. #2
    SSD faster than your HDD
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    2,717
    Most likely a typo in the header of his chart is all. He just left off the 2.

    Nobody tests with QD=3 that I know of.

  3. #3
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,829
    You can email him yourself. Click on his name in the article for a mailto link.
    And yeah, I think Anand's results are highly suspicious. And it's not just V3...

    @ RyderOCZ: Anand does. He reviewed Intel 510 and tested it @ QD=3 as well.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  4. #4
    SSD faster than your HDD
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    2,717
    Oh really.. interesting.

    One-Hertz, I will test if for you right now if you like.

    Only SATAIII board I have up and running is an MSI 890FXA-GD70 though.

  5. #5
    SLC
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953
    A quick iometer run would be awesome

  6. #6
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    It looks suspicious.

    Here's from my previous testing of some of those SSDs.
    Based on the C300 the readings look like they are measured at QD3.
    The C300 at QD32 ~ 220MB/s

    -
    Hardware:

  7. #7
    SSD faster than your HDD
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    2,717
    Ok, I am apparently rusty with Iometer... where do you set the QD? {embarassed}!!

  8. #8
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838


    Outstanding I/Os is what you are looking for.

    edit:

    Link to thread with iometer profiles
    -
    Hardware:

  9. #9
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,820
    That MIGHT also be compressible data?
    P5E64_Evo/QX9650, 4x X25-E SSD - gimme speed..
    Quote Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss View Post
    Lately there has been a lot of BS(Dave_Graham where are you?)

  10. #10
    SLC
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by alfaunits View Post
    That MIGHT also be compressible data?
    This should not matter much for low QD 4kb random tests. The bottleneck in this case is the time the SSD takes to locate each piece of data which is requested (i.e. access time). Compression can not speed up this kind of latency. Compression can speed up how quickly the data is read once it is located.

  11. #11
    SSD faster than your HDD
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    2,717
    This should show my config for the test and the results.

    My system and drivers:



    Iometer config:





    Result:


  12. #12
    SLC
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953
    Thanks Ryder!

    This proves Anand made a mistake in his testing...

  13. #13
    SSD faster than your HDD
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    2,717
    Or he just put the QD32 results with the QD3 header

    He did use P67 and I used SB850, but I can't see it making 100+ MB/s difference.

    I just repeated the test with QD32 and got ~160MB/s average.

    Note that my tests are not with a fresh SE'd drive, I have Windows on it (for another machine) so all the blocks are not fresh and clean.

  14. #14
    SLC
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by RyderOCZ View Post
    Or he just put the QD32 results with the QD3 header

    He did use P67 and I used SB850, but I can't see it making 100+ MB/s difference.

    I just repeated the test with QD32 and got ~160MB/s average.

    Note that my tests are not with a fresh SE'd drive, I have Windows on it (for another machine) so all the blocks are not fresh and clean.
    Putting QD32 results against other drives which were ran at QD3 is a mistake... Hopefully he fixes it.

    Yes, Vertex3 can definitely do more on a better controller, fresh drive, etc. Around 70Mb/s probably.

  15. #15
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,820
    Someone call the Shrimp, to make sure.
    Frankly, I believe it is a case of a good controller (ICH) and a fresh drive with compressible data. If the data consists of typical IOMeter data (a repeat of 0123456789 over and over), the controller could very easily push that in a very small amount of space and need not read the actual cell content but minor auxiliary data that says the LBA is a copy of another LBA which was already read (hence in cache). 128MB cache or even 64MB would be enough to hold an 8GB IOMeter file in compressed form.
    Either way the results would be pointless, but the test might be true.
    P5E64_Evo/QX9650, 4x X25-E SSD - gimme speed..
    Quote Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss View Post
    Lately there has been a lot of BS(Dave_Graham where are you?)

  16. #16
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,838
    That mistake does make a huge difference to that chart.

    The SB850 is actually quite alright at low QDs, not so sure it will make that much of a difference.

    The MyCE review puts the V3 at ~95MB/s at QD4 and pcper shows that it really starts to pick up speed at QD > 4
    -
    Hardware:

  17. #17
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,315
    Wow - this changes the game a bit. This drive is not so head n shoulders over the 510 as we may have thought?
    MAIN: 4770K 4.6 | Max VI Hero | 16GB 2400/C10 | H110 | 2 GTX670 FTW SLi | 2 840 Pro 256 R0 | SB Z | 750D | AX1200 | 305T | 8.1x64
    HTPC: 4670K 4.4 | Max VI Gene | 8GB 2133/C9 | NH-L9I | HD6450 | 840 Pro 128 | 2TB Red | GD05 | SSR-550RM | 70" | 8.1x64
    MEDIA: 4670K 4.4 | Gryphon | 8GB 1866/C9 | VX Black | HD4600 | 840 Pro 128 | 4 F4 HD204UI R5 | 550D | SSR-550RM | 245BW | 8.1x64

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kirghudu, Cowjackingstan
    Posts
    462
    OK, I hope he reads his e-mails. These 4K numbers in Vertex 3/Pro and Intel 510 reviews are nuts...

    Sony KDL40 // ASRock P67 Extreme4 1.40 // Core i5 2500K //
    G.Skill Ripjaws 1600 4x2Gb // HD6950 2GB // Intel Gigabit CT PCIe //
    M-Audio Delta 2496 // Crucial-M4 128Gb // Hitachi 2TB // TRUE-120 //
    Antec Quattro 850W // Antec 1200 // Win7 64 bit

  19. #19
    Uber Raid King
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wichita, Ks
    Posts
    3,887
    well i read vertex 3 reviews last night until my eyes bled. i mean i read like 9 of them front to back. i too noticed some inconsistencies in testing, and some sites just obviously do not know how to test.
    the anand results did look skewed and that is a helluva call there OneHertz, nice catch.


    the Anand result and the results of some other sites had me scratching my head.

    but lets keep things in perspective here: from all of this reading that i did i came to one conclusion

    this is one helluva drive. i think right now it is the clear leader (duh) and unless intel really tweaks its next series that is coming out, this here Vertex 3 might be the leader of the class for a good good while.

    i wasnt reading reviews over and over without the intentions of picking up a few (or 8) of them very soon.

    you might think that would saturate most raid cards, but ohhhhh...what i know....

    now all we need is a lower capacity V3 to save me at least a little bit of money

    @anvil: hey there is a 2008 verison of IOMETER, but i cant seem to find it anywhere. is this the same as the beta that you posted in the other thread?
    ryder: can we please get a QD1 test?
    Last edited by Computurd; 03-02-2011 at 05:45 PM.
    "Lurking" Since 1977


    Jesus Saves, God Backs-Up
    *I come to the news section to ban people, not read complaints.*-[XC]Gomeler
    Don't believe Squish, his hardware does control him!

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kirghudu, Cowjackingstan
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Computurd View Post
    ryder: can we please get a QD1 test?
    By praz:


    Sony KDL40 // ASRock P67 Extreme4 1.40 // Core i5 2500K //
    G.Skill Ripjaws 1600 4x2Gb // HD6950 2GB // Intel Gigabit CT PCIe //
    M-Audio Delta 2496 // Crucial-M4 128Gb // Hitachi 2TB // TRUE-120 //
    Antec Quattro 850W // Antec 1200 // Win7 64 bit

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    936
    For some reason, the 4KB random read QD=1 numbers are hugely different between AS-SSD and and CDM on Vertex 3. I asked about that in the AS-SSD thread on OCZ forums, hoping the AS-SSD author might have some ideas, but no replies yet.

    Here is an example of the discrepancy:

    http://thessdreview.com/our-reviews/...-and-win7-wei/

    The QD=1 results I have seen from IOMeter are closer to AS-SSD than to CDM. I think CDM's number may be misleading.

  22. #22
    Uber Raid King
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wichita, Ks
    Posts
    3,887
    yeah i would like to see iometer QD1.

    btw F@32 is that jim carrey?
    "Lurking" Since 1977


    Jesus Saves, God Backs-Up
    *I come to the news section to ban people, not read complaints.*-[XC]Gomeler
    Don't believe Squish, his hardware does control him!

  23. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kirghudu, Cowjackingstan
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Computurd View Post
    btw F@32 is that jim carrey?
    Lol yeah, he was epic in the SNL. Especially Black Swan skit: http://www.hulu.com/watch/205721/sat...ive-black-swan
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by F@32; 03-02-2011 at 07:33 PM.

    Sony KDL40 // ASRock P67 Extreme4 1.40 // Core i5 2500K //
    G.Skill Ripjaws 1600 4x2Gb // HD6950 2GB // Intel Gigabit CT PCIe //
    M-Audio Delta 2496 // Crucial-M4 128Gb // Hitachi 2TB // TRUE-120 //
    Antec Quattro 850W // Antec 1200 // Win7 64 bit

  24. #24
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    [Anandtech] Correction: OCZ Vertex 3 Random Read Performance Data

    Anand read your email

    A huge thanks goes out to AnandTech reader Andrei and some very attentive Xtreme Systems forum members. I just got an email pointing me to this thread where one particular number from our OCZ Vertex 3 and Intel SSD 510 articles was called into question. The problem? The 4KB random read numbers for the Vertex 3 were supiciously high. The reality? They were incorrect.

    I was just alerted to the error and quickly powered up the SSD testbed to recreate the test. It looks like the original numbers were either run at a queue depth of 32 or accidentally copied from one of the runs of 4KB random write tests. Either way the number was incorrect and has been fixed in all affected articles....

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4204/c...rformance-data

  25. #25
    SLC
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,953
    Good to hear. Who actually ended up emailing Anand? I didn't...

    And my 70mb/s prediction was almost spot on (:
    Last edited by One_Hertz; 03-02-2011 at 08:35 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •