Anyone experienced a OCZ Petrol?
- Thread starter sehcure
- Start date
The read / write speeds are really bad, other SSD's have nearly double if not more
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=2104&sortby=priceAsc
if you just go through them looking at the read write speeds, you'll see what I mean, Id spend the little bit more the others cost for a big improvement in performance.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=2104&sortby=priceAsc
if you just go through them looking at the read write speeds, you'll see what I mean, Id spend the little bit more the others cost for a big improvement in performance.
There was recently a indilinux update so..
Even M4s write speed has nearly doubled since the write speeds shown on its selling thing...
Last edited:
From what I see on OCUK the Petrol is £4 more than the Vertex 2E, 100MB's slower reading an 180MB's slower writing. Its also £4 less than the Agility 3, but 350MB's slower reading an 380MB's slower writing. But you do get an extra 4GB of space compared to each.
So its aimed at all those people who want to pay an extra £4 for an SSD with 2008's levels of performance and 4GB more storage than a Vertex 2E?
So its aimed at all those people who want to pay an extra £4 for an SSD with 2008's levels of performance and 4GB more storage than a Vertex 2E?
Last edited:
So its aimed at all those people who want to pay an extra £4 for an SSD with 2008's levels of performance and 4GB more storage than a Vertex 2E?
You exaggerate somewhat.
It's more like a 2010 level of performance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,240
- Location
- melee island
I imagine it's more for sata2 users.
No I don't, its the performance level of an SSD from 2008, the Kingston SSDnow! to be precise and that was considered a budget model at the time.
Not only is it slow for an SSD its actually <40MB/s faster at reads and a >65MB/s slower at writes than mechanical HDDs 10x the size.
Last edited:
It has comparable speeds to SSD's from mid 2010.
OcUK SSD's 2 July 2010
Where are these mechanical HDD's with sustained 320MB/s read speeds and 245MB/s write speeds?
And ones from 2008...
The R/W speeds of the 64GB Petrol (AKA the one I have been talking about) are "185 MB/s max sequential read | 75 MB/s max sequential write", not 320/245.
And the WD Velociraptor 600 is 27.8MB/s slower at reads and 79.2MB/s faster at writes.
Now that would depend on which reviews you read and actually making a valid comparison.
The WD Velociraptor 600GB has sustained read and write speeds of 136 and 130MB/s from the first review I found.
Thats 49MB/s slower read speed and 35MB/s faster write speed than the 64GB Petrol.
But of course that fails to take into account the near instantaneous access times of an SSD which are one of its biggest strengths.
And lets try and compare like with like shall we?
The WD Velociraptor 600 costs £208.99 at OcUK and you're comparing it to a £68.99 SSD.
Be more realistic and compare it to the £119.99 128GB Petrol (Read 360MB/s, Write 180MB/s) or the £229.99 256GB Petrol (Read 370MB/s, Write 240MB/s).
They may not be the fastest SSD's in the world but they stomp on the WD Velociraptor 600GB.
True, my own VR600 only benches at 142/138
I wasn't really trying to say mechanical drives are on the same level as SSD's just that this SSD's performance is so weak it can be beaten in some areas by a mechanical drive, my Vertex 2E beats my VR600 in every area (except capacity ofc)
The VR600 was a lot cheaper than that before the floods, but again im not trying to claim their better the comparison was purely an example of how poor the 64GB Petrols performance is.
the petrol drive could be a cheapish way to get a fast external usb3 or esata backup drive/ portable flash drive which should be more resilient to knocks than mechanical drives.
also do note the vertex 2e may be faster but its sandforce based and its know to be unreliable and very problematic. check on ocz forums if you want proof.
also do note the vertex 2e may be faster but its sandforce based and its know to be unreliable and very problematic. check on ocz forums if you want proof.
petrol may be slower on sequential read and writes but iops is not that bad, still considerably faster than mechanical drive, and doesnt use problematic sandforce controller so should be fairly reliable, but then again this is an OCZ product.........
'problematic sandforce controller'. That was due to a firmware issue which has been resolved. Did the Crucial drives not have a firmware issue also? No, wait..
if you read the anandtech review on the intel drive properly you will see that they mention that intel has fixed a specific bug with power management on the intel ssd drive that uses sandforce controller. however the bug is still present on non intel sandforce drives.
a quick look at the ocz forums confirms that there are still problems with ocz sandforce drives as well as sandforce drives from other manufacturers like corsair.
i wonder if intel truly have worked out all the issues with sandforce drives, the intel ssd is too new to tell how reliability is, also the intel ssd is too expensive, 160gb drives being priced close to 240/256gb drives from other manufacturers.
also you mention that crucial had firmware issues, thats true crucial did not deny it, and the bug was very specific that appeared after around 7 months constant use. crucial promptly fixed the issue.
unlike ocz and other sandforce based drives the manufacturer doesnt even aknowledge there is problems with the drives. look on thier forums before you shoot yourself in the foot.
in this day and age why would anyone buy a sandforce drive thats similarly priced to a drive such as a marvell chipset based one? whoever wants all out performance with no need for reliability then by all means go sandforce, id rather sink my money into something thats more tried and tested and proven reliable in the field like marvell chipset based drives.
intel may be the best of what sandforce has to offer, but only time will tell if sandforce is permanently broke and cant ever be fixed.
a quick look at the ocz forums confirms that there are still problems with ocz sandforce drives as well as sandforce drives from other manufacturers like corsair.
i wonder if intel truly have worked out all the issues with sandforce drives, the intel ssd is too new to tell how reliability is, also the intel ssd is too expensive, 160gb drives being priced close to 240/256gb drives from other manufacturers.
also you mention that crucial had firmware issues, thats true crucial did not deny it, and the bug was very specific that appeared after around 7 months constant use. crucial promptly fixed the issue.
unlike ocz and other sandforce based drives the manufacturer doesnt even aknowledge there is problems with the drives. look on thier forums before you shoot yourself in the foot.
in this day and age why would anyone buy a sandforce drive thats similarly priced to a drive such as a marvell chipset based one? whoever wants all out performance with no need for reliability then by all means go sandforce, id rather sink my money into something thats more tried and tested and proven reliable in the field like marvell chipset based drives.
intel may be the best of what sandforce has to offer, but only time will tell if sandforce is permanently broke and cant ever be fixed.