[Brian]

After going through standard retail channels, we've managed to get our hands on two brand new 60GB OCZ Vertex 2's. The first is a latest-generation 60GB 25nm NAND model, the second an older stock 32nm NAND version. Buyers can't tell the difference thanks to OCZ's dubious marketing, but we can, and in this mini-review we'll dive deeper into the available capacity differences of the two SSDs as well as the performance differences. Anyone buying OCZ's current line of SSDs needs to be aware of what they're buying - and what they're buying today is most certainly different than what has earned the Vertex 2 top marks in the past.

Full Review

[Greg Ross]

Absolute garbage...

1) Buy a drive, pay full price (for which OCZ makes more money if you get a 25nm since they did not pass the savings onto consumers).
2) Find out you got a 25nm version, which is essentially a Vertex 2 for which you are NOT getting what OCZ advertises (aka false advertisement)
3) Pay OCZ more to get a 34nm version. OCZ profits off of dishonesty.

[Brian]

Well, you can pay to upgrade to the old model. Doesn't that solve your problem

[eva2000]

thanks for review comparison!

review states 32nm, i thought old were 34nm ?

I'm lucky enough to be running the older 60GB SF based with 12x60GB non-OCZ though. Unfortunately, I know a few folks who have recently been caught out with the 60GB Vertex 2 thinking they would be as fast as what reviews have posted only to be disappointed with slower 25nm NAND used.

Unfortunately, real world in web server or database server environment might not be as close ????

This post has been edited by eva2000: 15 February 2011 - 06:23 PM

[TSullivan]

eva2000, on 15 February 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

thanks for review comparison!

review states 32nm, i thought old were 34nm ?

I'm lucky enough to be running the older 60GB SF based with 12x60GB non-OCZ though. Unfortunately, I know a few folks who have recently been caught out with the 60GB Vertex 2 thinking they would be as fast as what reviews have posted only to be disappointed with slower 25nm NAND used.

Unfortunately, real world in web server or database server environment might not be as close ????

Yea depending on the situation the drive could be almost up to par, or way slower.

The proper terminology might be saying 3Xnm, since both 34nm and 32nm NAND was used in older models. The Hynix memory in our old-stock model was 32nm while I believe the Intel flash seen in even older models was 34nm.

[eva2000]

I see so either 32nm or 34nm

[TSullivan]

Yea you might have noticed we were caught off guard initially as our original wording and chart labeling was 34nm until we referenced the Hynix memory on this model. We had the charts made after benchmarking but before cracking it open to pull the part numbers off the flash inside. Were were expecting to find the Intel 34nm flash (like what was originally in our 120GB Vertex 2) but found the Hynix memory instead. The updated charts were added about 20-30 minutes after publishing.

[ghoughto]

Great review.

So is the slower performance because 25nm is slower or is it because there are not enough flash chips? As you clearly state in the review there are only eight flash chips instead of the sixteen chips in the older version.

The Sandforce controllers are very good at maintaining performance all the way down to 60GB capacity drives. Is only eight flash chips a step too far for the Sandforce controller?

It would be interesting to see a similar review of a 120GB 2Xnm versus 3Xnm. If they both have the same number of chips it would tell us a lot about the underlying performance of the latest flash chips.

[TSullivan]

ghoughto, on 16 February 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

Great review.

So is the slower performance because 25nm is slower or is it because there are not enough flash chips? As you clearly state in the review there are only eight flash chips instead of the sixteen chips in the older version.

The Sandforce controllers are very good at maintaining performance all the way down to 60GB capacity drives. Is only eight flash chips a step too far for the Sandforce controller?

It would be interesting to see a similar review of a 120GB 2Xnm versus 3Xnm. If they both have the same number of chips it would tell us a lot about the underlying performance of the latest flash chips.

It most certainly is related to the total number of chips or channels used in certain models. A 32Gb/4GB equipped 25nm 60GB drive should perform as good if not better than a 32/34nm 60GB drive.

[_tangent]

Hi all,

I recently purchased a couple of 120gb vertex 2e models and have contributed to the thread on the OCZ forums on the issue. Just to clear one thing up: ocz aren't offering to "upgrade" customers to the old drives; they're offering to replace existing 25nm 64Gbit chip models, with 25nm 32Gbit chip models, thus increasing the number of chips. The only cast iron gaurantee from OCZ is that the space expected will be restored. Admins i've spoken to are expecting performance to go back up, but it's not clear whether 32/34nm levels will be reached. AS-SSD benchmarks are promised on the official forum as soon as they're in, for both the 60gb and 120gb models. The 120gb models don't suffer as badly as the 60s - i can get sequential writes of around 83 in CDM (still not the 140 ish i was expecting, but not as bad as 30). Good to see real-world performance is still strong; this has been my anecdotal experience. My issue is more in getting exactly what i paid to get, rather than being especially concerned from an end-user point-of-view about the lower sequential writes. And i don't mind paying the paltry 10 USD which is being quoted for the "upgrade", since in some cases it's apparently be waived anyway. What i really object to is the postage cost associated with sending something of such value overseas (if you're in the UK it's likely you'll have to send it to NL). However, if and when i decide to RMA (depending on the benches of the 32GBit drives) i'll take that up with support.