Jump to content


Photo

OCZ Vertex 4 Firmware v1.4RC Discussion


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

#1 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,309 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 08:49 AM

OCZ has released a new firmware for their Vertex 4 line of SSDs.

OCZ Vertex 4 SSD Review (Firmware v1.4RC)

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#2 johnw42

johnw42

    Member

  • Member
  • 66 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:38 AM

"On the 512GB model, sequential 2MB transfers increased slightly with both read and write activity"

Huh? Looking at the graph, they DECREASED for FW1.4, 467->428, 440->435

#3 Kevin OBrien

Kevin OBrien

    StorageReview Editor

  • Admin
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 11:52 AM

Got a bit tongue twisted in that going back and forth this morning. Correct on that.

#4 h4lf

h4lf

    Member

  • Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:07 PM

Good improvement overall. Maybe it's now starting to show some promise of the "special" (new?) Marvell controller. I can't understand why they released the drive with the older/poor firmware in the first place, though.. doesn't make any sense.

#5 johnw42

johnw42

    Member

  • Member
  • 66 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:04 PM

Good improvement overall. Maybe it's now starting to show some promise of the "special" (new?) Marvell controller. I can't understand why they released the drive with the older/poor firmware in the first place, though.. doesn't make any sense.


I don't think it is much of an improvement. It still trails the Plextor M3P, and the sequential read and write speeds of the V4 still don't look very good (except for the claimed sequential write speed on the 128GB model which looks good, if true, which is a big if with OCZ).

As for why OCZ released it before it was ready, do you really have to ask? This is OCZ we are talking about. Quality is someone else's job. OCZ is all about hype and misleading the customer.

Edited by johnw42, 07 May 2012 - 10:05 PM.

#6 Kevin OBrien

Kevin OBrien

    StorageReview Editor

  • Admin
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:23 AM

Well in terms of the 128GB model, we have that in, although we don't have the latest firmware for it (256 and 512 only). As to why OCZ launched it early is anyone's guess, but it really does change the outlook on this particular model. If it performed at that level when first released, it would have definitely tipped a few more eyebrows than with its original performance level.

EDIT: Using the updater tool they issued overnight, I flashed the 128GB and am seeing ~347MB/s binary

#7 johnw42

johnw42

    Member

  • Member
  • 66 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:53 AM

EDIT: Using the updater tool they issued overnight, I flashed the 128GB and am seeing ~347MB/s binary


You mean sequential write speed is 347MB/s for the 128GB V4 with the new firmware? What do you mean by "binary"? How did you measure the sequential write speed?

#8 johnw42

johnw42

    Member

  • Member
  • 66 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:55 AM

By the way, it would be interesting to see a 128GB V4 with new firmware versus a 128GB Plextor M3P.

#9 Kevin OBrien

Kevin OBrien

    StorageReview Editor

  • Admin
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 12:08 PM

You mean sequential write speed is 347MB/s for the 128GB V4 with the new firmware? What do you mean by "binary"? How did you measure the sequential write speed?

Correct, and binary as in clarification. IOMeter reports both decimal speeds and binary.

#10 johnw42

johnw42

    Member

  • Member
  • 66 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 02:37 PM

Correct, and binary as in clarification. IOMeter reports both decimal speeds and binary.


Oh, you meant 347 MiB/s rather than 347 MB/s. I think using the correct unit name is more clear than appending the word "binary".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

#11 cbjwthwm

cbjwthwm

    Member

  • Member
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 03:42 AM

All the synthetic scores in Iometer are interesting, but it doesn't seem to be translating into performance in the Storagemark access profiles. LSI's optimizing of SF 5xx generation firmwares to eliminate their max latency deficiencies while maintaining strong performance across the board is far more impressive to me.

Thus far, OCZ's development looks like a tuner working over a car for dyno results without providing substantial driveability improvements under real world conditions. OCZ appears to be tuning the drive for marketing specs which are modelled after enterprise load patterns, but this is not an enterprise product. To top it off, it appears the drive isn't stable producing these synthetic numbers anyway.

OCZ seems more focused on tweaking their latest and greatest for marketability vs stability and practical performance for its intended market. Meanwhile, Petrols with more of their "Indilinx infused" custom firmware on known stable Marvell chipsets (from the M4) are dropping like flies and they haven't updated that firmware in 3+ months. Interesting, but companies producing LSI/SF drives with current firmware support (Mushkin, Patriot, newer Kingston, lines), Intel, and Crucial will be the ones getting my money while OCZ treats data storage products like gamers overclocking their rigs to point of failure.

#12 johnw42

johnw42

    Member

  • Member
  • 66 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:58 AM

Interesting, but companies producing LSI/SF drives with current firmware support (Mushkin, Patriot, newer Kingston, lines), Intel, and Crucial will be the ones getting my money while OCZ treats data storage products like gamers overclocking their rigs to point of failure.


I certainly agree about avoiding OCZ, but I prefer the more stable non-Sandforce SSDs from companies that make a strong effort for quality and reliability. SSDs such as the Plextor M3P, the Samsung 830, and the Crucial m4 (although the m4 is slower than the Plextor and Samsung models, it is also cheaper at the moment).



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users