I just buy whatever SSD is the cheapest for the chipset I am looking for. Just so happens my last SSD was an OCZ 90gb vertex 2 for 120$shipped. First one was DOA, RMA'ed one runs flawlessly. And the reason the NANDs arent the highest quality is probably becasue they are overspecced for the current SF-1200 chipset. Who knows anyways, as long as it works for at least 3 years. And if it doesn't, they have really good tech support and RMA.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
OCZ using crappy flash chips?
- Thread starter danman
- Start date
Peteman100
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,466
Sounds like both OWC and OCZ are correct. The SpecTek chips being used in the Vertex 2 are certainly not Tier 1, as OWC is claiming. However, as OCZ is quick to point out, that doesn't mean the flash is a lower grade or will perform worse, necessarily. Still, the whole thing makes me wary of OCZ's business practices.
And OCZ has locked the thread AGAIN. I wanted to get in today and ask OCZ to decode the markings on the chip, but it seems OCZ does not want any people asking questions. Or more likely, they need to have someone standing by to delete any posts that OCZ does not like, so they lock the thread whenever their designated deleter is unavailable.
I've yet to see a post be deleted. What I do see is that other threads have been combined into the main one and that thread is locked. Again - I'm not trying to defend OCZ but trying to find some common sense here.
I've yet to hear about someones drive dying because it had SpecTek chips in it. I've yet to to see a box or a claim from OCZ that says "Your SSD will only have X brand chips in it". I've yet to see a claim from OCZ that says "Your SSD will only have XXnm chips in it that will only be XX size."
I think the 34 to 25nm transition WAS a mess - but OCZ is trying to make good on it. I think this SpecTek thing is completely blown out of proportion. People forget that that same chip in their PC was 'binned' just like every other kind of chip out there. Your 2.0GHz i7 most likely failed running at 2.4GHz or 2.2GHz but ran at 2.0GHz and Intel sold it accordingly. As long as my drive works and I get the product I was promised (I was never promised that it would have X brand nand or X die size) I'd be happy. Again, I'd understand this if there were drives failing all over the place because of faulty NAND but so far the ONLY place this shown its face is on a competitors blog.
If you're an OCZ drive owner and your drive has failed because of SpecTek nand, raise hell.
If you're an OCZ drive owner and your drive is slow because you have 64gb 25nm nand, raise hell.
If you're an OCZ drive owner and everything works fine and your drive works fine - who cares what's inside.
If you're not an OCZ drive owner and this whole thing bothers you, don't buy OCZ.
I'd also like to point out that all comments on the OWC's blog are moderated and mine was moderated out of existence. I had a feeling this would happen so I took a screenshot.
Decoding the chips - Mark code was PF458 which corresponds to part number FBNL63B71K3MAAC5 (using this: http://spectek.com/menus/nand_mark_code.aspx)
Using this: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.spectek.com/pdfs/SpecTek_pns_Flash.pdf
FB: Spectek
N: Internal
L63B: Denotes multiple cell
7: Functional Density
1: Parent Density
K: Configuration (x8)
3: Voltage (3v)
M: Package configuration type (4/4/yes)
A: Package functionality type (All CE are Valid and usable)
A: Interface (async only)
C5: Package Code (52pad vlga)
That leaves AL (which is printed on the chip) which corresponds to: Full Spec with Tighter requirements.
Lastly I just want to add that not all OCZ drives even use the spectek stuff and that other brands may use it too.
Last edited:
That's a loaded statement though - if your drive dies I assume you are going to RMA it. And if you want to RMA it you can't void your warranty by opening up the drives. I can also easily say "I haven't heard of anyone's drive dying who didn't have SpecTek chips"
. OCZ is the only company that could generate meaningful statistics on this.
Well, they did say the drive was 120 and it turned out to be 115 (when they changed from 32 to 64 chips) - they also advertised sequential performance numbers that couldn't be met by the new chip configuration (due to reduced memory controller parallelization from lager chips). If that wasn't straight up fraud than it was massive incompetence. Pretty much every enthusiast on this board would know that reducing the number of memory controller channels would reduce performance, and they are professional *in* the SSD industry (which OCZ is). How could they not have known this? As for making good on it did they actually recall all the 64 chipped drives, or are they just swapping out as people notice and complain?
Fair and valid point. Now lets consider two sandforce drives. Same size, same controller, same firmware, same price. Once has top shelf Micron first run ram chips. The other has reclaimed/retested rejects. Sure, they both have the same warranty, but no one really wants to take advantage of the warranty - the want to not to have to use it. And it would be nice if the drive lasted well outside the warranty. Why wouldn't you buy the higher spec chips?
Because you are worried if it will continue to work fine....
I don't think for a second OWC did this out of some sort of altruistic sense of public informational awareness, etc. - it obviously was a shot across the bow of the competitor - but that said, it still raises some interesting points.
That's a loaded statement though - if your drive dies I assume you are going to RMA it. And if you want to RMA it you can't void your warranty by opening up the drives. I can also easily say "I haven't heard of anyone's drive dying who didn't have SpecTek chips"
OCZ is the only company that could generate meaningful statistics on this.
I totally agree with you on this point. It would be great if someone could develop a peice of software that could detect the make/model of the NAND (although Spectek would still show up as Micron I think)
Again, agreed. From what I can tell they are only swapping out drives for people that notice/care/complain.
This is the part where I differ. If I purchase almost any product out there that requires components to be purchased from different vendors I generally expect they will do whatever is the best deal for them as long as it works (house, car, etc). I expect this in almost everything I buy since everyone is in business to make a profit. If I bought a 120GB OCZ drive I care that a) it can perform at the speed at which OCZ promised, b) that it is the capacity promised and c) that it actually works. At no point did OCZ promise me a certain brand of nand, just that it would do what was advertised. As long as the SpecTek NAND performs as it should, I don't care. I'll guarantee that OCZ isn't the first SSD manufacturer to use spectek in their devices. I truly think if SpecTek AL NAND was totally crap, we'd hear more about it.
I agree but posting a poorly researched article to burn your competitor was a low blow and frankly, in my eyes brings OWC down a notch. They could have pushed hard that they use Premium NAND and gone from there.
OCZ drives are generally on the cheaper side of things in the current market and certainly cheaper than OWC. If you're purchasing the cheaper option, I would expect cheaper components inside.
I'll say this though. OCZ has let down its current and potential customers. They had a great product with the 34nm, 32gb die size Vertex 2 drives. By building the 25nm drives without differentiating them from the other drives was a MASSIVE screwup that will make everyone scrutinize OCZ's products. The fact that they are building the drives with what people are considering Microns reject chips they only made matters worse. Had they released a different version/model of drive at a different price point, they could have avoided a lot of this mess.
GreenMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,159
Agreed. I have a 60gb Agility 1 in my desktop, but I wasn't willing to order a Vertex 2 and chance getting a 115GB slow one, and having to go through and RMA. I saw a couple of deals on them and passed.
I ended up with an Intel X25-M 120gb instead for my laptop. No chances.
This is fascinating to see how deep this rabbit hole goes. Someone posted a link to a chinese website that predates the OWC article slamming OCZ and the Vertex 2. They claim its no-name NAND from what I understand but I was able to find that it was Micron (but for some reason doesn't have the logo).
Here's a link to the chinese site (Google translated)
I can't find much in terms of specific specs of the NAND though. If OCZ is sourcing their NAND from so many different vendors, quality control has to be a b*tch.
Edit: it's 64gbit so OCZ probably isn't using it anymore since thats what caused the size issues. From what I understand they've gone back to 32gbit NAND.
Here's a link to the chinese site (Google translated)
I can't find much in terms of specific specs of the NAND though. If OCZ is sourcing their NAND from so many different vendors, quality control has to be a b*tch.
Edit: it's 64gbit so OCZ probably isn't using it anymore since thats what caused the size issues. From what I understand they've gone back to 32gbit NAND.
Looks like this is being swept under the rug. The thread that was locked on their forums has remained that way and there hasn't been a peep from OCZ corporate. I'd at least like to hear SOMETHING from them. I just had a drive from them replaced under the RMA (64gbit NAND) and I think I'm just going to send it back to Amazon and get another brand.
OCZ seems to have become the Jiffylube of SSD manufacturers.
OCZ seems to have become the Jiffylube of SSD manufacturers.
shawnmramsey
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 173
Seems like a lot of sand... in a lot of vaginas to me.
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 13,438
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Messages
- 2,498
Wait, so it has Micron screen printing but it's Spec-Tek?
My OCZ 64Gb Vertex Turbo has a 7.4 Win7 rating. I've upgraded the firmware to 1.6 & used their sanitary erase a couple of times to reinstall Win7 (software I installed caused this not the ssd). Maybe I've been lucky but for me this has been a very good ssd. That being said, I haven't opened it to inspect the chips, but whatever is in it has been working fine for me.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 19,080
Thankfully my Vertex 2 shipped before they changed their manufacturing process, so I have the older version. I'm definitely going to be looking away from OCZ in the future until they get over this funk they're in.
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 13,438
The older models prior to the Vertex 2's worked very well, i.e. the Agility 1, Vertex 1, and Vertex Turbo 1.
These models appear to be rock solid and so far the Vertex 3's have appeared to be good so far as well.
But mainly it wasn't the hardware that was the major issue, it was OCZ being shady about changing hardware and not alerting their customers that there were different Vertex 2's under the label.
This may be relevant:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/810-6/components-returns-rates.html
Return rates of various SSDs:
"For the first time, we are including SSDs in our returns rates. Here are the figures by manufacturer:
- Intel 0.59%
- Corsair 2.17%
- Crucial 2.25%
- Kingston 2.39%
- OCZ 2.93%
Just...an addition.
I bought my first SSD back in august 2009 from the French shop these stats come from. Crucial M225 64GB. It started failing after about one year, it took me some time to realize it, as the main symptom was a scandisk with some corrupted files when booting, and I tend to (re)boot once every 10 days or less. When I started some testing on it to narrow down the problem, it died completely. I replaced it with an OCZ 240GB Vertex 2 from the same shop last november ! So far, so good. I still have the Crucial drive as I'm lazy. One interesting bit more, I had opened the M225 when new, as it was just on the market at the time, with few reviews if any, and I wanted to compare the insides with OCZ and other drives. For a Crucial drive, I expected Micron chips, instead, it was Elpida DDR and Samsung flash !
I find that incredibly amusing, for some reason. You'd think Crucial, being owned by Micron and all, would use Micron components, seeing as how they can likely get favorable pricing/availability.
Side note, my Max IOPS Vertex 3 just arrived, need to do some speed testing. I bought it despite worries about OCZ's recent RAM practices, as I was somewhat reassured by Anand's latest article (120GB OCZ V3 review). On top of that, there's nothing on my system drive I'm worried about losing other than some game saves that default to My Documents, which I back up semi-regularly anyway.
Side note, my Max IOPS Vertex 3 just arrived, need to do some speed testing. I bought it despite worries about OCZ's recent RAM practices, as I was somewhat reassured by Anand's latest article (120GB OCZ V3 review). On top of that, there's nothing on my system drive I'm worried about losing other than some game saves that default to My Documents, which I back up semi-regularly anyway.