Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Octane: A Portent Of What's To Come From OCZ

OCZ Octane 512 GB SSD Review: Meet Indilinx's Everest Controller
By

An SSD's performance is determined by its controller, its firmware, and its flash. The controller is perhaps the most influential of those three variables, and there aren't many 6 Gb/s-capable contenders out there. Faced with a fairly limited pool from which to draw, you can assume that (at least, up until now) today's fastest SSDs leverage logic from Marvell, SandForce, or Samsung.

Of course, we all know that there are more than three brands and models out there, meaning a lot of companies are using the same fundamental components to build a lot of SSDs that offer very similar performance at a range of different prices.

Surely, we have to believe this is at least part of why OCZ bought Indilinx. Why should it have to continue stepping out with SandForce-based drives when its competition gets to do the same thing? Given an eerily common performance story, price isn't what most vendors want to have to use to compete.

OCZ tells us to expect even more Indilinx-flavored SSDs in the future. What happens to the OCZ and SandForce dynamic duo? In the short term, both companies still need each other, which is why the Vertex 3 will continue to serve as OCZ's flagship. However, the company is clearly looking to become a self-sufficient SSD vendor, reducing reliance on third-parties as much as possible. In the long term, expect OCZ to wind down its SandForce-based SSDs as it uses more Indilinx IP.

Octane demonstrates that Indilinx's controllers don't suffer the issues they once did. Granted, there are a couple of niggles that keep us from wholeheartedly endorsing Everest (random performance is still pretty low, and there's an unresolved garbage collection issue that goes unaddressed for now). However, OCZ stands a fair chance of changing many peoples' minds about Indilinx in a single generation of hardware. Perhaps it's able to address our concerns to some extent in firmware. Or maybe there will be a future product that does the trick. Either way, OCZ is at least on a trajectory to emancipate itself from such stark reliance on SandForce's success.

That's kind of an exciting prospect when you consider that Intel and Samsung are the only other SSD vendors putting their own controllers into drives. OCZ has its sights set high, and Octane really signifies a new chapter for the company.

Cost
Market Price
Price Per GB
OCZ Vertex 3 120 GB
$190
$1.58
OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB
$400
$1.66
OCZ Octane 128 GB
$215
$1.70
OCZ Octane 256 GB
$400
$1.56


As a 512 GB product, the way it's priced today, Octane isn't anything to fawn over. Vertex 3s aren't going away anytime soon, and if you're looking to avoid the compression-dependent technology that SandForce uses, there are much better alternatives available for less money that don't force you to compromise random performance.

However, Octane is really a precursor to what will likely become a fierce battle in 2012. By capitalizing on more in-house development, OCZ has more flexibility to push prices down at a faster pace and maintain higher margins. It was just one year ago that SSDs were selling for more than $2 per gigabyte. Today, they're often closer to $1.50 per gigabyte. And with the proliferation of 20 nm NAND from IMFT, those figures will continue spiraling lower. Although Octane's performance isn't particularly notable in light of compelling competition, its meaning to OCZ as a company is far more significant.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 29 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 3 Hide
    theuniquegamer , December 28, 2011 6:04 AM
    I think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market
  • 3 Hide
    theuniquegamer , December 28, 2011 6:08 AM
    Wow CRYSIS 2 reads and writes above 1 gb data per 20minutes
  • 6 Hide
    ksampanna , December 28, 2011 6:22 AM
    theuniquegamerI think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market


    Fast yes, affordable no. My guess is atleast 5 years for a 1 TB ssd to be under $100
  • 0 Hide
    EDVINASM , December 28, 2011 6:25 AM
    Still comparing Crysis 2 to everything that moves? I had WD Blue in RAID 0 for quite a while and was relatively happy. Before Christmas however, I have replaced them with just simple, SATA 300 Intel 320 SSD 80Gb. Boy what a difference! No more HDD scratchy sounds, no heat from them, no vibrations, no annoying ticks when idle, silent.. Speed wise PC boots up within 30 sec, and I am only running Intel i3 2100 with no OC. To those who are holding onto HDD I would say unless capacity is the key - sell it off for an SSD. Especially now that HDD prices are skyroketting it is proving easier and easier to do the swap.
  • 0 Hide
    nebun , December 28, 2011 1:06 PM
    ksampannaFast yes, affordable no. My guess is at least 5 years for a 1 TB ssd to be under $100

    it's so much fun to dream....don't expect prices to drop that much....that's what people people said about CPUs a few years back, yet nothing has changed.... another example is the mid and top end video cards....since manufacturing techniques have improved and have become more efficient one would think that the products would be cheaper....that's not the case....it's called demmand....people demand faster components and will pay a premium price for it, why would manufacturers drop the prices?...they still have to make a profit
  • -5 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , December 28, 2011 1:52 PM
    theuniquegamerI think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market



    yeah.
    and in 2 to 3 years we can get a 20 core intel 9999 X edition for $50.
    and gtx990X2 for just $100.
  • 2 Hide
    buzznut , December 28, 2011 2:56 PM
    edvinasmStill comparing Crysis 2 to everything that moves? I had WD Blue in RAID 0 for quite a while and was relatively happy. Before Christmas however, I have replaced them with just simple, SATA 300 Intel 320 SSD 80Gb. Boy what a difference! No more HDD scratchy sounds, no heat from them, no vibrations, no annoying ticks when idle, silent.. Speed wise PC boots up within 30 sec, and I am only running Intel i3 2100 with no OC. To those who are holding onto HDD I would say unless capacity is the key - sell it off for an SSD. Especially now that HDD prices are skyroketting it is proving easier and easier to do the swap.


    And I recommend folks hold onto their current hard drives and get a boot SSD. 80GB may be enough for you, but a lot of us have bigger storage needs. Its gonna take about a year for the hard drive market to recover, so hang on to those mechanical drives.
  • 2 Hide
    drwho1 , December 28, 2011 3:51 PM
    theuniquegamer
    I think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market


    mayankleoboy1yeah.and in 2 to 3 years we can get a 20 core intel 9999 X edition for $50.and gtx990X2 for just $100.


    I do believe that 3-5 years from now we will see a huge increase on performance accompanied by a huge drop in price (compare with today's prices and performance)

    Then we will probably have SATA 4 on the market and the "right price/GB/TB" will be on SATA 3 SSD's.

    With that in mind, I have always build my systems a generation "behind" which is always more than "a few" generations of whatever I had built last, I have always double or triple my previous built performance for around the same money invested on it.

    (plus/minus a few new "tricks" that probably were not on the previous built that could raise my budget
    200 dollars or so)

    Is is possible to get an 1TB SSD for around $100-$200 dollars in 3-5 years?
    I believe it will be.
    just don't expect to also be the faster SATA 4, you will have to "compromise" by been a little "behind"
    in speed.








  • -1 Hide
    mikenygmail , December 28, 2011 4:02 PM
    Add "SSD" to the title.
  • 8 Hide
    tetracycloide , December 28, 2011 4:21 PM
    nebunthat's what people people said about CPUs a few years back, yet nothing has changed

    AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz circa 2005 - $475.99 inflation adjusted to 2011 ~$548.22
    Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz circa 2007 - $279.99 inflation adjusted to 2011 ~$304.10
    Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz circa 2011 - $219.99

    I'm sorry, you were saying?
  • 1 Hide
    grody , December 28, 2011 5:42 PM
    I'm not sure why this product is being released. If its performance degrades so much, and the Vertex 3 is the same price and doesn't suffer from such an issue, who exactly is going to buy this? Seems like they are released a beta product on the public.
  • 2 Hide
    stevelord , December 28, 2011 6:01 PM
    I am not seeing anything special here either. Crucial M4 series still seems like the best option out there for speed, reliability and price. I use them at home and several at work and they've all been great.
  • -4 Hide
    nebun , December 28, 2011 7:02 PM
    tetracycloideAMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz circa 2005 - $475.99 inflation adjusted to 2011 ~$548.22Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz circa 2007 - $279.99 inflation adjusted to 2011 ~$304.10Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz circa 2011 - $219.99I'm sorry, you were saying?

    they are still expensive....they can by sold for a lot less....here is another example....when stores have theses so called specials around 60% off retail prices they are still making a profit....so a cpu that's around 300 dollars could be sold at 180 dollars and the company would still make a profit....like said before, we empower the companies you set such high prices
  • 4 Hide
    tipmen , December 28, 2011 8:35 PM
    nebunthey are still expensive....they can by sold for a lot less....here is another example....when stores have theses so called specials around 60% off retail prices they are still making a profit....so a cpu that's around 300 dollars could be sold at 180 dollars and the company would still make a profit....like said before, we empower the companies you set such high prices


    Its called R&D... It allows progress but is also adds the "high prices" If you say getting i5 2500k is too pricey then think again.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , December 28, 2011 9:02 PM
    "AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz circa 2005 - $475.99 inflation adjusted to 2011 ~$548.22"

    Man where were you buying your athlon 64s, i cant remember what i paid. But it certainly was under 200, i dont buy $200+ processors. I bought 3 A64s and 2 A64x2s and none of them were 200 let alone 476.

    I can find a athlon 64x2 3800+ in my newegg history from 2006 for 154, they were not expensive. (dont remember where i bought the others, so cant check exactly what i paid)
  • 0 Hide
    mildgamer001 , December 28, 2011 10:14 PM
    grodyI'm not sure why this product is being released. If its performance degrades so much, and the Vertex 3 is the same price and doesn't suffer from such an issue, who exactly is going to buy this? Seems like they are released a beta product on the public.

    um, core 2 duo's are around 150-180$ online in many places still, thats pretty high for somewhat old components... and a core 2 quad was like 300$ when i looked.
  • -1 Hide
    kamikaze1 , December 29, 2011 1:28 AM
    Wow this is an amazing ssd!!!!!
  • 2 Hide
    bluekoala , December 29, 2011 4:53 AM
    theuniquegamerI think in 2 to 3 years we can get a affodable and fast 1tb ssd in market

    The prices dropped about 50 cents per GB in the last year. That's roughly 25% less.
    Next year if they drop another 25%, they will be roughly 1.20$ per GB
    I'm being optimist by saying you will be able to get a decent SSD at around 90 cents per GB.
    A year later, we can maybe look at 85Cent per GB on average.
    And then another year after that, 65 Cents.
    1 TB at 65 cents is 650$
    Unless there's a huge surge in flash memory production, I don't see a 1TB SSD for less than 500$ in the next 3 years.
    By the way, I don't see the sandisk SSD's on here. They seem to be the best deal around price wise.
  • 3 Hide
    tetracycloide , December 29, 2011 2:07 PM
    nebunthey are still expensive....they can by sold for a lot less....here is another example....when stores have theses so called specials around 60% off retail prices they are still making a profit....so a cpu that's around 300 dollars could be sold at 180 dollars and the company would still make a profit....like said before, we empower the companies you set such high prices

    You're conflating the retail space with the manufacturing space here to make a point that would not otherwise stand. When a retail store sells at 60% off retail prices it has absolutely nothing to do with manufactuers and what profits they may or may not be making and everything to do with retail strategy. They're either loss-leading or trying to move excess inventory. Either way they're not making a profit on the item being sold they're recovering the loss some other way or just writing off the loss. Just because some retail store offers a sale of 60% off doesn't mean that every item on the market sold at 100% MSRP was a 40% profit for the retail outlet. Which, again, is not the manufacture anyway so even if you point stood it wouldn't demonstrate what you're attempting to argue.
  • 2 Hide
    tetracycloide , December 29, 2011 2:42 PM
    asdlfjlk2jkl2lk2l"AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz circa 2005 - $475.99 inflation adjusted to 2011 ~$548.22"Man where were you buying your athlon 64s, i cant remember what i paid. But it certainly was under 200, i dont buy $200+ processors. I bought 3 A64s and 2 A64x2s and none of them were 200 let alone 476.I can find a athlon 64x2 3800+ in my newegg history from 2006 for 154, they were not expensive. (dont remember where i bought the others, so cant check exactly what i paid)

    $476 was the list price on newegg in early July 2005 for a 4000+ and the San Diego had only been released less than two months earlier in Mid April.
    The 64x2 3800+ was released around August of 2005 for around $350. So they were pretty expensive parts when they came out. Tom's even mentioned the expense explicitly in their review in August 2005 even though they were themselves the newer 'cheaper' x2's after the first gens were like $550+. If you got one in 2006 for any price it was cheap because it was old.
Display more comments