Trending

The OCZ Vertex 2 Conspiracy: Lost Space, Lost Speed?

By

Several readers contacted me in the past two weeks, complaining about OCZ's recent adoption of 25 nm NAND and its effect on the capacity and performance of certain SSDs that they expected to be both larger and faster. I bought my own drives to compare.

Test Setup And Benchmarks

Test Hardware
ProcessorsIntel Core i7-980X (Gulftown) 3.33 GHz @ 3.73 GHz, LGA 1366, 6.4 GT/s QPI, 12 MB Shared L3, Hyper-Threading enabled, Power-savings enabled
MotherboardAsus Rampage III Formula (LGA 1366) Intel X58/ICH10R, BIOS 0505
MemoryKingston 6 GB (3 x 2 GB) DDR3-2000, KHX2000C8D3T1K3/6GX @ 8-8-8-24 and 1.65 V
Hard DriveOCZ RevoDrive X2  240 GB OCZSSDPX-1RVDX0240, PCI Express x4 (system drive)
OCZ Vertex 2 120 GB OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G, SATA 3Gb/s (34 nm NAND, 32 Gb DDP devices)
OCZ Vertex 2 120 GB OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G, SATA 3Gb/s (25 nm NAND, 64 Gb devices)
GraphicsNvidia GeForce GTX 460 1 GB
Power SupplyCooler Master UCP-1000 W
System Software And Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
DirectXDirectX 11
Graphics DriverNvidia GeForce 260.99

Benchmarks
Performance MeasurementsCrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64, set to read and write random data to drivePCMark Vantage 1.0.2.0
I/O PerformanceIOMeter 2008.08.18, default configuration, not reading/writing random dataFile server Benchmark, Web server Benchmark, Database Benchmark, Workstation BenchmarkStreaming Reads, Streaming Writes4 KB Random Reads, 4 KB Random Writes

Even more so than in a typical review, any difference between our two test drives has to be taken very seriously, since we're going to be drawing definitive conclusions on what OCZ is doing with its Vertex 2 drives. So, we're starting with a secure erase of each configuration and running all of the aforementioned tests via script in a specific order using very precise timing. To the greatest extent possible, the results we glean from the script are consequently comparable.

Topics
OCZ
SSD
Storage
55 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 21 February 2011 13:10
    Mushkin.com have a letter posted on the website that they will not be going to 25nm as the drives life cycle is less than half that of a 3*nm drive. Also the performance is not there.
    Reply
  • cangelini 21 February 2011 13:25
    LeekayMushkin.com have a letter posted on the website that they will not be going to 25nm as the drives life cycle is less than half that of a 3*nm drive. Also the performance is not there.
    Depending on supply of 34 nm NAND, that's probably not a sustainable position to take. IMFT isn't going to decide to shift back to 34 nm.

    At the risk of contradicting myself, Intel will be using 34 nm NAND on its next-gen 6 Gb/s Elmcrest drives. It's not like the flash isn't disappearing entirely, but the vendors making the switch seem to be motivated largely by cost-cutting reasons.
    Reply
  • 21 February 2011 14:04
    Nicely done Mr. Angelini; however, I still think OCZ pulled a nasty car-salesman tactic on their newest 25 nm NAND SSD products, and as such will be looking elsewhere to purchase any future SSD. Blaming resellers or other sources for the SKU is an incompetent way of deflecting fault and has made them look even more silly.
    Reply
  • cangelini 21 February 2011 14:17
    Thanks radiovan. Like I mentioned in the story, we'll have to see if companies like Corsair and Patriot are able to get their upcoming renamed SKUs onto Newegg, Tigerdirect, Zipzoom, etc.
    Reply
  • binoyski 21 February 2011 14:40
    Ok, but when will we be able to buy ssd's that are $100 @ 1TB capacity?
    Reply
  • 21 February 2011 15:28
    1.29 Firmware....how nice... pity that ocz only documents 1.28 for the moment.

    And then again why not update the 25nm to 1.29 too?

    But I guess consistency is not always wished when trying to demonstrate something
    Reply
  • nebun 21 February 2011 16:24
    binoyskiOk, but when will we be able to buy ssd's that are $100 @ 1TB capacity?in about 10 years or so....that's a very big maybe
    Reply
  • dconnors 21 February 2011 16:29
    Don't lie, Chris. We all know you still have (and love) that little Miata.
    -Devin
    Reply
  • yose3 21 February 2011 16:29
    binoyskiOk, but when will we be able to buy ssd's that are $100 @ 1TB capacity?
    when you throw a shoes to bush again meaby lol
    Reply
  • Reynod 21 February 2011 16:45
    It is all about profit.

    The real reason is that going to cheaper flash with a 3000 cycle life to reduce the total cost of production (and therefore increase profit) means ... increasing the amount of redundant memory to replace the flash that dies due to wear ... and that process means better error correction is required to achieve that ... therefore performance is effected.

    Chris ... I got it into one sentence ... albeit a horrible one.

    Nice article mate.
    Reply