Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

OCZ Octane SSD Pricing Released: From $200 to $880

By - Source: TheSSDReview | B 30 comments

Over the past weekend, OCZ Technology released more details on its new OCZ Octane SSDs based on the Indilinx Everest controller.

As discussed previously in our New OCZ SSD Line Offers 1 TB, "Instant On" Support post, OCZ is set to release its Indilinx Everest based SSD known as Octane. This marks OCZ's first SSD based on its own controller since the purchase of Indilinx. The Octane will be available in capacities of 128 GB, 256 GB, 512 GB and 1 TB. OCZ is set to price the 128 GB at $199.99, 256 GB at $369.99 and the 512 GB at $879.99. There is still no word on the pricing for the 1 TB Octane version. The 128 GB and 256 GB pricing is very competitive to current SandForce and Marvell based SSDs.

The Octane series will sport up to 512 MB of DRAM cache, a dual-core controller (CPU), dynamic and static wear-leveling, background garbage collection, TRIM support, SMART reporting and a SATA 6.0 Gb/s interface. The Indilinx controller introduces latency reduction technology, which allows read access times as low as 0.06ms and write access times down to 0.09ms, enabling "fast boot" in consumer applications.

OCZ lists performance for the Octane at:

  • 1 TB: Max Read: up to 560MB/s, Max Write: up to 400MB/s, Random Write 4KB: 19,500 IOPS, and Random Read 4KB: 45,000 IOPS
  • 512 GB: Max Read: up to 535MB/s, Max Write: up to 400MB/s, Random Write 4KB: 16,000 IOPS, and Random Read 4KB: 37,000 IOPS
  • 256 GB: Max Read: up to 535MB/s, Max Write: up to 270MB/s, Random Write 4KB: 12,000 IOPS, and Random Read 4KB: 37,000 IOPS
  • 128 GB: Max Read: up to 535MB/s, Max Write: up to 170MB/s, Random Write 4KB: 7,700 IOPS, and Random Read 4KB: 37,000 IOPS

   

Read more on the OCZ Octane at its product page.  

Display 30 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 10 Hide
    mcd023 , November 16, 2011 2:17 PM
    haha. "As for the 1TB drive price....we're not gonna tell ya." haha
  • 10 Hide
    triculious , November 16, 2011 2:45 PM
    call me once we reach the point of 1gb/$1
Other Comments
  • 10 Hide
    mcd023 , November 16, 2011 2:17 PM
    haha. "As for the 1TB drive price....we're not gonna tell ya." haha
  • 7 Hide
    mariusmotea , November 16, 2011 2:18 PM
    My OCZ Vertez 2 is 70% slower than the OCZ specifications, i doubt that those values ​​are real.
  • 5 Hide
    hoof_hearted , November 16, 2011 2:26 PM
    Nice bait in the headline until I read the part about the 1TB price not being released.
  • -8 Hide
    Au_equus , November 16, 2011 2:30 PM
    mariusmoteaMy OCZ Vertez 2 is 70% slower than the OCZ specifications, i doubt that those values ​​are real.

    it's called progress. get used to it.
  • 9 Hide
    drwho1 , November 16, 2011 2:30 PM
    SSD prices still have a long way to go DOWN until they can actually attempt to compete with hard drives.

    Until manufactures realize the huge market that they could earn by simply lowering their ridiculous prices, then and only then there will be at least one SSD on every computer in the world.

    That should be their goal.
  • 10 Hide
    triculious , November 16, 2011 2:45 PM
    call me once we reach the point of 1gb/$1
  • 8 Hide
    Anonymous , November 16, 2011 2:45 PM
    Call me when they reach 50 cents/GB
  • 3 Hide
    LuckyDucky7 , November 16, 2011 2:47 PM
    This is still too expensive. I mean- a Corsair Force 3, or better yet, a Kingston HyperX, can be had for around the same price point.

    So who's going to buy a slower SSD for that cash?
  • 6 Hide
    theuniquegamer , November 16, 2011 2:51 PM
    After reading the headline and 1st 2 lines i thought the 1tb version is going to available at $800. So sad..... 1tb is out of that price range.
  • 4 Hide
    physical , November 16, 2011 2:56 PM
    SSD Manufacturers aren't pricing their products so high because they want to squeeze every dime they possibly can from the consumer. They are priced like this because the tech is expensive.

    Flash Memory chips are expensive. For the chips alone, it still costs over a dollar per gig. Add to that the price of the controller, and assembly, packaging, and marketing and you'll see that the markup on these products is well within accepted norms.

    Like most chip production, it gets cheaper by volume. Improved manufacturing tech improves yields, and reduces raw material costs. We are still waiting for this tech to be mature enough to offer low cost, high volume production.

    (edit... quick edit mangled my quote)
  • -3 Hide
    robisinho , November 16, 2011 3:09 PM
    its funny because they were initially targeting $1/gb .. I guess they couldnt resist the profit when they saw no one was going to come down in prices to force that level of cost
  • 2 Hide
    husker , November 16, 2011 3:22 PM
    I bought a 128GB SSD (Kingston) a couple of years ago for less than $200. Granted it is not as fast as the current crop, but this goes to show that price/GB isn't budging at all.
  • -1 Hide
    dgingeri , November 16, 2011 4:06 PM
    huskerI bought a 128GB SSD (Kingston) a couple of years ago for less than $200. Granted it is not as fast as the current crop, but this goes to show that price/GB isn't budging at all.


    That's because the speed keeps getting higher. The SSD makers have figured out that we have enough storage at those points for the needs of those who can afford them. At least enough storage for the OS and some programs. Data storage can, and usually is, kept on a separate hard drive. So, they keep making the drives faster so people keep upgrading. It's not hard to figure out.

    I, for one, love my old Vertex (original) in my server. It boots Server 2008 R2 in less than a minute. My main system uses 2 Vertex 2's, and they're fine. Any more speed increase for either wouldn't even be noticeable unless I was sitting in front of it waiting to boot, which is not normal. I don't really have a need to increase my drive speed, processor (Core i7 920 @4.2) speed, memory (12GB DDR3-1600) size or speed, or graphics (dual SLi GTX470) capabilities for the near future.

    Maybe I'm getting old, but it sure seems like hardware is outpacing software these days. I actually can't justify spending the money on any upgrades right now.
  • -4 Hide
    andywork78 , November 16, 2011 5:23 PM
    1TB is now $800 wow.
    However i will wait 2~3year more for SSD for me.
    That time 1TB price will drop to 200+-50 so then lol go for it~
  • 0 Hide
    jwl3 , November 16, 2011 5:37 PM
    Why is this priced about the same as an OCZ Vertex 3 while delivering a fraction of the performance? Granted V3 has been problematic.
  • -1 Hide
    pocketdrummer , November 16, 2011 5:59 PM
    Still >$1/1Gb?

    Pass...

    I don't even care about speed. This absurd pricing for the amount of storage you DON'T get. $879.99 for the only model I would consider useful. That's more than I paid to upgrade my entire rig to a 1366 i7 platform.
  • 0 Hide
    pocketdrummer , November 16, 2011 6:05 PM
    dgingeriThat's because the speed keeps getting higher. The SSD makers have figured out that we have enough storage at those points for the needs of those who can afford them. At least enough storage for the OS and some programs. Data storage can, and usually is, kept on a separate hard drive. So, they keep making the drives faster so people keep upgrading. It's not hard to figure out. I, for one, love my old Vertex (original) in my server. It boots Server 2008 R2 in less than a minute. My main system uses 2 Vertex 2's, and they're fine. Any more speed increase for either wouldn't even be noticeable unless I was sitting in front of it waiting to boot, which is not normal. I don't really have a need to increase my drive speed, processor (Core i7 920 @4.2) speed, memory (12GB DDR3-1600) size or speed, or graphics (dual SLi GTX470) capabilities for the near future. Maybe I'm getting old, but it sure seems like hardware is outpacing software these days. I actually can't justify spending the money on any upgrades right now.


    Windows + my programs won't fit on a 128Gb SSD. That's not counting any extra files just sitting on C:. Thus, at the very least, I would have to spring for the 256 GB at $369.99. That's still $1.45/1Gb...
  • 0 Hide
    Zeknichov , November 16, 2011 6:16 PM
    Until I can get ~250gb for
  • 0 Hide
    fulle , November 16, 2011 7:26 PM
    mariusmoteaMy OCZ Vertez 2 is 70% slower than the OCZ specifications, i doubt that those values ​​are real.


    Are you sure it's the drive's fault, or your SATA controller.

    For example, if I dropped a OCZ Vertex 2 into an old LGA775 motherboard, and it's read speeds maxed at 120MB/s. Put the same drive into a Z68 motherboard, connected to the "6GB/s SATAIII", and it ran at 330MB/s. I took the same drive, and put and hooked it up to a PCIe RAID controller that actually gives it proper bandwidth, and it runs at it's rated speeds (well over 400MB/s).
  • 0 Hide
    fulle , November 16, 2011 8:07 PM
    Meh. no edit. The drive was actually a Vertex 3, and when I said over 400MB/s, I meant over 500MB/s. A Vertex 2 would max out at 284MB/s, but the point remains that if it was put into a regular SATA connection, that's be a max bandwidth of like 150MB/s, and the drive would end up running at like 120MB/s, despite being able to run much faster than that.
Display more comments