[Kevin OBrien]

When OCZ bought Indilinx in March this year they not only gained control of some key intellectual property, but they also got one step closer to being able to provide their own in-house SSDs from end to end. OCZ was already using the Indilinx processors in many of their enterprise SSDs so for the bargain price of $32 million, the deal made sense. Now that the Indilinx Everest platform is finding its way to market via integration by OEMs like LG and into client SSDs like the Octane, Indilinx has the potential to give OCZ a huge point of differentiation from nearly everyone else in the market. With the OCZ Octane SSD, the Everest platform promises to deliver read speeds of up to 560 MB/s and writes up to 400 MB/s, depending on capacity.

Read Full Review

[dhanson865]

Kevin OBrien, on 22 November 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:

When OCZ bought Indilinx in March this year they not only gained control of some key intellectual property, but they also got one step closer to being able to provide their own in-house SSDs from end to end. OCZ was already using the Indilinx processors in many of their enterprise SSDs so for the bargain price of $32 million, the deal made sense. Now that the Indilinx Everest platform is finding its way to market via integration by OEMs like LG and into client SSDs like the Octane, Indilinx has the potential to give OCZ a huge point of differentiation from nearly everyone else in the market. With the OCZ Octane SSD, the Everest platform promises to deliver read speeds of up to 560 MB/s and writes up to 400 MB/s, depending on capacity.

Read Full Review

Weee, faster.

My two concerns are price and reliability. Indilinx barefoot drives weren't known for high reliability

The quote below is from Summer 2010 reliability post I made, data taken from newegg reviews

Quote

Indilinx: Note the M225 and Nova complaints are showing up now
Crucial M225 (Indilinx Barefoot) about 15% failure rate.

Corsair Nova (Indilinx Barefoot) about 7% failure rate.

OCZ Vertex and Agility (Indilinx Barefoot) 30-60GB drives (chock full of so many negative reviews I find it hard to categorize them all).

OCZ Agility 120GB retail (Indilinx Barefoot) about 10% failure rate.

Patriot Torqx (Indilinx Barefoot) dead drives approaching the 50% mark.

Since Corsair was able to keep the failure rate lower than the others maybe Indilinx wasn't to blame. We can hope that OCZ will do the right thing and avoid revisiting these sorts of failure rates.

[Kevin OBrien]

Well when it comes to reliability, come back and ask me how our drive is doing next year this time . Most of the popular drives we use around the office in work/personal computers, NAS units, etc to rack up hours and GB/s of written data. In the span of a review though unless the drive was DOA it probably wouldnt show to us.

But I completely agree that the previous Indilinix controller had some issues, but it was before my time here at StorageReview... so no first hand experience with it.

[Brian]

I don't think the previous generation controllers should be given any weight with the current Everest platform. It's a totally different entity and the Indilinx team has been given more support to do good things. Time will tell...but we're really hoping that OCZ/Indilinx churns out some great processors.

[EvilNewbie]

Why is there no mention of the "instant on" feature... is it hype? I notice all the reviews don't talk about it which is a bit weird...

[udaman]

somewhat disappointing review:

Quote

The main selling point of the OCZ Octane right now is its price per GB, which undercuts many of the same-capacity SSDs on the market.

Have you even looked @current pricing? It's well higher than what was hyped both here on SR as well as by the 'official' announcement by OCZ...and that 1TB is going to probably be even more expensive/GB than promoted...if and when they ever release it, right now it's vaporware, not what the article is suggesting. Further, there was a 1TB drive announced more than a year ago, not sure if it ever shipped.

Performance, at least as tested by SR is also much lower than pre-release 'hype'. I did not see an OWC 6GB drive in the comparisons...so conclusions in the whole article are dubious at best...kinda like a Consumer Reports article, too few models for comparison, the ones you probably aren't interesting in buying anyway

[geenp]

Thanks for the review, I've been waiting for this one.

I've noticed that none of the reviews have tested capacities other than 512gb. I know the performance gap between the large and small capacities varies between controllers but I was wondering if you have any idea how the smaller capacities perform. Seems almost like OCZ made sure people only got to test the 512gb model.

[Brian]

@udaman, we use the Max IOPS, which is the fastest overall client SSD we have. We can only fit so many things on the charts, and with the hardware being so similar, does it matter that much to you which ones we use? The 1TB we're told will be shipping in December, at this point we can't know if that's right or not. A little early to be calling vaporware though. As to the pricing, I agree that what OCZ put out there initially was lower than the MSRPs, but we'd expect the MSRPs to be high once the drives are in retail for a bit, just like all the other SSDs in the market.

@geenp - that's what OCZ sent out. We'll endeavor to get the other capacities as well.

[Brian]

NE is shipping the 256GB now for $379 - that's the first retail availability I've seen.

http://www.newegg.co...pk=ocz%20octane

[[ETA]MrSpadge]

EvilNewbie, on 23 November 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

Why is there no mention of the "instant on" feature... is it hype? I notice all the reviews don't talk about it which is a bit weird...

Agreed. This and the dubious technology enhancing write endurance by a factor of 2. If it was any good they'd advertise it as such, wouldn't they?

MrS

This post has been edited by [ETA]MrSpadge: 26 November 2011 - 02:30 PM