• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Must read article for SSD enthusiasts

I can almost get 3x30g vertex for the price of that X25. I doubt the intel is 3x faster though.
 
Great read indeed.

A lot of detail, and its nice to see that Anandtech used a real life approach testing the SSDs as they were "used", you might say it was a(n) [H]Anandtech review. :p
 
Yep awesome read. Sent that link to a pile of friends earlier today after I read through it all. Definitely one of the most thorough articles I've read in a long time. Then again when you know you're going to piss off 90% of the SSD manufacturers you better have your facts straight. ;)

OCZ has probably earned a lot of respect from many people for doing what they did as well. Firstly admiting fault and then trying to at least rectify the problem with the earlier SSDs. Its great to see them take advice from Anand to heart and make the changes and bring us what appears to be a solid SSD.
 
drgnfang said:
I can almost get 3x30g vertex for the price of that X25. I doubt the intel is 3x faster though.
Click to expand...

Did you read the whole article? I don't think you understand how SSD works yet... If all you're going for is the highest throughput on large files, great- you'd have the fastest setup with the 3xVertex. But if you're going for all around performance, the Vertex would never be able to catch up with the X25- ;)

Good article though. Too bad they didn't do a little more in-depth with RAID0 vs single drive.
 
For people that don't have to own one or more SSD's now, it would seem from Anand's article that Windows 7's eventual support of the TRIM command, and drives that support it will be the next big thing with SSD's.

Right now, these drives are extremely fast, but no OS fully supports the technology.

I normally consider waiting to be an excuse to not spend money, and love to be on the cutting edge, but this could be a great time to wait 6 months to a year.
 
I read the first part and skimmed the benchmarks part cause i cared more about the theory...(friend used to give me lectures on NAND and i never knew what he was talking about).

From what I got from the article, the random write performance is more important than the read speed because in desktop applications because the OS likes to randomly write stuff to the drive here and there. However, if you have a RAID 0 of say 3 Vertexes, wouldn't you technically increase the random write performance given that RAID 0 breaks up the file and writes it to all 3 drives? You'd then have pretty high read speeds with good random writes.

One question though. When you randomly write, do you write to the cache first or is it just used for when you write (to hold data while the block is being erased). Cause logically, if you wrote to fast memory first, you could decrease random write times?
 
I really enjoyed that article too. I actually thought of [H] while reading it -- "hey look -- Anand is concerned with what the real-world benefits are and not just what benches well!".

I have a Vertex 60GB and have to say his summary is spot-on. I don't have one of the Intel drives to compare to (don't have that kind of scratch) but the Vertex is definitely snappier than my Raptor 150. Vista boots in what seems like half the time and other app just "pop" faster... quite happy.
 
Griff805 said:
Did you read the whole article? I don't think you understand how SSD works yet... If all you're going for is the highest throughput on large files, great- you'd have the fastest setup with the 3xVertex. But if you're going for all around performance, the Vertex would never be able to catch up with the X25- ;)

Good article though. Too bad they didn't do a little more in-depth with RAID0 vs single drive.
Click to expand...
I did read it, and I do think I understand. I'm not saying a single vertex can compare to the intel - it can't. But if you put 3 vertex on a hardware raid controller (hell even an ICH9/10r) against a single intel X25-M I'm pretty sure it will beat it on overall performance. I could be wrong though *shrug*. If I was going to lay down almost $350-400 for a new SSD(s) today, I would probably go for the Intel. Instead I dumped ~110 on a Vertex. I've been completely happy with mine.
 
drgnfang said:
I can almost get 3x30g vertex for the price of that X25. I doubt the intel is 3x faster though.
Click to expand...
At 4KB Random Writes, it's not 3x faster, it's 10x faster.
24b3qkw.png


And why would you want to mess with buying 3 drives when you could buy 1 for the same price that will outperform all 3 of the others?


edit: now only 3.5x faster
1552czc.png
 
drgnfang said:
I did read it, and I do think I understand. I'm not saying a single vertex can compare to the intel - it can't. But if you put 3 vertex on a hardware raid controller (hell even an ICH9/10r) against a single intel X25-M I'm pretty sure it will beat it on overall performance. I could be wrong though *shrug*. If I was going to lay down almost $350-400 for a new SSD(s) today, I would probably go for the Intel. Instead I dumped ~110 on a Vertex. I've been completely happy with mine.
Click to expand...
I agree if you're looking for a smaller drive, the Vertex is a great choice.
I'm not going to mess with SSD RAID until I see some testing with definitive results. Some of the people at XS have been posting benchmarks, but it seems often the controller can add latency.
 
I think I agree with your original post - the vertex is an acceptable alternative if you don't want to lay down the cheese for the intel.
 
Well the controllers are getting overloaded. Even 4x Apex can overload the ICH10r, and the Vertex have been overloading 2405/5405 cards (though this seems to be partly due to poor out of the box cooling on the processor).
 
EnderW said:
At 4KB Random Writes, it's not 3x faster, it's 10x faster.
24b3qkw.png


And why would you want to mess with buying 3 drives when you could buy 1 for the same price that will outperform all 3 of the others?
Click to expand...

His numbers are odd, my 4k Random Writes are in the 12mb/s~ running 1199 firmware not 2.4mb/s..

Results 293.72
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.6 (9G55)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro5,1
Drive Type OCZ-VERTEX 1199
Disk Test 293.72
Sequential 260.14
Uncached Write 299.48 183.88 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 342.00 193.50 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 144.89 42.40 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 452.24 227.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 337.25
Uncached Write 115.18 12.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 552.57 176.90 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 3140.05 22.25 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 951.79 176.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]

80/120gb used.
 
Saw this, was gonna post. Maybe the vertex purchase is back on, perhaps just pushed out a little to see if they will support TRIM on the vertex.
 
This is old news, and that Vertex is on older firmware. In a few days, there's even newer firmware coming out, meaning that reviewer is 2 or more revs behind on firmware. HUGE performance diff's.
 
Brahmzy said:
This is old news, and that Vertex is on older firmware. In a few days, there's even newer firmware coming out, meaning that reviewer is 2 or more revs behind on firmware. HUGE performance diff's.
Click to expand...

How many firmware revisions has Intel done since the X25-M drives were released?
Not sure why I would want an OCZ "work in progress".
I would want a drive, not a project drive.
 
aamsel said:
How many firmware revisions has Intel done since the X25-M drives were released?
Not sure why I would want an OCZ "work in progress".
I would want a drive, not a project drive.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and can you find 2 people who can get similar results with the Vertex, the results i've seen are all over the place.

It scares me to see people accept that a company is having their customers pay to beta test their products for them. It's nice how they put the "listening to the customer" spin on the whole thing. Very good marketing-

I'd buy a Vertex if they could tell me for sure what performance to expect and what hardware it works with, ahead of time, not after I buy it-
 
Griff805 said:
Exactly, and can you find 2 people who can get similar results with the Vertex, the results i've seen are all over the place.

It scares me to see people accept that a company is having their customers pay to beta test their products for them. It's nice how they put the "listening to the customer" spin on the whole thing. Very good marketing-

I'd buy a Vertex if they could tell me for sure what performance to expect and what hardware it works with, ahead of time, not after I buy it-
Click to expand...

It's kind of like drivers for video cards...
 
Yeah except its the equivalent of needing new drivers constantly for integrated graphics while your competitors don't.
 
How many BIOS updates have you put on your motherboard since you purchased it?
 
Brahmzy said:
This is old news, and that Vertex is on older firmware. In a few days, there's even newer firmware coming out, meaning that reviewer is 2 or more revs behind on firmware. HUGE performance diff's.
Click to expand...
Where can I learn more about the different firmwares?
 
EnderW said:
Where can I learn more about the different firmwares?
Click to expand...

OCZ Forums. The site has blown up since the Vertex's release. Tons of valuable OCZ-specific info and more tons of valuable general SSD info.
 
Brahmzy said:
OCZ Forums. The site has blown up since the Vertex's release. Tons of valuable OCZ-specific info and more tons of valuable general SSD info.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for some specific links that show the exact performance differences you were talking about.
I'm too lazy to go searching :eek:
 
I think the article really needed to add some raid comparisons to give a fair chance for the other SSDs, particularly the samsung SLC. I get the feeling that a competent raid controller, such as the Areca 12xx series, along with a couple of "dumb" firmware SLC SSDs, would reach similar write performance levels as the Intel due to the write-back controller cache of the raid controller. Essentially the Intel firmware seems to be moving some of that write-cache logic to the drive itself, which is why it's so much more expensive than a typical drive, and the random-write performance for single-drive comparisons is so lopsided.
 
alamone said:
I think the article really needed to add some raid comparisons to give a fair chance for the other SSDs, particularly the samsung SLC. I get the feeling that a competent raid controller, such as the Areca 12xx series, along with a couple of "dumb" firmware SLC SSDs, would reach similar write performance levels as the Intel due to the write-back controller cache of the raid controller. Essentially the Intel firmware seems to be moving some of that write-cache logic to the drive itself, which is why it's so much more expensive than a typical drive, and the random-write performance for single-drive comparisons is so lopsided.
Click to expand...

You're correct but isn't that the nature of comparing computer hardware? It would be like claiming a Dodge Viper shouldn't be labeled the winner of a drag race with a Neon because the Viper has a significantly larger engine. Well, that's sorta the idea, right?
 
aamsel said:
How many firmware revisions has Intel done since the X25-M drives were released?
Not sure why I would want an OCZ "work in progress".
I would want a drive, not a project drive.
Click to expand...

Dont consider buying any SSD then !!
 
I just have to wonder... is it really worth it? Are all these potential hassles really worth a speed advantage that can almost be done with real hard drives that are significantly cheaper? More mature? Stable? Get the job done?

I mean, I read those tweak guides for SSD from the OCZ forums (been telling people about those and that SSD forum over there for a long long time now as the best source of real-world usage and tips) and I think, "My god, they're basically causing people to disable almost everything in Windows Vista (and now Windows 7) related to functional adequate data storage - with consequences - and kneecapping the OS in many respects... all for what? A few extra megs per second?

Really?

I guess I'm jaded as a long time supporter of using RAMdisks which makes even that Intel SSD look like it's fuckin' standing still, they really do. Do I care that I can't boot the actual OS and computer off one? Not in the least... with all the hassles people are going through with SSD hardware, I say "Good for you, I'll stick with the tried and true for many years to come" and I really will... hard drives are damned fast nowadays. But then again, that leads to my age old question that no one can answer...

"How fast is fast?"

When there's an SSD I can take out of the package, install it inside my PC/laptop, and install my OS on without a single tweak, then I'll consider 'em as worthwhile storage devices. Until then, guess I'll stick with these slow ass Velociraptors... ;)
 
That was an awesome article and much props to the reviewer that wrote his SSD reviews as he saw it. In turn we get a great product in the OCZ Vertex line, which I can't wait to get my hands on. Should be getting here in a day or two...

I haven't been this excited about a particular computer hardware since the purchase of a DTR notebook (one of the first 17" widescreens!) 5 years ago that destroyed everything else (notebook wise) out in the market at the time.

That former monster DTR is now only good for emergency backup use and/or as a bookend... it has been replaced by a 14 incher that weighs about 2/3 less and can whoop its ass in every performance category. It's sad yet funny.
 
Joe Average said:
I just have to wonder... is it really worth it? Are all these potential hassles really worth a speed advantage that can almost be done with real hard drives that are significantly cheaper? More mature? Stable? Get the job done?

I mean, I read those tweak guides for SSD from the OCZ forums (been telling people about those and that SSD forum over there for a long long time now as the best source of real-world usage and tips) and I think, "My god, they're basically causing people to disable almost everything in Windows Vista (and now Windows 7) related to functional adequate data storage - with consequences - and kneecapping the OS in many respects... all for what? A few extra megs per second?

Really?

I guess I'm jaded as a long time supporter of using RAMdisks which makes even that Intel SSD look like it's fuckin' standing still, they really do. Do I care that I can't boot the actual OS and computer off one? Not in the least... with all the hassles people are going through with SSD hardware, I say "Good for you, I'll stick with the tried and true for many years to come" and I really will... hard drives are damned fast nowadays. But then again, that leads to my age old question that no one can answer...

"How fast is fast?"

When there's an SSD I can take out of the package, install it inside my PC/laptop, and install my OS on without a single tweak, then I'll consider 'em as worthwhile storage devices. Until then, guess I'll stick with these slow ass Velociraptors... ;)
Click to expand...

+1

Agree 100%...One SDD, simple install, no darn tweaking, and that is all I ask as well
 
SSD is completely different from HDD. Until your OS of choice has been fixed to know the difference this won't happen. *shrug*
 
Joe Average said:
I just have to wonder... is it really worth it? Are all these potential hassles really worth a speed advantage that can almost be done with real hard drives that are significantly cheaper? More mature? Stable? Get the job done?

I mean, I read those tweak guides for SSD from the OCZ forums (been telling people about those and that SSD forum over there for a long long time now as the best source of real-world usage and tips) and I think, "My god, they're basically causing people to disable almost everything in Windows Vista (and now Windows 7) related to functional adequate data storage - with consequences - and kneecapping the OS in many respects... all for what? A few extra megs per second?

Really?

I guess I'm jaded as a long time supporter of using RAMdisks which makes even that Intel SSD look like it's fuckin' standing still, they really do. Do I care that I can't boot the actual OS and computer off one? Not in the least... with all the hassles people are going through with SSD hardware, I say "Good for you, I'll stick with the tried and true for many years to come" and I really will... hard drives are damned fast nowadays. But then again, that leads to my age old question that no one can answer...

"How fast is fast?"

When there's an SSD I can take out of the package, install it inside my PC/laptop, and install my OS on without a single tweak, then I'll consider 'em as worthwhile storage devices. Until then, guess I'll stick with these slow ass Velociraptors... ;)
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the setup of Vertex SSD is fairly simple (from notsane's post):

1. Boot to your old vista install to do a bit of pre install work.
2. Update vertex to 1199 firmware using the instructions here:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=52848
3. Align Partition using diskpart to 128k using this guide here:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=48309
4. Create a partition in the disk managemant console using allocation usint size of 4096 bytes and do a quick format of NTFS
5.shut down and remove old os drive
6. setup your bios to boot from CD
7. Boot form Vista (with SP1) disk and install vista onto the partition you created in the earlier steps. Do not delete the partition at this step or you will lose alignment.
8. Once vista is up and running disable defrag and indexing on the vertex. Also go to device manager and enable advanced performance. (and obviously add drivers etc)
9. Setup your bios to boot from vertex

Nine steps of configuration is not what I consider all that difficult. Not really even a hassle if you ask me. Of course, I understand that what I consider easy and relatively hassle free may not be so easy to do for others. But in this case, anyone with some experience with setting up hardware to play nice with drivers/firmware shouldn't have any problems.

Also, the benefits of SSDs are not a mere "few extra megs per second". I think the Anandtech's article/benchmarks clearly explains how the Intel's and OCZ's Vertex line SSDs outperforms (sometimes completely dominating) traditional hard drives in every manner possible, even with their imperfections.

Clearly, it is still not the right time for most folks to jump on the SSD bandwagon as price per GB is still fairly high. But one thing I cannot overlook is the overall performance benefit of a SSD compared to a traditional drive. For this reason alone, I have no buyer's remorse for paying $2.62 per gigabyte (what I actually ended up paying for the 120GB Vertex).
 
I don't think it's fair to say "fix the OS so it'll work with the drives" - that's a fucking cop out. Yes we all know there's a lot of things that can be done - all those damned tweaks, and more on the way I'll bet - but geez... this is bordering on being a bit ludicrous.

Here we are - a lot of us, at least - preaching that the right idea with Windows Vista and Windows 7 is leave it alone because Windows finally got to a point where it can take care of itself and is generally pretty well performing...

Now we come out with a "new" storage technology and suddenly, to get the performance you're paying for, you're forced to tweak the hell out of the OS to get IT to work well with the storage...

Does anyone else see how truly ironic and stupid that particular aspect of all this is, besides me?

Nine steps... even one is unacceptable to me... that's ridiculous, especially given the cost.
 
So because Windows is finally optimized to work well with rotational HDD's we should be pissed at SSD because it's not a rotational HDD?

Also, how much time, how many steps, do you think the average person on these forums takes to tweak out their CPU, or their GPU, or cutting up their $300 case. It's what we do. Nine steps (what about 30 minutes time?) is nothing to get better performance than stock. I spent more time getting my CPU overclocked the first couple of times.

There are people who have used the Intel and the Vertex without a single tweak and are perfectly happy with it.

There are also people who would rather buy a Q9650 than overclock a Q6600.

(edited to add more to rant)
 
Joe Average said:
...Nine steps... even one is unacceptable to me... that's ridiculous, especially given the cost.
Click to expand...

You can get the Intel, install VISTA, turn off defrag and indexing and be done.
Now, when Windows 7 is final (probably SP1) and TRIM awareness is included, you will have to hope that Intel releases a flash that adds TRIM support to the drive.
 
Joe Average said:
I don't think it's fair to say "fix the OS so it'll work with the drives" - that's a fucking cop out. Yes we all know there's a lot of things that can be done - all those damned tweaks, and more on the way I'll bet - but geez... this is bordering on being a bit ludicrous.

Here we are - a lot of us, at least - preaching that the right idea with Windows Vista and Windows 7 is leave it alone because Windows finally got to a point where it can take care of itself and is generally pretty well performing...

Now we come out with a "new" storage technology and suddenly, to get the performance you're paying for, you're forced to tweak the hell out of the OS to get IT to work well with the storage...

Does anyone else see how truly ironic and stupid that particular aspect of all this is, besides me?

Nine steps... even one is unacceptable to me... that's ridiculous, especially given the cost.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion but it's a bit overblown, don't ya think?

The current generation of Windows OS were not designed with SSD's in mind. Indexing and defragging were included in the OS because traditional drive's performance took a major hit if these features were not part of the OS itself. With the introduction of almost latency free operation of SSD's, these features are not needed. Technically, we're not fixing anything. We're only configuring the OS to work a brand spanking new hardware that it wasn't designed for. Two features are disabled... what are we fixing?

And what tweak do you speak of that we need to do "hell" of? Aligning the partition because the OS weren't designed with proper alignment to SSD because they were designed with HDD in mind? Plus it's a simple fix. No more difficult than updating your mobo's bios.

I want to understand your points but sorry, I'm unable to.
 
Actually even the Intel will perform better with disk alignment. That is the nature of the 4k block of SSD NAND tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top