Should I buy 2 Vertex 3?

[Tooterfish]

I'm thinking of buying two of these per recommendations from this forum in particular. A buddy of mine told me to buy two Vertex 3's and run them in Raid 0. He says I will get better performance from them. In searching google, I found that some people claim to get faster boot speeds, but then go into specs that are a foreign language. In plain english, will I get better performance or should I save my money?

 

[thefreeaccount]

Two 120 GB drives in raid 0 are generally faster than a 240GB drive. Two 64GB drives will read faster than a 120GB drive, but the 120GB drive will write faster. Boot time will be slower in raid 0 because of the time it takes to initialize the raid. Finally, in the history of this forum, no one has ever advised anyone else to buy a Vertex 3. I will respect tradition and suggest you go with an intel G2 or 320 if you aren't comfortable with computers. They aren't very fast, but you won't have any trouble getting them to work.

 

[Tooterfish]

You sir, are awesome. Thanks!

 

[guney]

I'm thinking of buying two of these per recommendations from this forum in particular. A buddy of mine told me to buy two Vertex 3's and run them in Raid 0. He says I will get better performance from them. In searching google, I found that some people claim to get faster boot speeds, but then go into specs that are a foreign language. In plain english, will I get better performance or should I save my money?

I recently did essentially just that. My answer to you, in a nutshell, would be "are you kidding me, of course you'll get better performance!!!"

Having said that, the more precise answer depends a little bit on the answer to the question "better than what?"

If you mean better than any hard drive, then the answer is a resounding "yes", naturally.

If you mean "better than another SSD", then it's a pretty safe bet that the answer is a "yes". The Vertex 3 is possibly the fastest SSD out there (without going into PCI-based products).

If you mean "better than a single Vertex 3", then the answer is still a solid "yes". The read and write speeds of a single 240 GB Vertex 3 in the AS SSD Benchmark tool (as can be seen in this "Guru of 3D" review) is about 520 MB/sec for read and about 275 MB/sec for write. My results in the same tool with two 240 GB Vertex 3 drives in RAID 0 is 1000 MB/sec for read and about 420 MB/sec for write.

Speaking of boot speeds, though, if you're particularly sensitive to that, this SSD RAID arrangement may not slash it as much as you might expect. A good part of the boot-up time of a desktop PC is spent in the booting of the motherboard before even any disk access is made to boot into the OS. For example, my boot time of Windows 7 (from the "Starting Windows" message to the display of the login prompt) is 15 seconds using this Vertex 3 RAID array. But, my desktop still spends about 45 seconds before that, booting up the BIOS and initializing all the on-board devices on the motherboard. So, adjust your expectations accordingly.

Two 120 GB drives in raid 0 are generally faster than a 240GB drive. Two 64GB drives will read faster than a 120GB drive, but the 120GB drive will write faster.

I don't think so. See the write performance figures I've quoted and linked to above...

Boot time will be slower in raid 0 because of the time it takes to initialize the raid.

Interesting. I hadn't ever heard this before. The boot-up time of the on-board RAID controller on my motherboard is something like three seconds. I'm pretty sure that the RAID 0 array of my Vertex 3s is doing a bit more than reduce my Windows boot time by less than three seconds. So, the gain would be way (way!) more than the RAID boot-up loss.

Finally, in the history of this forum, no one has ever advised anyone else to buy a Vertex 3. I will respect tradition and suggest you go with an intel G2 or 320 if you aren't comfortable with computers. They aren't very fast, but you won't have any trouble getting them to work.

Fair enough. When it comes to value for money, the consideration is quite subjective, of course. And, the higher you go in price range, the more diminishing returns come into play. However, for someone who's after the very best, there's little need to look anywhere other than the Vertex 3.

Incidentally, I have moved to this RAID 0 array of two Vertex 3s from an earlier RAID 0 array of three Intel X-25Ms that I used to use as my boot drive. There's simply no comparison. The Vertex 3 is a new horizon (even when it's "only" a two-drive RAID 0)!

By the way, anyone who's considering a Vertex 3 or its alternatives would do well to read this article about the hidden gotchas of "synchronous versus asynchronous flash memory". In a nutshell, Vertex 3 is one of the products that use synchronous flash memory, and as such, avoids the hidden performance penalty of some of the cheaper models that use asynchronous flash memory. For anyone who finds high-end performance important, this could be a significant consideration.

 

[thefreeaccount]

I don't think so. See the write performance figures I've quoted and linked to above...

You proved that 480GB of flash is faster than 240GB of flash...grats? The figures don't have anything to do with the OP's question. In any case, who the hell goes to "3d guru" for reviews of anything?

The boot-up time of the on-board RAID controller on my motherboard is something like three seconds.

Going from ahci mode to raid mode adds only 3 seconds to your boot time? I doubt that.

I'm pretty sure that the RAID 0 array of my Vertex 3s is doing a bit more than reduce my Windows boot time by less than three seconds

Uh...why?

The Vertex 3 is a new horizon (even when it's "only" a two-drive RAID 0)!

Oh, please...it's faster than the M4, but only slightly faster. Furthermore, you can't just plug the Vertex 3 into any shitty motherboard and expect it to work. The intel drives work with just about anything as long as there's an intel chipset in it.

 

[baldrik]

I just put in an order for a couple of vertex 3 120GBs to do a raid 0 array. A few different factors lead me to choose the vertex 3 over the Force GT, M4 and 510.

1) The Sandforce drives are undeniably faster than pretty much everything else in the current generation. Ridiculous sequential speeds and competitive randoms. They won't win every bench, but they'll come close.

2) As far as I can tell, every SSD drive in the current generation has had some sort of BSOD issue. From what I've gleaned, this may have more to do with the SATA 3.0 spec and intel controllers than the SSDs themselves. The Sandforce parts do seem to show it a little more often, but that may be because they are on the bleeding edge of the specs and pushing other components harder than other drives. OCZ, Corsair, Sandforce and even Intel are working to get this sorted out not just through firmware updates, but future updates to intel's sata controllers and bios updates for mainboards.

3) This weekend's price drop of about $30 per drive on the Vertex3 120GB put them at the same price point as the M4. Only one other Sandforce 2200 series with synchronous NAND comes close in price and that is the Corsair Force GT, which also had a drop over the weekend. Currently on the egg, the Vertex 3 also has a $20 MIR, which dropped the price per drive to under $200 - $25 less than the Force GTs. Everything else is $250-290. The Intel drives, of course, are sitting at a steady $280.

4) According to several reviewers, OCZ has a deal with Sandforce where they get any firmware updates before everyone else. They also don't renumber their firmware updates like Corsair and a couple other manufacturers do. A small matter in the scheme of things, but every bonus counts.

It took a few weeks of research to decide on the Sandforce controlled drives and another week to decide which particular drive. The benefits, to me, out weigh the drawbacks.

 

[af22]

If you look at past history: I bought 2 60GB Agility1 for $220 each. If I had waited a year, I could have used the extra $220 i spent on a vertex 2 and have single drive performance without the issues of raid.

Same can be said with Raid 0 Vertex 2 vs a Vertex 3. Sure, raid might be faster on benchmarks, but really is it worth the trouble adding the raid layer and loosing TRIM support ? SSD's are still very much in the "development" stage and still have plenty of room to mature. I suggest you buy one drive, and save the money to upgrade "early" down the road.

 

[guney]

You proved that 480GB of flash is faster than 240GB of flash...grats? The figures don't have anything to do with the OP's question. In any case, who the hell goes to "3d guru" for reviews of anything?

You had claimed that the write speed of a 120GB drive would be faster than the write speed of a RAID 0 array of 60GB drives. If that were always true, you'd expect the write speed of a 480GB Vertex 3 to be higher than two 240GB Vertex 3s in RAID 0. But it's not. According to OCZ's own specs, the write speed of the 480GB Vertex 3 is actually even slower than that of a lone 240GB Vertex 3. Moreover, my results proved that the write speed for two 240GB drives in RAID 0 is faster than the write speed of a single 240GB drive by itself, by about 53%. So, I've just proven that, contrary to what you claimed, two smaller drives in RAID 0 is actually way higher in write speed compared to a single bigger drive in this particular example.

What I quoted from Guru of 3D was a simple benchmark value, which is a matter of objective measurement; not a product opinion, which could be a matter of trusting the website.

> The boot-up time of the on-board RAID controller
> on my motherboard is something like three seconds.

Going from ahci mode to raid mode adds only 3 seconds to your boot time? I doubt that.

I'm just quoting the amount of time the post message of the Intel RAID controller stays on my screen at boot time. I didn't realize that it would be controversial.

> I'm pretty sure that the RAID 0 array of my
> Vertex 3s is doing a bit more than reduce
> my Windows boot time by less than three
> seconds

Uh...why?

The 1000 MB/sec read speed might have something to do with it.

Oh, please...it's faster than the M4, but only slightly faster. Furthermore, you can't just plug the Vertex 3 into any shitty motherboard and expect it to work. The intel drives work with just about anything as long as there's an intel chipset in it.

Again, I don't see what's controversial about this. I'm not trying to be a Vertex 3 fanboy. I couldn't care less about who has manufactured the SSD drive in my PC. I've only quoted the performance increase I've personally experienced when I went from three Intel X25-Ms in a RAID 0 array to two Vertex 3s in a RAID 0 array. It's a pretty simple observation. You can make of it what you will.

 

[danman]

Friends don't let friends buy OCZ.

 

[tgs]

2) As far as I can tell, every SSD drive in the current generation has had some sort of BSOD issue. From what I've gleaned, this may have more to do with the SATA 3.0 spec and intel controllers than the SSDs themselves. The Sandforce parts do seem to show it a little more often, but that may be because they are on the bleeding edge of the specs and pushing other components harder than other drives. OCZ, Corsair, Sandforce and even Intel are working to get this sorted out not just through firmware updates, but future updates to intel's sata controllers and bios updates for mainboards.

Check out the OCZ forums, you'll see that AMD users are affected as well.

Sorry that you purchased a vertex3. I'm not trying to shit on OCZ's parade, but this generation of their products is not ready for usage by consumers.

It also doesn't seem like the 2.11 firmware update they released a little while ago has resolved the issue for people either. Tony and other OCZ members on their forums have been working to track down the issue but it seems so widespread and between both Intel and AMD that I feel they're looking in the wrong places.

Not to mention the fact that they all claim to be unable to reproduce the issues people are having. Maybe for the next generation of drives they'll force their employees to use them in their day-to-day computers to better test them. We can only hope.

 

[Tiporaro]

As others have said, the new ocz drives can be exceptionally fast - but the price is that there are serious questions of reliability. While I'm sure some people have had no issues what so ever, there are quite a few that have reported having problems with this drive as well as previous generations of ocz products. The reports on ocz drives tend to be more numerous than other competitors drives on the market, and any minor gain (at rates that will likely not be noticeable to most) that the ocz drive gives is not worth the potential headaches and downtimes associated with them.

Just my two cents, and I'm sure there's those that disagree.

 

[baldrik]

It took me about 20 minutes last night to load Win7, the whole host of drivers, all the windows updates, norton AV and steam. I am completely pleased with my wretched raid 0 OCZs at the moment.

 

[caldera]

OCZ does have a less than stellar track record on their SSDs, but I also know friends who bought and use (daily) the Vertex 3 with no problems. I think if you're aware of which firmware causes issues, then it would resolve a lot (not all) of the issues.

But back to the raid0 question. If you're going after bleeding edge performance (raid0 on OCZ SSDs), why not just get the RevoDrive 3 x2 240GB. $150 premium over the Vertex3 and it pumps out some incredible numbers.

 

[caldera]

Or better yet, you can wait for the new Samsung SSDs (and raid it). Reliability is on par with Intel, but it doesn't have the horrible write speeds of the Intel 510.