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

[Freonor]

Still no ETA on the drives Tony? And from when you "release" them how long will it take before they're widely available? I live in Norway..

[Peakr]

Ignore the haters Tony. You've always been a straight shooter in my book.

[Oats]

I wished mate. If one 60Gb vertex was as fast as two Core V2, it would make it 310MB/s at sequential reads (I get 155MB/s on ICH9) which I find hard to believe. My bet is that single 120Gb vertex will manage in 200-230 range, but not 300. Vertex2 might be different story...

The only SSD benches I've seen on the raid card that I have (Perc5i) was with 3 Solid drives and the write speeds were about the same with reads being about 150 higher than the Vertex in ATTO. CoreV2s are faster than solid but I would only be using 2 drives.

There are other user posted benchmarks of 2xCores on an adaptec 2405 scoring a little under 200 write / 250 read

[felix_w]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14257

Sorry for the rollback...

I've seen this in a previous post...

(...) OCZ will use a version of the Barefoot SSD controller from Indilinx for the first time in its Vertex series of SSDs (...)

Does this mean that this version of Vertex drives already use the Indilinx controller and not JMicron ?

[m^2]

Does this mean that this version of Vertex drives already use the Indilinx controller and not JMicron ?

Yes. That's the main reason why people have high hopes.

[gergregg]

This to me looks like a ES of the vertex before they knew what they were going to name it. Reason being the on-board cache, and the reviewer guessing it's a samsung controller, which I bet it isn't.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=666

The numbers look very similar to what Tony posted on the ocz forums. His tests were on a bare dive with no software installed on it, which is why his numbers would look better.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=51112

[Justifire]

This to me looks like a ES of the vertex before they knew what they were going to name it. Reason being the on-board cache, and the reviewer guessing it's a samsung controller, which I bet it isn't.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=666

The numbers look very similar to what Tony posted on the ocz forums. His tests were on a bare dive with no software installed on it, which is why his numbers would look better.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=51112

Nice find !!
As the review is dated 16-2-2009, i'm pretty sure this is Vertex
Maybe OCZ send them 'undercover' to not let reviewers expect to much or overhype things.
So March it will be......

[XS Janus]

ok NOW, I'm totally confused.
Summit...? I hope that's a fake name for VERTEX, but then why?
Available in march...?
Filecopy tests show VR still being the top dog... damn I was hoping for a clean win of ssd this time.

Also if the smaller capacity drives will be slower, what will that make them...
Hmmm, VERY confusing it is starting to be...

[Justifire]

ok NOW, I'm totally confused.
Summit...? I hope that's a fake name for VERTEX, but then why?
Available in march...?
Filecopy tests show VR still being the top dog... damn I was hoping for a clean win of ssd this time.

Also if the smaller capacity drives will be slower, what will that make them...
Hmmm, VERY confusing it is starting to be...

Yes was thinking myself the same, would opt for some 30 gb drives.
But if these are slower than 120 gb as tony stated on OCZ forum, it might be interesting to look for the Intel 80gb X25-M.
Almost same price/gb , faster than Vertex and available today
Hope to see some (more) VERTEX reviews soon.

[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...




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.

[One_Hertz]

If that is actually vertex in that review.... then it has been horribly over hyped; doesn't deal with small files well at all. X25-M FTW for that price level.

[gergregg]

Never mind, apparently this is another product offering coming from OCZ. Doesn't make much sense business wise to release so many similar products. Cannibalizes sales of your other products.

Here is the quote from the ocz forums.

"This is indeed an engineering sample, but of the SUMMIT line of SSDs, not the Vertex. They are completely different product lines - the Vertex uses Indilinx while the Summit uses Samsung. I know staff on here aren't commenting on anything so I thought I'd just make that clarification."

[gergregg]

Here are some real numbers on the vertex.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=51200

[RealTelstar]

The 120GB units sound like intel killers, but the smaller ones... more doubts for my setup

[Griff805]

The 120GB units sound like intel killers, but the smaller ones... more doubts for my setup

Intel Killers? Did you not see the benchmarks for Vertex and Summit? Yeah, the max theoretical throughput is higher on the writes, but in applications x25-m comes out on top of the vertex in every test, and on top of the summit in every single test except one...

So really, the intel is still better than what OCZ will be offering in 2-3 months from now. I don't understand where you're getting intel "killer" from.

I'm glad OCZ is pushing intel though- It'll be fun to see what comes out by the end of the year.

[One_Hertz]

we'll need to see proper reviews of course, but it seems like just another slow drive from OCZ, although this time it costs more per GB than the Intel counterpart. I had high hopes

It will still sell well due to the stellar marketing and the largely uneducated public so hopefully that money actually gets to R&D this time around.

[lowfat]

we'll need to see proper reviews of course, but it seems like just another slow drive from OCZ, although this time it costs more per GB than the Intel counterpart. I had high hopes

Yes but not everyone wants to spend the $400+ on an X25-M. I don't need an 80GB SSD for an OS drive and unfortunately that is the smallest X25-M Intel sells.

[TimoneX]

It hardly looks slow, but an Intel SSD killer it does not appear to be.

[One_Hertz]

Yes but not everyone wants to spend the $400+ on an X25-M. I don't need an 80GB SSD for an OS drive and unfortunately that is the smallest X25-M Intel sells.

You don't need 80 yet you currently have 128?

[felix_w]

Ι bet he meant "not everyone needs 80GB"....plus 4x32 is in Raid-0 on Areca...i'm sure it's for performance not for size...

[lowfat]

You don't need 80 yet you currently have 128?

I just want like a 30GB for an OS drive

[Halk]

we'll need to see proper reviews of course, but it seems like just another slow drive from OCZ, although this time it costs more per GB than the Intel counterpart. I had high hopes

It will still sell well due to the stellar marketing and the largely uneducated public so hopefully that money actually gets to R&D this time around.

I suspect you did not have high hopes since most of your posts appear to be having a go at OCZ.

3x30GB Vertex is cheaper in the UK than 1xIntel mainstream 80GB. It has higher capcity, and from the figures that have been shown so far would outperform Intel everywhere. It's not yet apparent if the OCZ will suffer from the same issues as the Intel, it might.

Then again with the Intel you don't need a RAID controller. But then again with Vertex not on a RAID controller the small size writes/reads shouldn't be affected.

I just don't see why it has to be the case that one product is the ultimate champion and one is lying in the gutter.

[TimoneX]

Both look like good products to me. Clearly one of them *IS* a good product. Everytime Intel's dominance in a particular area gets threatened prices drop. From that perspective, this is all good stuff.

[One_Hertz]

I suspect you did not have high hopes since most of your posts appear to be having a go at OCZ.

3x30GB Vertex is cheaper in the UK than 1xIntel mainstream 80GB. It has higher capcity, and from the figures that have been shown so far would outperform Intel everywhere. It's not yet apparent if the OCZ will suffer from the same issues as the Intel, it might.

Then again with the Intel you don't need a RAID controller. But then again with Vertex not on a RAID controller the small size writes/reads shouldn't be affected.

I just don't see why it has to be the case that one product is the ultimate champion and one is lying in the gutter.

I am not even going to bother explaining anything since you are one of those people that probably thinks more sequential MB/s is more performance. Go ahead and buy vertex drives; they are meant for people like you.

Pricing in North America is about 2.5 vertex 30GB for one X25-M 80GB.

[RealTelstar]

Intel Killers? Did you not see the benchmarks for Vertex and Summit? Yeah, the max theoretical throughput is higher on the writes, but in applications x25-m comes out on top of the vertex in every test, and on top of the summit in every single test except one...

So really, the intel is still better than what OCZ will be offering in 2-3 months from now. I don't understand where you're getting intel "killer" from.

I'm glad OCZ is pushing intel though- It'll be fun to see what comes out by the end of the year.

I didnt find any review from the sites I trust. So I commented only based on Atto bench results. Atto has always been very reliable.

I'm waiting for crystal disk mark and everest. BTW, I'm talking only about the Vertex which this thread is about.