Brian

SSDs Shifting to 25nm NAND - What You Need to Know

Recommended Posts

Hah - what a sign of true love, clicking on our ads ;)

Seriously though, thanks for sharing the sentiment, we're pretty stunned at the number of sites that didn't cover the news at all...everyone has to do what they need to do though. We paid the price though, OCZ continues to keep us off their review samples list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing the same. I just turned of Adblock and am clicking all the ads I can find on Storagereview.com.

This whole OCZ 34nm/25nm debacle is ridiculous. If I can't know what I'm getting when I buy a Vertex 2, hey, I just won't buy a Vertex 2. It's that simple. Take that OCZ. But what's the deal with the Vertex 3 having great performance even with 25nm NAND? So apparently it's not just the NAND that's the problem with the 25nm Vertex 2's. Has this been explained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing the same. I just turned of Adblock and am clicking all the ads I can find on Storagereview.com.

This whole OCZ 34nm/25nm debacle is ridiculous. If I can't know what I'm getting when I buy a Vertex 2, hey, I just won't buy a Vertex 2. It's that simple. Take that OCZ. But what's the deal with the Vertex 3 having great performance even with 25nm NAND? So apparently it's not just the NAND that's the problem with the 25nm Vertex 2's. Has this been explained?

Yes it has been explained. The problem isn't the NAND per se, it's the fact that it has a higher capacity in each block and OCZ used the same controller and layout with less blocks of NAND. Since SSDs work similarly to RAID arrays, you get slower speeds when there are 8 blocks then when there are 16 blocks. OCZ's failure was not using 25nm NAND but attempting to shoehorn it into a design that was not meant for it in order to save money and increase profits.

However, the Vertex 3 was designed for 25nm NAND so it uses enough blocks to sustain its high performance and allow enough overprovisioning to maintain a reasonable number of program erase cycles. It was a redesign to accommodate not only a new controller but also new NAND. They should have done such a redesign on their 25nm Vertex 2 series and saved themselves some bad press, but they wanted to do it the easy way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it has been explained. The problem isn't the NAND per se, it's the fact that it has a higher capacity in each block and OCZ used the same controller and layout with less blocks of NAND. Since SSDs work similarly to RAID arrays, you get slower speeds when there are 8 blocks then when there are 16 blocks. OCZ's failure was not using 25nm NAND but attempting to shoehorn it into a design that was not meant for it in order to save money and increase profits.

However, the Vertex 3 was designed for 25nm NAND so it uses enough blocks to sustain its high performance and allow enough overprovisioning to maintain a reasonable number of program erase cycles. It was a redesign to accommodate not only a new controller but also new NAND. They should have done such a redesign on their 25nm Vertex 2 series and saved themselves some bad press, but they wanted to do it the easy way.

Thank you for that clear and concise explanation Djembe. I do now recall reading something about the blocks, but usually the discussions are a bit too technical and lengthy for me to comprehend, so I just scan over them. The overall concepts I can grasp, but not when it gets into the ultra deep low level stuff.

I just can't believe OCZ would do that. I know they are smart enough to know that their customers are smart enough to figure out that the 25nm Vertex 2's don't perform as 34nm Vertex 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now