OCZ Vertex 450 256 GB SSD Review: Can We Call It Vector Jr.?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kinda wanted to see 840 pro match up with it too. Guess it doesn't really matter since we could just go find your other benchies on it and compare it ourselves but i thought it would just be nice to have it up there.
 
Speed and performance are fine but what really counts is reliability which OCZ does not have. I had to RMA Vertex 2 twice and both times it lasted 8 months. Before that I invested in an Intel x25-m and it is still going strong.
 
[citation][nom]Faisal Mahmood[/nom]Speed and performance are fine but what really counts is reliability which OCZ does not have. I had to RMA Vertex 2 twice and both times it lasted 8 months. Before that I invested in an Intel x25-m and it is still going strong.[/citation]
SAME! I'm going to Samsung for my next SSD. OCZ's reliability is a joke
 
[citation][nom]slomo4sho[/nom]It is pretty common to find quality SSDs in the $0.55-0.65/GB range these days. Game coupon aside, the price of this SSD isn't all that competitive.[/citation]

The Vector gets the Far Cry 3 coupon until July 14th while the Vertex 450 doesn't get it at all. If you're having to choose between the two, the Vector is probably the better bet unless the V450 is significantly cheaper. It's hard to say what the Vertex 450 will cost once generally available, but it'd be prudent to expect prices to be higher for the first few weeks. Initially, the Vertex 450 will probably be near the $235 mark, only a few bucks less than the Vector (about $15). Is it worth giving up two years of warranty and a FC3 coupon to save $15? You be the judge.

Regards,
Christopher Ryan
 
[citation][nom]boulbox[/nom]Kinda wanted to see 840 pro match up with it too. Guess it doesn't really matter since we could just go find your other benchies on it and compare it ourselves but i thought it would just be nice to have it up there.[/citation]

Stay tuned, because we're working on it. I've been rebuilding the entire database of comparative consumer SSD performance data, and some drives haven't been done yet for one reason or another. In some cases, it's due to time constraints. In other cases, acquiring or reacquiring particular SSDs has been problematic.


Regards,
Christopher Ryan
 
I'd like to see it's relative performance compared to a Vertex 4. I have two Vertex 4 drives, a 256 and a 128, and I've been wondering how these new drives would compare, and if they're worth spending the money to swap with my Vertex drives.
 
Later in its life, the Vertex 4 shipped with Micron NAND, eschewing Intel's flash for a slight performance drop and better pricing.

Doesn't Intel and Micron use the same NAND via the IMFT partnership?
 
I agree with another poster that said there should be more real world benchmarks. Like Windows 7/8 boot times, shut-down times, game load times, programs load times, and such.

I would have also like to see the Samsung 840 Pro in there. Afterall, it's the fastest SSD to date, it should be included in any SSD article even if it takes a couple more days to get it.

Personally, I really like Plextors drive. It really impressed me. If the 840 Pro weren't out I'd get one of those. Too bad I already own a Crucial m4 256GB, Crucial m4 64GB mSATA, Kingston HyperX 3K, and Samsung 840. None of these drives have given me any problems. I buy SSD's based on reliability and price. Buying drives based on performance only you end up spending 50$ more for nothing. I got my 840 and 3K for 89.99, whereas if I would have got an 840 Pro it would have been 149.99, or right now it's still 129.99. That's 40-60$ more for pretty much nothing.
 
lol there is nothing wrong with OCZs reliability. Most of the Vertex 3 performed exactly how OCZ specified. SSD have a finite lifespan that no manufacturer will overcome. If you want something that won't fail in 3-5 years than get an HDD, an SSD will fail in that time.
 
@Falchard an SSD is usually much more reliable than a mechanical hard drive. It can handle 100s of Terabytes of writes in it's lifetime, other than that, there is no wear that occurs.
 


OCZ's reliability used to be a joke because they used the same garbage Sandforce 2.0 controller that was known to have so many bugs that it plagued every drive it touched. I had an Intel 320 that used the same controller - thing was a nightmare, errors, BSODs left and right, you name it. Swapped it for a Vertex 4 - have not had a single issue with the drive and I've owned it for almost a year now. People need to stop taking the things they say in store reviews so seriously - 90% of the time they're complete BS.
 
[citation][nom]boulbox[/nom]Kinda wanted to see 840 pro match up with it too. Guess it doesn't really matter since we could just go find your other benchies on it and compare it ourselves but i thought it would just be nice to have it up there.[/citation]Regular 840 would be nice to have on the graphs too, just to see how close you can get for substantially less coin, and from a reliable manufacturer too.

But it sounds like Chris is on the case! Thanks in advance. 😀
 
[citation][nom]ericjohn004[/nom]I agree with another poster that said there should be more real world benchmarks. Like Windows 7/8 boot times, shut-down times, game load times, programs load times, and such.I would have also like to see the Samsung 840 Pro in there. Afterall, it's the fastest SSD to date, it should be included in any SSD article even if it takes a couple more days to get it.Personally, I really like Plextors drive. [/citation]

We're working on a suite of "real world" test scenarios. The problem you run into is, just about all modern SSDs perform the same. Take boot time for example. The difference between the fastest SSD and the slowest SATA III SSDs is pretty miniscule. Half a second could cover the entire field. Is it a good metric because it shows there isn't much difference in that case, or is it not very helpful for just that reason?


Regards,
Christopher Ryan
 
I'm sorry if I missed this in the review, but is that an mSATA on the opposite end of the board, and would it be functional?
 
Actually there was. I had 5 vertex 1 fail on me. Company sent out a new vertex 1 each time. Then they finally upgraded me to vertex 2 which just died yesterday. Vertex 4 still going strong, but I have switched to samsung 840 pros now for 3 machines and will not be looking back. SSD's should not fail in a year when just doing normal everyday stuff on them (no benchmarking, no overclocking, different machines different types of users).

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]lol there is nothing wrong with OCZs reliability. Most of the Vertex 3 performed exactly how OCZ specified. SSD have a finite lifespan that no manufacturer will overcome. If you want something that won't fail in 3-5 years than get an HDD, an SSD will fail in that time.[/citation]
 
[citation][nom]technerd[/nom]SAME! I'm going to Samsung for my next SSD. OCZ's reliability is a joke[/citation]
Again same experience here. Do not be fooled by apparent speed...no one notices the difference between 300 and 400 mb/s in practice!! This is also totally irrelevant if reliability is poor! In my case 2 different OCZ Vertex 2 drives stopped working within months after initial setup. In each case led to OS+Apps reinstall, so a couple of hours of work (data stored on standard drive luckily). Fed up with this, we switched to Intel SSD who have been working reliably ever since for over 18 months now! For me never OCZ again!!
 
have a vertex 4 128GB and 256GB both bought last year almost a year ago. still do what i set it to do. but even i wondered sometimes on the 840 Pro and Intel line. but oh well, i wanted Vertex 4, as the price was attractive.
 
[citation][nom]Wivabi[/nom]Again same experience here. Do not be fooled by apparent speed...no one notices the difference between 300 and 400 mb/s in practice!! This is also totally irrelevant if reliability is poor! In my case 2 different OCZ Vertex 2 drives stopped working within months after initial setup. In each case led to OS+Apps reinstall, so a couple of hours of work (data stored on standard drive luckily). Fed up with this, we switched to Intel SSD who have been working reliably ever since for over 18 months now! For me never OCZ again!![/citation]

Heh, i have been lucky with my Vertex2. Using it for 2 years, and no problem at all.
 
Chris, best to stop testing with the Samsung 830 IMO, as it's not available anymore. Include
the 840 & Pro instead, and also please the Vertex4 which is still shipping.

Ian.

 
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]Heh, i have been lucky with my Vertex2. Using it for 2 years, and no problem at all.[/citation]

People moan far too much about OCZ. I have more than 30 Vertex2/3 SSDs,
never had a problem with any of them. All the early fw bugs have been fixed,
which is why Sandisk brought out its own range of reliable SF2 models.

They key to any SSD is to update the fw before use. IMO, even after the
early bugs were sorted out, a lot of users didn't bother, or they used the
SSD or attempted a fw update via a Marvell SATA3 controller which might
fail because the controller is garbage, not the SSD. People yabber on about
this as if other makers are immune - have we all forgotten the bricked Intel
units already? Every manufacturer screws up at some point.

The trouble with shopping sites is that people who have had a problem are
waaaay more likely to post than someone who's bought something and had
no problems at all. Review/ratings of that kind are a statistical joke.

Ian.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom