![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Ocz Vertex 2 60GB or Intel G2 X25 80GB
- Thread starter zod96
- Start date
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
IMO Sandforce (e.g. Vertex 2/LE) is slightly better. But they're very close.
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,472
I just put an Agility 2 in my wifes computer, which is a slightly slower version of the Vertex 2. It seems as fast as my Intel G2 160GB.
The thing I noticed when looking at OCZ website, was that the drive does support TRIM, but there is no utility to explicitly run TRIM on the Sandforce drives. Intel however does have the drive utility that will run TRIM (even though it takes all of 2 seconds, which makes me wonder if it did anything) and it also has the SMART utility which lets you look at the drives SMART readings in case you ever wanted to see exactly how much read/write you've done to the drive.
I think they are both good performance wise, I think Intel has a slightly better (read longer) track record when it comes to reliability.
But if you have the strength, I would say wait just a couple more months for when Intel releases their 3rd gen SSD's, because you will either be able to get a bigger drive for the same price or the current models will be reduced in price. I wouldn't be surprised if 60-80GB drives hit the $100 point by the end of the year.
The thing I noticed when looking at OCZ website, was that the drive does support TRIM, but there is no utility to explicitly run TRIM on the Sandforce drives. Intel however does have the drive utility that will run TRIM (even though it takes all of 2 seconds, which makes me wonder if it did anything) and it also has the SMART utility which lets you look at the drives SMART readings in case you ever wanted to see exactly how much read/write you've done to the drive.
I think they are both good performance wise, I think Intel has a slightly better (read longer) track record when it comes to reliability.
But if you have the strength, I would say wait just a couple more months for when Intel releases their 3rd gen SSD's, because you will either be able to get a bigger drive for the same price or the current models will be reduced in price. I wouldn't be surprised if 60-80GB drives hit the $100 point by the end of the year.
the intel x25's are last generation. any sand force drive should be superior.
TRIM on the sandforce drives work somewhat differently then the last gen tech, as in it doesn't occur instantly. Sandforce is way more resilient, and is your best bet for non-windows 7 operating systems (mac osx)
TRIM on the sandforce drives work somewhat differently then the last gen tech, as in it doesn't occur instantly. Sandforce is way more resilient, and is your best bet for non-windows 7 operating systems (mac osx)
The Intel X25-M is as fast or faster for sequential and random reads, which are the most common type of I/Os in most everyday usage.
Also, the Intel is more reliable and more likely to work without any hassles, judging by 3% of below-average newegg reviews, compared to 15% below-average newegg reviews for OCZ Vertex 2 and Agiligy 2.
The intel g2 x25-m 80GB in the anandtech review only beats the ocz vertex 2 in one test the 4kb random read, and even then its only by a point 63 vs 62. In every other test the vertex 2 blows the intel ssd away. So why does everyone still say the intel is better? I'm not understanding that part...
It depends on the data you are writing. If most of your data is highly compressible, then the Sandforce drives will perform very well, since they will compress the data and write much less data to the flash than the Intel SSD would.
But if your data is hard to compress, then the Sandforce drives perform worse than the Intel drives in most benchmarks, since the underlying flash performs about the same, but the Sandforce has the added overhead of trying to compress/decompress the data.
This review does a good job of showing the difference, for a Vertex 2, between writing compressible and incompressible data. They have a separate entry in their charts for "Vertex 2 /R" which means random (incompressible) data. You can compare that to the Vertex 2 without the /R to see how the performance drops when the data is hard to compress.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/794-8/ssd-2010-report-13-models-compared.html
One thing that has not received a lot of attention with the Sandforce drives, possibly because Anand seems unaware of it, is that there is some irrecoverable loss of write performance with the drives, even after TRIM. See this review, for example:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/08/17/ocz-vertex-2e-review-120gb/3
But the main reason I usually recommend the Intel over the others is that, while the Intel may be slightly slower in some cases than Sandforce drives, the difference is not readily apparent in most everyday uses. But the Intel G2 drives have been around long enough that their reliability has been proven, and that most quirks have been ironed out. The Sandforce drives are newer, and theirs quirks are not well understood. So the Intel SSDs are better in the sense that they behave predictably, have good performance, good reliability, are more likely to be hassle-free.
But if your data is hard to compress, then the Sandforce drives perform worse than the Intel drives in most benchmarks, since the underlying flash performs about the same, but the Sandforce has the added overhead of trying to compress/decompress the data.
This review does a good job of showing the difference, for a Vertex 2, between writing compressible and incompressible data. They have a separate entry in their charts for "Vertex 2 /R" which means random (incompressible) data. You can compare that to the Vertex 2 without the /R to see how the performance drops when the data is hard to compress.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/794-8/ssd-2010-report-13-models-compared.html
One thing that has not received a lot of attention with the Sandforce drives, possibly because Anand seems unaware of it, is that there is some irrecoverable loss of write performance with the drives, even after TRIM. See this review, for example:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/08/17/ocz-vertex-2e-review-120gb/3
But the main reason I usually recommend the Intel over the others is that, while the Intel may be slightly slower in some cases than Sandforce drives, the difference is not readily apparent in most everyday uses. But the Intel G2 drives have been around long enough that their reliability has been proven, and that most quirks have been ironed out. The Sandforce drives are newer, and theirs quirks are not well understood. So the Intel SSDs are better in the sense that they behave predictably, have good performance, good reliability, are more likely to be hassle-free.
Last edited:
Ok point taken. It does make me wonder though, most reviews I have seen on newegg and amazon are like 5 stars for the vertex 2. And some of them are people going from the Intel drive to the ocz and how much better and faster it is to them. My system is used mainly for gaming, internet and email. Also sometimes burning a dvd and encoding one every now and then, what drive would be best for that?
I'd go with an Intel SSD in that case. The only situation I can think of in which I would recommend a Sandforce over an Intel is for someone who writes a lot of easily compressible data, and is very concerned with eeking out every last bit of performance on those writes, AND likes tinkering with their computer and does not mind troubleshooting when things go wrong.
That recommendation could change in another year, if the Sandforce drives prove reliable and predictable over the coming months.
That recommendation could change in another year, if the Sandforce drives prove reliable and predictable over the coming months.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,827
Could be placebo, excitement over getting a new toy, or the fact that they are likely going back to a fresh install of Windows when they install the Sandforce drive...I'm super happy with my Intels and would recommend them to anyone. Sandforce drives appear to be pretty good based on reviews but they're just not proven yet IMHO and that irrecoverable loss of write performance that john pointed out would concern me somewhat. I wouldn't mind to play with one of them if it had a good warranty and I was doing nightly backups of my OS.
ochadd
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,438
I'd wait until the 25nm flash enters the market. Price per GB should drop significantly and the new Intel controller will likely follow shortly after.
I've been running an X25-M G2 for many months now with no regrets. The SSD software Intel provides is badass. I want to know when my drive is being trimmed and can confirm without a doubt if it's working. Hate having to wonder if some hidden scheduled task I have no control over is doing its job.
I've been running an X25-M G2 for many months now with no regrets. The SSD software Intel provides is badass. I want to know when my drive is being trimmed and can confirm without a doubt if it's working. Hate having to wonder if some hidden scheduled task I have no control over is doing its job.
Put on flame suit: I think the current Sandforces are a little overrated.
They do get their better write speed by compression. I never liked the idea of forced compression back when they started to do it for harddrives, and I still don't like the idea now.
Indilinx are about 230 MB sec sequential read, and many Sandforces are 285 MB sec read. Which has probably as much to do with SATAII speed limits as much as anything else.
Random IOPS are definitely much better on the Sandforce, but you should probably have 3 to 4 GB of main memory anyhow - if you don't, upgrade your memory first before getting a SSD.
They do get their better write speed by compression. I never liked the idea of forced compression back when they started to do it for harddrives, and I still don't like the idea now.
Indilinx are about 230 MB sec sequential read, and many Sandforces are 285 MB sec read. Which has probably as much to do with SATAII speed limits as much as anything else.
Random IOPS are definitely much better on the Sandforce, but you should probably have 3 to 4 GB of main memory anyhow - if you don't, upgrade your memory first before getting a SSD.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
Zen, you haven't listed any cons except that you "never liked" the idea of compression. Sorry, but I don't care what you think about compression, because it obviously works.
Well, it does nothing for compressed files. In fact - It just adds overhead.
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb305/philo-sofa/HD_TACH_SSD_LZ_SMALL.jpg
Compression tends to result in somewhat erratic performance. Earlier firmware was not quite up to the task early on (back when the drives were using 28% for wear levelling, or inotherwords 100GB of a 128GB drive)
If you were to copy files that were say compressed at the highest ZIP level, I'd wager to say that it would probably be sequentially slower than an Indilinx. The only reason that Sandforces tend to be slightly sequentially faster - is that they are in general using newer flash chips, and has little to do with the controller.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/06/25/sandforce-ssd-test/11
In order to use compression - you have to add overhead latency, which means it can *sometimes* be much like a harddrive seek measured in tens of milliseconds or the dreaded "stutter".
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb305/philo-sofa/HD_TACH_SSD_LZ_SMALL.jpg
Compression tends to result in somewhat erratic performance. Earlier firmware was not quite up to the task early on (back when the drives were using 28% for wear levelling, or inotherwords 100GB of a 128GB drive)
If you were to copy files that were say compressed at the highest ZIP level, I'd wager to say that it would probably be sequentially slower than an Indilinx. The only reason that Sandforces tend to be slightly sequentially faster - is that they are in general using newer flash chips, and has little to do with the controller.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/06/25/sandforce-ssd-test/11
In order to use compression - you have to add overhead latency, which means it can *sometimes* be much like a harddrive seek measured in tens of milliseconds or the dreaded "stutter".