OCZ Vertex Turbo Review

clocka · 4 Aug 2009 at 20:50

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=60

ac1d1ty · 4 Aug 2009 at 21:40

Many thanks, reading now.

Been waiting ages for one.

ac1d1ty · 4 Aug 2009 at 21:47

Been reading through. Isnt THAT impressive tbh

Talrinys · 4 Aug 2009 at 21:56

ac1d1ty said:
Been reading through. Isnt THAT impressive tbh

Well it's a good upgrade for little more, good to see more products wouldn't you agree?

ac1d1ty · 4 Aug 2009 at 21:59

Talrinys said:
Well it's a good upgrade for little more, good to see more products wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. Its in no way a bad product, I just think that the Intel has taken the floor atm.

Talrinys · 4 Aug 2009 at 22:02

ac1d1ty said:
Absolutely. Its in no way a bad product, I just think that the Intel has taken the floor atm.

Yup, absolutely agree with you there

Gills · 4 Aug 2009 at 22:41

It's the fastest all round SSD out there at the moment, the Intels beat it in certain area's but could only dream of its write performance.

If you download a lot, unrar games, movies, albums etc, do video editing, photoshopping or anything else that working with large files and writing, then these badboys are king at the moment. Do not buy the Intel's if you do any of the above.

ac1d1ty · 4 Aug 2009 at 22:46

Gills said:
It's the fastest all round SSD out there at the moment, the Intels beat it in certain area's but could only dream of its write performance.

If you download a lot, unrar games, movies, albums etc, do video editing, photoshopping or anything else that working with large files and writing, then these badboys are king at the moment. Do not buy the Intel's if you do any of the above.

I thought for photoshop that the intels would be better no?

Stonedofmoo · 5 Aug 2009 at 12:06

Not unless you are working with small files all the time. Photoshop tends to be larger uncompressed files so a balenced drive setup is more useful.

Stonedofmoo · 5 Aug 2009 at 12:25

I see these are already in stock in the UK. £345 for the 120Gb though, at that price who's going to choose one over a 160Gb Intel?!

About time the other manufacturers fell into line with Intel and got their pricing down.

Nate Silvers · 5 Aug 2009 at 14:52

Gills said:
It's the fastest all round SSD out there at the moment, the Intels beat it in certain area's but could only dream of its write performance.

If you download a lot, unrar games, movies, albums etc, do video editing, photoshopping or anything else that working with large files and writing, then these badboys are king at the moment. Do not buy the Intel's if you do any of the above.

Oh damn, I do all that. I use Sony Vegas with ACVHD files, will the Intel be alright for that?

ac1d1ty · 5 Aug 2009 at 15:03

Ill buy of you if its not

miniyazz · 5 Aug 2009 at 17:34

Gills said:
It's the fastest all round SSD out there at the moment, the Intels beat it in certain area's but could only dream of its write performance.

If you download a lot, unrar games, movies, albums etc, do video editing, photoshopping or anything else that working with large files and writing, then these badboys are king at the moment. Do not buy the Intel's if you do any of the above.

Because it would totally suck having your downloading speed bottlenecked by your 70MB/s SSD...

Stonedofmoo · 5 Aug 2009 at 18:03

miniyazz said:
Because it would totally suck having your downloading speed bottlenecked by your 70MB/s SSD...

lol thats actually a good point. A gigabit ethernet connection manages up to 125Mb a second. So if you had an Intel SSD you'd be massively bottlenecked by it when transferring off the network!

miniyazz · 5 Aug 2009 at 18:33

Stonedofmoo said:
lol thats actually a good point. A gigabit ethernet connection manages up to 125Mb a second. So if you had an Intel SSD you'd be massively bottlenecked by it when transferring off the network!

Heh hadn't thought of that scenario. However in my experience unless you actually have a decent ethernet controller at both ends, you never get anywhere near that speed, even if the hard drives at both ends are more than capable of it.

DrMekon · 5 Aug 2009 at 21:58

But would you really be using the ssd to store or move very large files...??? All my downloads and largge files are saved to another disk, I try to keep my primary os drive free from clutter.. You want performance from the OS and apps, not moving large files around more quickly..

Nate Silvers · 5 Aug 2009 at 22:05

True but what about working with them? Like editing large videos. That's my only concern, still gonna go for the 160GB Intel but now these new Crucial drives are out and 128Gb for £200 :eek:

I'm confused which to go for, wish they did between 128GB and 226GB than it would be cheaper than the Intel. Could be slower anyways though.

Gills · 5 Aug 2009 at 23:31

Nate Silvers said:
Oh damn, I do all that. I use Sony Vegas with ACVHD files, will the Intel be alright for that?

Of course, it will still be fine, just a lot slower.

Stonedofmoo · 6 Aug 2009 at 08:03

miniyazz said:
Heh hadn't thought of that scenario. However in my experience unless you actually have a decent ethernet controller at both ends, you never get anywhere near that speed, even if the hard drives at both ends are more than capable of it.

Me and my housemate get 113-114Mb a sec off our simple ethernet connections, but never the top speed. We just have RAID0 setups so the storage system isn't the bottleneck.