OCZ Intros Indilinx Everest 2-based Agility 4 Series SSDs

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I still think that SSD manufactures need to lower their prices to at least .75 per GB...
(if they want their SSD's to be Mainstream)

This would put a 256GB SSD for around $192 dollars, still way more money than a hard drive, but way more enticing to the masses ... hence Mainstream.

Until then it will never get to be Mainstream.
 
I just bought a second 120GB OCZ SSD from NewEgg with a discount code for 93 bucks or $0.775 per GB. Not too bad. :) The prices do seem to be coming done a little anyway. A year ago I paid 149 for the same exact drive.
 
I'm expecting the next 6-12 months to be when I'll finally buy a 64-128GB SSD. Still waiting for the price to drop below the $1 per GB mark and I feel it coming.
 
You know I hadn't looked on Newegg for at least a month. I checked the price from the link in this article and the OCZ site leads you to non-newegg retailers where the price is still above the $1 per GB mark. Hmmmm... which Friday is payday???

That 120GB for $99 is the sweet spot for me.
 
Be warned, if you buy a OCZ SSD from a retailer offering a rebate, it will be like pulling teeth and you can only use the rebate (if you get it) to buy something from OCZ.

Unhappy customer...
 
Also, before you buy anything from OCZ check out the reviews on Amazon. Trust me, you won't be so in love with OCZ after you read the reviews.
 
[citation][nom]josephjpeters[/nom]I'm not sure where you guys get your prices but SSD's can already be had for $.70/GB on Newegg. You just have to look.240GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820227796120GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820227795[/citation]

your link for a 240 is listed there for $189
that's $1.26 per GB NOT exactly priced for the masses / mainstream yet.

True there are days on Newegg that you can find good deals...
(this one not been one of them)

but the main problem is that this is not the norm.

 
Don't know why Tom's Hardware continues to push OCZ. Maybe it's because they get free SSD's who knows. But check out there failure rate before you buy. Drinking the OCZ kool aid might be getting you some free SSD's for now but how will it be in the long run when you loose followers?
 
[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]your link for a 240 is listed there for $189that's $1.26 per GB NOT exactly priced for the masses / mainstream yet.True there are days on Newegg that you can find good deals...(this one not been one of them)but the main problem is that this is not the norm.[/citation]

Ummm you better try that math again drwho1... 240 GB for $189 = 78.75 cents per GB. I think you did the calculation backwards (which would give you GB's per dollar).
 
[citation][nom]nyghtstar[/nom]Don't know why Tom's Hardware continues to push OCZ. Maybe it's because they get free SSD's who knows. But check out there failure rate before you buy. Drinking the OCZ kool aid might be getting you some free SSD's for now but how will it be in the long run when you loose followers?[/citation]

While it is always important to checkout a product's reputation before buying, it sounds to me like you have a personal axe to grind. I own several OCZ products (2 thumbdrives and a 120 GB SSD) that work just great and have never given me one bit of problem. The older of the thumbdrives (16GB) I've had for over three years and has even been through the laundry and still works fine.
 
[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]I still think that SSD manufactures need to lower their prices to at least .75 per GB...(if they want their SSD's to be Mainstream)This would put a 256GB SSD for around $192 dollars, still way more money than a hard drive, but way more enticing to the masses ... hence Mainstream.Until then it will never get to be Mainstream.[/citation]

There are many high speed SSDs at the prices that you are calling mainstream. Some of the newest and fastest drives aren't there yet, but there are some almost as fast, yet cheaper, SSDs that are at or even below 80c and 70c per GB.

[citation][nom]nyghtstar[/nom]Don't know why Tom's Hardware continues to push OCZ. Maybe it's because they get free SSD's who knows. But check out there failure rate before you buy. Drinking the OCZ kool aid might be getting you some free SSD's for now but how will it be in the long run when you loose followers?[/citation]

Only OCZ's SandForce drives have bad failure rates. The newer drives (such as the Vertex 4) are far more reliable. Talking in bold doesn't make an overbearing statement, such as yours, any less overbearing.
 
[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]Ummm you better try that math again drwho1... 240 GB for $189 = 78.75 cents per GB. I think you did the calculation backwards (which would give you GB's per dollar).[/citation]

my apologies....

Still the point is that all this articles talk about "mainstream" but the prices are still "not there yet" to be considered mainstream. It would be like saying that BIG screens 70"plus inches were mainstream....
Sure I would LOVE one of those, but poor me I have to stick to a 42"inch Plasma for a lot longer.
 
[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]my apologies.... Still the point is that all this articles talk about "mainstream" but the prices are still "not there yet" to be considered mainstream. It would be like saying that BIG screens 70"plus inches were mainstream....Sure I would LOVE one of those, but poor me I have to stick to a 42"inch Plasma for a lot longer.[/citation]

I have to disagree. about $1/GB isn't super high end, it's in the middle of high end and the mainstream prices. Calling these drives mainstream is more like comparing a decent 60" is mainstream. Sure, it's no 42", but it's not a 70" or 80" either. Plus, these drives are likely much more reliable than most of the mainstream SandForce drives, so there are good reasons for their somewhat higher prices, even if they aren't faster in every situation (which they're probably not). Besides, these drives are new and their prices are likely to come down sooner or later. New drives are often not as cheap as older ones when they first come out.
 
My next SSD will be PCIe. For just $400, I can get 120GB with 885MB/s read and slightly lower write. My current SSD is 250MB/s SATA so I would feel the difference. But the one mentioned here would not be an astronomical improvement I would like to see.
 
[citation][nom]kronos_cornelius[/nom]My next SSD will be PCIe. For just $400, I can get 120GB with 885MB/s read and slightly lower write. My current SSD is 250MB/s SATA so I would feel the difference. But the one mentioned here would not be an astronomical improvement I would like to see.[/citation]

For just $400, you could get two SATA3 256GB SSDs in RAID 0 and they would have four times the capacity and more performance. Granted, SandForce seems to be the only SATA3 SSD controller that retains TRIM in RAID right now, but that might change later on and if I remember correctly, all affordable PCIe SSDs are SandForce anyway, so you probably aren't worried about that.
 
[citation][nom]nyghtstar[/nom]Also, before you buy anything from OCZ check out the reviews on Amazon. Trust me, you won't be so in love with OCZ after you read the reviews.[/citation]

I've purchased 3 OCZ Agility 3 drives so far... no problems what so ever (one of them I've owned now for over 3 months). I do know that there seems to be problems with DOA on certain OCZ drives, particularly with the the 60GB models, but I've steered clear of that one and have had zero issues so far. I'm a happy camper with my OCZ drives (2 x 120GB model and 1 x 90GB Agility 3 model).
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Only OCZ's SandForce drives have bad failure rates. The newer drives (such as the Vertex 4) are far more reliable. Talking in bold doesn't make an overbearing statement, such as yours, any less overbearing.[/citation]

Vertex 4 arrived shortly, I don´t want to say after this kittle time it´s reliable.

Petrol and Octane seems also not very realiable, it have Indilinx-Controller.

SF-drives maybe have/had more Firmware-problems but the reliability should depend on the quality of memory-chips.

If OCZ not do a big price-cut -> no reason to buy OCZ Agility 4/Vertex 4 instead of Crucial M4 or Samsung 830.
 
[citation][nom]Scour[/nom]Vertex 4 arrived shortly, I don´t want to say after this kittle time it´s reliable.Petrol and Octane seems also not very realiable, it have Indilinx-Controller.SF-drives maybe have/had more Firmware-problems but the reliability should depend on the quality of memory-chips.If OCZ not do a big price-cut -> no reason to buy OCZ Agility 4/Vertex 4 instead of Crucial M4 or Samsung 830.[/citation]

Actually, the problem with SandForce's reliability is more in the power related compoennts than in the NAND Flash and the Vertex 4 uses a Marvell controller, not an Indilinx controller (some places, even some OCZ sites, call it an Indilinx controller, but it is actually a much more reliable Marvell controller). The NAND flash chips used by the most reliable consumer SSDs are probably many of the same chips used in the least reliable consumer SSDs. Also, the Vertex 4 is much faster than the SAmsung 830 at writes and a lot faster in random reads. The difference comapred to the Crucial M4 is even higher. The Samsung 830s are just as expensive as the Vertex 4s right now and the M4s aren't far behind (looking at newegg prices), so your last sentence doesn't make much sense either.
 
In Germany the Vertex 4/Agility 4 cost 20€ than a M4/830.

A M4 uses Intel ONFI-chips, a Samsung uses Samsung own chips. Both are known as hig-quality-producers for memory-chips.

The speed-difference is something you only see at benchmarks, not in real life (or u use your SSD for 24/7 writing?). The reliability of M4 is a fact, it is more than 1 year on the sale and the positive comments are still more than most other SSDs have.

And I why u think that Indilix are more reliable than re-badged Marvells? OCZ uses other FW and use higher clockspeeds in some cases, but more reliable is not something I see so far
 
[citation][nom]Scour[/nom]In Germany the Vertex 4/Agility 4 cost 20€ than a M4/830.A M4 uses Intel ONFI-chips, a Samsung uses Samsung own chips. Both are known as hig-quality-producers for memory-chips.The speed-difference is something you only see at benchmarks, not in real life (or u use your SSD for 24/7 writing?). The reliability of M4 is a fact, it is more than 1 year on the sale and the positive comments are still more than most other SSDs have.And I why u think that Indilix are more reliable than re-badged Marvells? OCZ uses other FW and use higher clockspeeds in some cases, but more reliable is not something I see so far[/citation]

In the USA, the 830 is the same price as the Vertex 4 and the M4 is a little cheaper, but it's a little slower. The difference can be seen in much more than jsut benchmarks and I know this from experience. Saying otherwise is like saying that the difference between a 7970 and a 7770 can only be seen in benchmarks. You simply need to use programs that make good use of a very fast SSD and a lot of what I do is storage bound. You try running several VMs, decompressing the ISOs to install several more, downloading more RAR files to decompress, and running a few other things all at once and tell me there's no difference between an 830 and a Vertex 4. I see the difference quite clearly, especially when I do some truly heavy work.

Also, since you mentioned the reliability of Intel NAND chips, let's see what NAND chips are in the Vertex 4"

Intel IMFT synchronous 25nm NAND
Click to expand...

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4653/ocz_technology_vertex_4_indilinx_everest_2_256gb_and_512gb_ssd_review/index2.html

Well well, looks like the Vertex 4 has some pretty decent NAND chips.

Considering that most of the most reliable SSDs use Marvell controllers, complaining about OCZ using them seems ridiculous, to say the least. M4, Plextor, Intel (up until recently), and several others all used (or have used) Marvell controllers.

Then you ask why I think the Indilinx controller is more reliable than a re-badged Marvell controller. Considering that I didn't say I think that, I'm not even sure where you got that from. The reliability of Marvell's controllers is a known fact and the Vertex 4 has a Marvell controller (albeit with customization). That doesn't make it reliable automatically, but it does support it in that aspect. However, we have good proof of the Vertex 4's reliability already, so it is reliable. I don't know if I'd put it ahead of the 830 and such, but I would put it in the 830's league. The Vertex 4 is also the fastest for the most workloads with the new firmware. I see both reliability and performance where it should be. Let's also not forget how the Vertex 4 has the lowest latency (access times) of any SSD (at least of any of the dozens I've seen it compared against and the few that I've compared it against myself).

Vertex 4's five year warranty also helps it in this very well. Here's to hoping for a Vertex 4 MAX IOPS model to really force competition to rise up.
 
Maybe I wrote it wrong, I mean the Indilinx Everest 2 is at least a rebadged Marvell 88SS9187 with custom FW and Overclocking.

OK; in US the Vertex have same price as M4/830, that could make a difference; M4 was the cheapest of this 3 since Samsung cut the prices of the 830 2 weeks ago and go 1on1 with M4-price (128GB). I´m not a fan of Samsung, btw.

And how long u use the Vertex 4? Here it arrives not even 5 weeks ago, IMHO not enough to say something about reliability
 
[citation][nom]Scour[/nom]Maybe I wrote it wrong, I mean the Indilinx Everest 2 is at least a rebadged Marvell 88SS9187 with custom FW and Overclocking.OK; in US the Vertex have same price as M4/830, that could make a difference; M4 was the cheapest of this 3 since Samsung cut the prices of the 830 2 weeks ago and go 1on1 with M4-price (128GB). I´m not a fan of Samsung, btw.And how long u use the Vertex 4? Here it arrives not even 5 weeks ago, IMHO not enough to say something about reliability[/citation]

It's not always about how long you use it, but about how hard you use it. I probably write more than ten times more data than the average person does on one of my heavy work days (several days a week), so I am probably killing the drive several times faster than most people would. Some might call a reliability test a matter of time, but I think that it is more about usage over time. I guarantee that if someone writes tenGB per day and you compare that to someone who writes 100GB per day, the second person is going to need a more reliable drive because it will die much faster.

Having a five year warranty on the Vertex 4 drives means that I really don't need to worry about it because even if it fails, I do regular backups, so I don't lose anything that I can't get back in a few hours of work and I simply send the drive in for a replacement and it's all good again. Thankfully, not only has this Vertex 4 managed to not slow down much at all no matter what I throw at it (unlike previous drives that I've had, it runs at almost full speed almost regardless of how full it gets) and it has never crashed or had an other problem like that.

The Octane didn't do nearlyso well when I tried it, so I have to assume that the biggest improvement that OCZ made as switching to a Marvell controller and then customizing it and making excellent firmware for it. If I get a little more money to throw around later, I might give the Agility 4 a try and report back on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom