OCZ Vertex 4 128 GB: Revisiting Write Performance With Firmware 1.5

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
does the rearrangement of data occur only during a reboot cycle?
how much idle time is needed for the data rearrangement to take place?
And what is the authors recommendation on a Vertex4? should a user buy Vertex 4 over a Samsung/Sandforce?
 
Does this SDD support full disk encryption with any of the Intel desktop mainboards (Ivy Bridge)? AFAIK Intel is not supporting FDE since Q67 and although Q77 is capable of FDE, there is no mobo with BIOS that can support it. Could Tomshardware investigate it?
 
So keep the disk under half full and it wears out twice as fast?
Does the performance mode mean that the wear leveling is constrained to the first bit of every cell and therefore the drive wears out quicker compared to normal mode?
 
I went from firmware 1.3 to 1.5, the performance increase is huge, but the down side is that the drive is not 128GB anymore but only 120GB. Has anyone else seen this issue also? Did OCZ reserve more spare?
 
[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]I went from firmware 1.3 to 1.5, the performance increase is huge, but the down side is that the drive is not 128GB anymore but only 120GB. Has anyone else seen this issue also? Did OCZ reserve more spare?[/citation]
It is actually occuring with update 1.4. Hmm, damn I need to do another clone disk before doing the update.
 
[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]How many additional firmware updates are needed before OCZ gets it right?[/citation]

Do you dislike manufacturers improving their products without demanding that you pay more money for the improvements?
 
ohnnyLucky :

How many additional firmware updates are needed before OCZ gets it right?

such a stupid comment. don't download any more updates from nvidia or amd then!
 
[citation][nom]iceman343431[/nom]ohnnyLucky :How many additional firmware updates are needed before OCZ gets it right?such a stupid comment. don't download any more updates from nvidia or amd then![/citation]
i agreed and i gave you a thumbs up to bring you back to level insead of -1, some people are just ignorant.
 
i am confused, all the hand wringing over SSD performance...does it matter to the end user who just uses internet browsers, windows and loads a game or two?

 
[citation][nom]fausto412[/nom]i am confused, all the hand wringing over SSD performance...does it matter to the end user who just uses internet browsers, windows and loads a game or two?[/citation]

The average user and even somewhat above average users probably won't be able to effectively use very high end SSDs any better than much lower end SSDs. Many people can use the performance advantage, but most people probably won't unless they really try to in an unrealistic situation, such as a storage benchmark. End users who do more than minor internet browsing and such can find the performance advantage of high end SSDs almost vital to their usage.
 
[citation][nom]fausto412[/nom]i am confused, all the hand wringing over SSD performance...does it matter to the end user who just uses internet browsers, windows and loads a game or two?[/citation]
Are you also confused about 4 bedroom houses, cars, and gourmet cooking? Because there are some people who live alone, prefer to walk, and eat salads.
 

I think you are mis-interpreting that a bit. I would look at it as an either or scenario -- either you keep the disk less than half full, or you suffer from the drive wearing out faster. Only 1 of the 2 will occur.

Having said that, it does raise some concerns for me when the drive is more than 1/2 full. Realistically speaking, I think the market would be better served if manufacturers simply go with 2 tiers of SSD drives -- one using MLC for slower but high capacity drives, and the other using SLC for faster but lower capacity drives. Using MLC chips and making them behave like SLC at the cost of significantly reduced life seems like a poor idea to me.
 
[citation][nom]Traum[/nom]I think you are mis-interpreting that a bit. I would look at it as an either or scenario -- either you keep the disk less than half full, or you suffer from the drive wearing out faster. Only 1 of the 2 will occur.Having said that, it does raise some concerns for me when the drive is more than 1/2 full. Realistically speaking, I think the market would be better served if manufacturers simply go with 2 tiers of SSD drives -- one using MLC for slower but high capacity drives, and the other using SLC for faster but lower capacity drives. Using MLC chips and making them behave like SLC at the cost of significantly reduced life seems like a poor idea to me.[/citation]

The lifetime is unlikely to change because of this. The NAND flash cells are almost always the longest lasting part of a drive by far. If anything, the drive would probably fail due to the power circuitry, firmware, controller, etc. etc. before flash cells start failing.
 
[citation][nom]husker[/nom]Are you also confused about 4 bedroom houses, cars, and gourmet cooking? Because there are some people who live alone, prefer to walk, and eat salads.[/citation]

first let me call you ASSHOLE.
second, let me answer: SSD's are complicated and still evolving storage instruments, you can't find 2 web sites testing them the same as you do with video cards, results change with each firmware update and from brand to brand even when the same controller and nand is used. If the shit isn't confusing to you then pint a rose on your nose but I wasn't an early adopter and haven't followed the ins and outs over the last 4 years. Now that i am considering an SSD I would like to find out from people who have paid attention what the deal is.

No i don't get confused by 4 bedroom houses, cars, and gourmet cooking? that i've visited before, driven before or ate before.
Smart ass.
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]another patch or 10this is why i stick to Intel SSD's - they WORK[/citation]

Vertex 4 works too. OCZ simply wants to make it work better. Other SSDs receive firmware updates too, yet we don't complain when other companies make their products better without asking for more money in return.
 
[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]How many additional firmware updates are needed before OCZ gets it right?[/citation]

I think redgarl's point is OCZ is releasing SSDs long before they're ready for prime time. After spending $300 on the Vertex 3 when it first came out, it would run great for 3 or 4 days and then CRASH HARD. It took OCZ over six months to fix this issue. I'm sure they were aware of the problem when they released the Vertex 3, but wanted our $$$ while SSD prices were high! Do your research and stick to Intel, Corsair and some of the others with a solid reputation if you want a reliable SSD.
 




Sandforce marvel had a lot of issues, intel waited, reason they did not suffer, those enjineers are human, like you and I. One more thing, sir, like I said before there were issues with corsairs also, and other companies, stop picking on one, there is nothing wrong with ocz, love how people cherry blossom pick.
 


Your post doesn't make much sense (SandForce Marvell? These are two entirely different companies with very different NAND flash controllers). However, I can say that OCZ is often "picked-on" because in the past, they have had by far the least reliability and like to release products before they are commercially ready. OCZ gave people the ammunition and the motive to shoot OCZ verbally/textually and if you don't like that, well then why don't you go try to convince OCZ to not pull crap such as this. Vertex 4 is most definitely OCZ's greatest endeavor with SSDs and they are putting a lot of effort into ensuring the success of Vertex 4, but that doesn't make up for what they've done with previous lines of their SSDs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom