Jump to content


Photo

OCZ Vertex 2 25nm Review


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,291 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:47 PM

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

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#2 Greg Ross

Greg Ross

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:53 PM

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.

#3 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,291 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:55 PM

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

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#4 eva2000

eva2000

    Member

  • Member
  • 30 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 06:21 PM

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 ????

Edited by eva2000, 15 February 2011 - 06:23 PM.

#5 TSullivan

TSullivan

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 688 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 06:42 PM

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.

#6 eva2000

eva2000

    Member

  • Member
  • 30 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:17 PM

I see so either 32nm or 34nm

#7 TSullivan

TSullivan

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 688 posts

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:37 PM

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.

#8 ghoughto

ghoughto

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:25 AM

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.

#9 TSullivan

TSullivan

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 688 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:40 AM

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.

#10 _tangent

_tangent

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 11:36 AM

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.

#11 pkrosenlegal

pkrosenlegal

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 11:42 AM

Class action suit attorney info removed.

#12 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,291 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 12:01 PM

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.


You have a more than valid complaint and thanks for the additional info. OCZ should be accepting fault and eating all costs associated with fixing the problem. I'm hearing they may change their stance on this. Not sure what happens to people that already paid though.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#13 tomhyde2

tomhyde2

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 01:25 PM

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

That does not solve the problem, it is part of the problem.

#14 Mkruer

Mkruer

    Member

  • Member
  • 283 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 01:45 PM

You have a more than valid complaint and thanks for the additional info. OCZ should be accepting fault and eating all costs associated with fixing the problem. I'm hearing they may change their stance on this. Not sure what happens to people that already paid though.


If they are smart they will offer a free upgrade or cash back before some "Law Firm" sues them for damages and takes half the damage and then the buyer gets screwed both ways.
Lian-Li PC-V2000 Plus Aluminum Case; Seasonic S12 Energy+ 550 PSU; Asus M4A785TD-V EVO; Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition C3 @ 4.0Ghz ; Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme Rev.C; 8GB OCZ AMD Black Edition @ 1333Mhz; Creative Audigy 2 ZS; Sapphire Radeon HD 5770; 1xOCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX180G; 1xWestern Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB; 2xWestern Digital Caviar Green WD20EADS 2TB; Western Digital WDG1U3200 My Book Essential Edition 320GB USB 2.0; Samsung STORY Station 2TB USB 3.0.

#15 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,291 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 02:27 PM

That does not solve the problem, it is part of the problem.


Of course, my comment was in jest.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#16 Breit

Breit

    Member

  • Member
  • 4 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 06:23 PM

all i read in the review is that the 60gb model is slower with 25nm nand because it has fewer channels of nand to feed, which btw. the informed reader should know is always the case with ssds as they get their speed from the heavy parallel data transfer to the nand. i'd wish there were a comparison with a 120gb or even a 240gb model in the review. if the performance with the higher capacity drives is nearly equal between the two versions than this is not such a big issue after all and this may help people in making their decision about buying a ssd. i'm not saying that this move is acceptable from ocz at all, but at least in this case it looks not as bad as it does now.

cheers

Edited by Breit, 16 February 2011 - 06:25 PM.

#17 TSullivan

TSullivan

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 688 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 07:35 PM

all i read in the review is that the 60gb model is slower with 25nm nand because it has fewer channels of nand to feed, which btw. the informed reader should know is always the case with ssds as they get their speed from the heavy parallel data transfer to the nand. i'd wish there were a comparison with a 120gb or even a 240gb model in the review. if the performance with the higher capacity drives is nearly equal between the two versions than this is not such a big issue after all and this may help people in making their decision about buying a ssd. i'm not saying that this move is acceptable from ocz at all, but at least in this case it looks not as bad as it does now.

cheers


Yea well the problem isnt that a new model appeared and performed slower. It is that two models with identical part numbers with vastly different internals and speed differences were sold without notifying consumers. What if you bought a brand new 40" 1080P LCD and once you got home it was actually 720P?

#18 jester55

jester55

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:01 AM

So is the formatted drive size the best indicator on what drive you have? I decided to take the gamble and order one from Amazon since the review stated that they were still selling 3xnm last week. It will be here today, so I guess I will format and see what size it is? Any other help in determining which one I have is greatly appreciated!

Edited by jester55, 19 February 2011 - 09:05 AM.

#19 TSullivan

TSullivan

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 688 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 12:46 PM

Yea formatted/unformatted capacity is the easiest to go by. What capacity did you go with?

#20 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,291 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 12:48 PM

So is the formatted drive size the best indicator on what drive you have? I decided to take the gamble and order one from Amazon since the review stated that they were still selling 3xnm last week. It will be here today, so I guess I will format and see what size it is? Any other help in determining which one I have is greatly appreciated!


The firmware version is the other clue, 1.27 or before and you're pretty much guaranteed a 32/34nm drive.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#21 jester55

jester55

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 03:06 PM

The firmware version is the other clue, 1.27 or before and you're pretty much guaranteed a 32/34nm drive.


Received my new OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G from Amazon.

CrystalDiskInfo shows firmware 1.27

Capacity/Unallocated space shows 57,241 MB.

Trying not to get too excited, but is it safe to say I scored a 3Xnm drive!?!?

Thanks!

(For those curious - I ordered the drive 02/18/10 from Amazon.)

Edited by jester55, 19 February 2011 - 03:07 PM.

#22 TSullivan

TSullivan

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 688 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 04:13 PM

Yup, thats the good/safe one.

#23 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,291 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 08:30 PM

Agreed, you're good. Seems Amazon has an older stock of drives...I guess we know who sells more OCZ SSDs - and it's definitely not Amazon, lol.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#24 jester55

jester55

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 08:59 PM

Yup, thats the good/safe one.

Thank You!

Agreed, you're good. Seems Amazon has an older stock of drives...I guess we know who sells more OCZ SSDs - and it's definitely not Amazon, lol.

No kidding! Amazon hardly ever has a rebate for OCZ drives - so they are always behind it seems. I have been waiting on a deal at Amazon so I could use my credit for ages. When the OCZ fiasco came about - I knew I had to act quick!

Thanks guys for your quick responses. Now I am just praying that I don't have a brick or soon to be brick! That is the only thing that scares me since I know I don't have a 2Xnm drive.

#25 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,291 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:03 PM

I wouldn't worry too much about that, you have a 3 year warranty to cover you. As always, regular backups are a must.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users