bit-tech.net

OCZ Vertex 4 256GB Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 27

Reply
Kingsley813 27th June 2012, 09:20 Quote
Given the analysis, would this SSD be good for use as a scratch disk? I currently have a Samsung 830 256GB for Windows, but looking for buy another for my CAD and 3D rendering temp files.
runadumb 27th June 2012, 09:21 Quote
Unless you need a new drive ASAP I would sit on it for a while and see if there are any problems. Last years batch of SSD's seemed to all have problems related to the controller. My vertex 3 gave me the BSOD many many times before a firmware update fixed it.
Zinfandel 27th June 2012, 09:59 Quote
Not worth the extra for me. I'll be picking up a 256gb 830 this weekend!
pbryanw 27th June 2012, 10:07 Quote
@runadumb - Samsung and Crucial seem to have good reports - I thought the problems (& BSODs) were mainly to do with Sandforce SSDs?
andrew8200m 27th June 2012, 10:22 Quote
A little late with the report here...

Any chance of an old F/W vs the new? The reads and writes on the lower file sizes according to ASSSD sees the drives performance drop like a stone... just wondering what your thoughts are on this as to me it looks like in some cases it may actually be better to have an old F/W, which of these cases however is unknown so some insight would make for good reading.
Harlequin 27th June 2012, 10:25 Quote
it will be interesting to see how there own controller behaves rather than buying in a marvell one - unless thats how they are moving onwards?
Chicken76 27th June 2012, 10:26 Quote
Suggestion: In the graphs you could have added with a different color, the performance of a Sandforce based unit (say, Vertex3) with compressible data. It would have given a more accurate view of their performance delta in other scenarios than what you tested them for: artificially created data guaranteed not to compress.
Valinor 27th June 2012, 10:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken76
Suggestion: In the graphs you could have added with a different color, the performance of a Sandforce based unit (say, Vertex3) with compressible data. It would have given a more accurate view of their performance delta in other scenarios than what you tested them for: artificially created data guaranteed not to compress.

They said in the article that they removed the compressible data test because it wasn't representative of what the drive will be used for; adding in information on how compressible data is handled would kinda defeat the point of this.
Waynio 27th June 2012, 10:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbryanw
@runadumb - Samsung and Crucial seem to have good reports - I thought the problems (& BSODs) were mainly to do with Sandforce SSDs?

I thought this too but think it might not be as simple as that & to do with controllers on motherboards also but clearly was a problem with that generation of sandforce mostly.

I'm glad they dropped sandforce, those drives shouldn't have made it to retail IMHO, the corsair force3 was a waste of money for me & with it not getting sorted for me I'll not use it again, an OS drive causing BSOD at completely random times, no thanks, I downgraded to a ocz vertex 2e & had no problems at all since but want to go for a speedy but reliable drive like the samsung 830s or these, samsung is cheaper so they win & these ones have yet to prove themselves also. :D
r3loaded 27th June 2012, 11:52 Quote
The 256GB Samsung 830 is available for 143 quid, why would anyone go for the Vertex 4 at 200?
fdbh96 27th June 2012, 12:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
The 256GB Samsung 830 is available for 143 quid, why would anyone go for the Vertex 4 at 200?

Because its faster. And it will probably drop in price soon anyway.
Harlequin 27th June 2012, 13:01 Quote
the question is - is the speed increase (which is only minor at times) worth the extra £60.....
MjFrosty 27th June 2012, 14:00 Quote
I'll keep my Vertex 3s thanks.
fdbh96 27th June 2012, 15:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
the question is - is the speed increase (which is only minor at times) worth the extra £60.....

That is often the question when buying things like an i7 over an i5 or a 4gb gtx 680 over a 2gb 680. The more you pay, the faster it is (usually :p)
Harlequin 27th June 2012, 15:36 Quote
nah an i7 isnt worth it over an i5 for gaming and neither is a 4gb gtx 680 (its slower actually - ram latency at all eyefinity resolutions) and really having used most ssd`s in the list , tbh - the `speed` increase of a heartbeat or 2 isnt worth £60
MjFrosty 27th June 2012, 16:00 Quote
The latency would lose you barely anything by the way. 2GB is stretchy for 1080 let alone eyefinity. Bit OT but ho-hum lol.
Harlequin 27th June 2012, 16:10 Quote
well tpu / andand / hexus and here have all proven that the limiting factor at say 5760x1080 is bandwidth not the amount of ram - and the frame rates are near identical on both 2gb and 4gb cards.

sorry going off topic
MjFrosty 27th June 2012, 16:20 Quote
LOL. Proven is a strong word. Framerate doesn't always constitute overall performance, BF3 at that resolution on a reference 680 is laughable.

Just no way, been there and tried it.

Anyway still off topic - another day ;)
Baz 28th June 2012, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
well tpu / andand / hexus and here have all proven that the limiting factor at say 5760x1080 is bandwidth not the amount of ram - and the frame rates are near identical on both 2gb and 4gb cards.

sorry going off topic

Not this. Again.

GTX 680 4GB? No difference. Now don't make me come back there!
Waynio 28th June 2012, 14:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Not this. Again.

GTX 680 4GB? No difference. Now don't make me come back there!

How did the SSD review comments turn into GPU's. :D

Prod prod prod.

No need to answer, it just tickled my brain. :D
fdbh96 28th June 2012, 14:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynio
How did the SSD review comments turn into GPU's. :D

Prod prod prod.

No need to answer, it just tickled my brain. :D

Yeah sorry about that...
tohdom 29th June 2012, 13:37 Quote
too bad there are no realworld tests anymore.
One time there was "windows startup time" and "Crysis 2 level loading time" and it was very helpful to compare SSDs. I am not sure many people care about synthetics
fdbh96 29th June 2012, 13:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tohdom
too bad there are no realworld tests anymore.
One time there was "windows startup time" and "Crysis 2 level loading time" and it was very helpful to compare SSDs. I am not sure many people care about synthetics

Definitely prefer these kinds of tests to the current ones.

Don't know if it was bit tech or not but I once saw a review where the time was measured from pressing power to loading up chrome and seeing a webpage, as with windows, it loads up, but you can't do anything for a while.
Waynio 29th June 2012, 14:15 Quote
I prefer real world tests also, both would be good, digits for set benchmarks & 3 or 4 good examples of real world use. :)

Since switching over to SSD's as soon as it gets to the desktop everything is usable, that's what I love about them, hard drives will still be loading background programs for ages after getting to desktop, no longer have the patience for them but they are essential for storage still for me anyway. :D

I'm considering getting a 256GB ssd for a games drive & only keeping regular played games always on it & the single player ones that only come out now & then install them when I am playing them rather than have them all installed at the same time, makes fresh installs take days to do anyway if having all your games ready to play. :D
MjFrosty 29th June 2012, 14:26 Quote
I definitely take SSDs for granted now. Like you say before you'd be hearing clunking going on long after you've decided what you want to open lol.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums