bit-tech.net

OCZ Vertex 120GB SSD

Comments 26 to 49 of 49

Reply
IanW 15th May 2009, 18:46 Quote
Been sniffing around a 60Gb one of these for my netbook. Thanks for the review! ;)
leexgx 15th May 2009, 19:02 Quote
corsair 256gb second gen SSD
http://www.advancetec.co.uk/acatalog/Corsair_256GB_Storage_Solutions_Solid_State_Disk_Drive_Gen_2_SSD.html

128gb verson first gen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWiUW65DX7Y

has this disks been reviewed yet on bit tech yet as thay seem quite fast about £100 cheaper then OCZ vertex (and have 64MB more cache)

----------------
http://legitreviews.com/article/949/1/ review on the 256gb SSD
----------------
Jojii 15th May 2009, 19:07 Quote
isn't ssd the answer to the glut of flash production capacity that has been reported? or are these chips special in some way?maybe the high price is due to economy of scale?
naokaji 15th May 2009, 22:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cupboard
Can you actually use these 2.5" desktop SSDs in laptops, or are they slightly too big or power hungry?

Yep, you can use them in notebooks just fine, the performance boost is even more amazing there obviously as you won't be comparing them to a velociraptor or two but rather one of those horribly slow notebook harddisks.
Power consumption is not a issue, they don't even use 5W.
There is a theory out in the wild though that it will increase power consumption of the cpu (since the rest of the computer will spend less time idle waiting for the hdd), but I don't really think it would matter enough to negate the lower power consumption of the ssd vs hdd since if you get a decent mobile cpu you are looking at below 20W anyway.
droitwichdosser 16th May 2009, 00:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
no point in RAID with the vertex as its so fast it be better it just buy 1 (120gb for £330 or 240gb for an nice price of £630) use them as independant drive you get no perfomance useing 2 of them as on board RAID is limited to around 300MB/s any way and 1TB disk for cloneing SSD and big files


Dont think the onboard RAID is limited to 300MB/s, each disk is effectively limited to that but not the RAID controller...

In this youtube vid (2*60GB RAIDed) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go8vnZj2vb4&feature=related the guy/gal is using an ASUS P6T WS Revolution onboard raid with to get an average read speed of 417.0MB/s
droitwichdosser 16th May 2009, 00:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cupboard
Can you actually use these 2.5" desktop SSDs in laptops, or are they slightly too big or power hungry?

Yep, you can use them in notebooks just fine, the performance boost is even more amazing there obviously as you won't be comparing them to a velociraptor or two but rather one of those horribly slow notebook harddisks.
Power consumption is not a issue, they don't even use 5W.
There is a theory out in the wild though that it will increase power consumption of the cpu (since the rest of the computer will spend less time idle waiting for the hdd), but I don't really think it would matter enough to negate the lower power consumption of the ssd vs hdd since if you get a decent mobile cpu you are looking at below 20W anyway.


was reading about that, think it was on tomshardware.com or something.

it goes along the lines of saying that as they are so much faster they get more work done in the same amount of time, so the battery effectively doesn't last as long.

guess you could compair it to running. you can run a mile in 10 mins, but if you ran twice as fast you could do 2 miles in the same amount of time, but you would be extremely knackered :)
Cupboard 16th May 2009, 00:14 Quote
^Yes, there were a few issues with Tom's hardware's testing. The tried to say the SSDs lowered battery life without mentioning that the way they were tested meant that the computers with SSDs did significantly more. I believe they retested and found that the SSDs gave a small boost.
Elton 16th May 2009, 00:57 Quote
So when are you going to test that new SLC intel SSD that's about $600?
Hamish 16th May 2009, 01:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Once you've used a decent SSD like the Vertex for an extended period of time, going back to a sluggish HDD seems like the difference between running and walking. Everything seems more response, especially in the legendarily slugish Vista, applications and programs open noticeably faster, browsing files and folders is quicker, the whole operating system experience is improved.

While it's not really possible to test this increased responsiveness, booting off of the SSD just made the whole system feel faster and more responsive. Is £300 a lot to pay for 120GB? Certainly, but you get a lot more than faster boot and game loads for your money.
confirming this

after that huge anand article on SSDs a month or 2 back i just thought **** it and bought an X-25M
its not quite as big as that first jump from a single core to a dual core cpu but its very much in that area than going from a 2ghz core2 to a 3ghz core2 or whatever
leexgx 16th May 2009, 04:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by droitwichdosser
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
no point in RAID with the vertex as its so fast it be better it just buy 1 (120gb for £330 or 240gb for an nice price of £630) use them as independant drive you get no perfomance useing 2 of them as on board RAID is limited to around 300MB/s any way and 1TB disk for cloneing SSD and big files


Dont think the onboard RAID is limited to 300MB/s, each disk is effectively limited to that but not the RAID controller...

In this youtube vid (2*60GB RAIDed) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go8vnZj2vb4&feature=related the guy/gal is using an ASUS P6T WS Revolution onboard raid with to get an average read speed of 417.0MB/s

if your useing small SSDs RAID better option for cheaper drives if it is cheaper to buy two (i find it is not most of the time)

the corsair 128gb SSDs have catched my eye i can buy 2 of them for about the same price of one 128GB vertex (thay work out about as fast as norm HDDs in data rate but Write access times are fast like the vertex so the os should be super fast as its the access time is what is what kills)
sheninat0r 16th May 2009, 04:33 Quote
Performance degradation over time occurs with all SSDs, if I read Anand's article correctly; the article makes it sound like an Intel-only problem.

Also, it seems that the X-25E is missing from the HD Tach Average Write graph.
woodshop 16th May 2009, 04:50 Quote
Quote:
to sequential read speed across the drive
wrong direction or wrong picture.
iwod 16th May 2009, 05:51 Quote
HDD to SSD is like Single Core to Dual Core CPU, 1GB to 2GB of Memory. Since the last two are now nearly standard on all type of drive. SSD would prove to be the most important factor for Day to day operation.
HourBeforeDawn 16th May 2009, 12:14 Quote
still not worth, when the prices are half the current asking price on any of the SDD then I will consider them but for now I shall pass. What sucks is these prices dont even have to be anywhere near as high as they are but new tech comes with that oh so lovely over priced price tag, oh well SSD are the future but Im wondering how long into that future Im going to have to wait before its reasonable.
azrael- 16th May 2009, 19:18 Quote
I can't really see how they're (and by they I mean all SSD manufacturers) going to fix the performance degradation issue. It's a problem that is inherent to the flash technology.


The problem is that of data pages. Every time you want to change even 1 bit you have to read the page that bit is stored in, erase that page and then write it back. At first, when the disk is fresh and unused data can simply be written to the disk. However, as more and more of the disk's space gets filled you'll have to perform the routine mentioned above. A way to alleviate the problem a bit is to have a huge DRAM cache on the disk. Intel's X25 series has 16MB on-board and I believe the Vertex has 64MB, which is the main, if not the only, reason it's faster than the X25 at writing.

Oh, and by the way, any SSD using the JMicron JMF602 controller is a pure hands-off product. Avoid at all cost! They'll never run fast, even if a "new" design is advertised. They also consume way too much power.
HourBeforeDawn 17th May 2009, 02:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
I can't really see how they're (and by they I mean all SSD manufacturers) going to fix the performance degradation issue. It's a problem that is inherent to the flash technology.


The problem is that of data pages. Every time you want to change even 1 bit you have to read the page that bit is stored in, erase that page and then write it back. At first, when the disk is fresh and unused data can simply be written to the disk. However, as more and more of the disk's space gets filled you'll have to perform the routine mentioned above. A way to alleviate the problem a bit is to have a huge DRAM cache on the disk. Intel's X25 series has 16MB on-board and I believe the Vertex has 64MB, which is the main, if not the only, reason it's faster than the X25 at writing.

Oh, and by the way, any SSD using the JMicron JMF602 controller is a pure hands-off product. Avoid at all cost! They'll never run fast, even if a "new" design is advertised. They also consume way too much power.

IBM... Im pretty sure its IBM, I read the info A LONG time ago is developing what they call nano wire race tracks, which should eliminate ALL the known issues with current SSD and take that technology to the next level but who knows how long that could take.
leexgx 17th May 2009, 12:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
I can't really see how they're (and by they I mean all SSD manufacturers) going to fix the performance degradation issue. It's a problem that is inherent to the flash technology.


The problem is that of data pages. Every time you want to change even 1 bit you have to read the page that bit is stored in, erase that page and then write it back. At first, when the disk is fresh and unused data can simply be written to the disk. However, as more and more of the disk's space gets filled you'll have to perform the routine mentioned above. A way to alleviate the problem a bit is to have a huge DRAM cache on the disk. Intel's X25 series has 16MB on-board and I believe the Vertex has 64MB, which is the main, if not the only, reason it's faster than the X25 at writing.

Oh, and by the way, any SSD using the JMicron JMF602 controller is a pure hands-off product. Avoid at all cost! They'll never run fast, even if a "new" design is advertised. They also consume way too much power.

windows 7 supports an SSD command called TRIM (the SSD it self needs to support this command)
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=10 (i recommend reading all pages press the print button, but do not go full screen keep it about 6in wide so its more readable) page 10 explanes then TRIM command it alows it to wipe an block so its ready to receve data and for the most part all SSD companys need to do is bring an update out for the SSD

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx


JMicron is slow any way be it fresh format or not (small writes)
azrael- 17th May 2009, 13:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
IBM... Im pretty sure its IBM, I read the info A LONG time ago is developing what they call nano wire race tracks, which should eliminate ALL the known issues with current SSD and take that technology to the next level but who knows how long that could take.

Sounds interesting. I hope they get it to work. Soon. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
windows 7 supports an SSD command called TRIM (the SSD it self needs to support this command)
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=10 (i recommend reading all pages press the print button, but do not go full screen keep it about 6in wide so its more readable) page 10 explanes then TRIM command it alows it to wipe an block so its ready to receve data and for the most part all SSD companys need to do is bring an update out for the SSD
The "trim" command doesn't solve the performance problem, but it alleviates it. Only if there's a fair bit of empty space on the drive, though. Also, the "trim" command has only been proposed to be part of the ATA specification, although it'll probably be accepted. Actually, Microsoft proposes further changes to the ATA specification, but they're pushing "trim" especially. It all helps, though. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
JMicron is slow any way be it fresh format or not (small writes)
QFT!
leexgx 17th May 2009, 16:26 Quote
The trim command is performed after the write so does fix the writeing issues (unless its JMicron as you see from the line below very disapointing jmicron ssds was sold in this way)

On that last link from anandtech it has the speed issues that what happes when trim is not used and shows how poor jmicron is new vs filled page 12-14 http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=13 is where trim command would of keeped the hdd at good free state as the the ssd blocks are all ready free to use going to get the corsair s128 ssd see how it perfomes see if it has trim as well

Allso he does keep on pointing out that thay get slower the older thay get thay do not, thay just go 20% slow that's all once thay have been filled thay willnot go slower then that (and the trim command is not used) it goes an little slower but still 2x faster then an norm hdd (baring jmicron)
outlawaol 18th May 2009, 05:02 Quote
A 7/10 on value? Haha! A 128gb SSD for $380 is not a good value. Access speeds, read/write speeds aside cost per GB is insane. Sitting at over $2.96 a GB, that is insanity. Considering I just bought a 1TB mech drive for $.08 per GB.

I honestly dont see the attraction to these drives (other then no moving parts). Being a solid memory architecture, does not the memory integrity start to get compromised over use? (something like 250k read/writes starts to get corrupt?)

I would throw the rating down to a 2/10 for value, as nearly $3 a GB is simply to much, no matter how they try to "spin it".
HourBeforeDawn 18th May 2009, 06:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by outlawaol
A 7/10 on value? Haha! A 128gb SSD for $380 is not a good value. Access speeds, read/write speeds aside cost per GB is insane. Sitting at over $2.96 a GB, that is insanity. Considering I just bought a 1TB mech drive for $.08 per GB.

I honestly dont see the attraction to these drives (other then no moving parts). Being a solid memory architecture, does not the memory integrity start to get compromised over use? (something like 250k read/writes starts to get corrupt?)

I would throw the rating down to a 2/10 for value, as nearly $3 a GB is simply to much, no matter how they try to "spin it".

well Im not sure on this SSD but there are some SSD designed to last over 100 years so that explains their high price tag compared to a typical mechanic drive that has a span of 5 years on average. So if this SSD can last even just 3 times that would mean its a good value if not then ya I agree still to pricey
leexgx 20th May 2009, 14:32 Quote
got the S128 now and it works very well, using windows 7 and it has turned off superfetch and readyboost {once the windows experience index has been performed } you can see if the SSD performs well or not plug an pendrive in and look for the readyboost and it says that the speed of the hard disk you are using is unlikely to benefit from readyboost so it has been disabled :) , i am guessing it may not say that on JMicron drives but not sure (any one got windows 7 with an SSD thats JMicron drive? chekc the above)

one note you Need to do an windows experience index before it sets the options (its set when it does the disk performance check) and has compleated it
cpu 7.3
ram 7.3
aero 6.0
3d 6.0
HDD 7.1

i guess to get an higher score then 6.0 on video needs an DX11 card,

on windows 7, GDI+ has been turnd back on and moved to the video card, this has done wunders for programs i have used in the past that have used masive CPU (maxing an core out as thay are norm single threaded GDI) and slow programs no longer happen (vista has 0 GDI+ support all CPU rendering)

only bug now is nividia the right click on desktop has added an 2 sec delay Nvidia need to fix that as there right click option thats in there is delaying it, and i get some times messed up video on second display (but that may have been due to power saveing options on the PCI-e in power options, i set it to none and USB to no, on power save, not seen it happen agane yet)

and yay thay fixed the network bug when haveing sound card open (teamspeak or any audio program thats got the sound card open) my network goes at 60-80MB/s from my server (depends what disk its comming from)

i have not filled the drive yet but the atto benchmark at 128KB is maxing out at 95MB/s read 75MB/s write so the drive must be prefilled, there was all ready an NTFS partition (had name corsair as lable) so thay must do an full format test i guess before sending them out,
chicorasia 31st May 2009, 14:51 Quote
Excellent review. Very thorough and comprehensive.

Bit-tech has been a most valuable resource for following the rise of SSD drives. Keep up the good work.
Bindibadgi 31st May 2009, 15:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx

cpu 7.3
ram 7.3
aero 6.0
3d 6.0
HDD 7.1

i guess to get an higher score then 6.0 on video needs an DX11 card,

I'd guess it's a combination of DX11 and dialing it back in expectation for future GPU releases considering the large performance advancements.
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