*****NEW OCZ SSD's - Check out these new ultra-cheap/Super-Fast SSD's*****

Indeed. The first post explained about the cheaper manufacturing costs of the larger technology which is passed on to the conumer. It is an appreciable price difference here - if the Vertex 2E was scaled up to 90GB at the same cost per GB it would cost £172.50 or so whereas the Bigfoot 90GB costs £150.
 
"only" £939.99 inc VAT eh?

Im surpised they have the cheek to call a 90GB SSD Bigfoot though tbh!!

Edit:- Ahh Maybe bigfoot because they are 3.5"? The penny may be dropping. Albeit slowly.
 
Last edited:
I've no idea why 3.5" is cheaper than 2.5", should really be more expensive to build and ship, but the 120GB drive is nicely priced.
 
^ why? they can use smaller capacity and therefore cheaper NAND chips

the only two things which increase in cost per are the shell and the PCB, both of which cost pennies to the manufacturer
 
Can I have a 1TB SSD for £200 please, I don't mind it it's big enough to sit on ;)

The only way I can see 3.5" form factor being cheaper to make is if the cost of cramming the extra capacity into a 2.5" drive costs more even without the extra materials and shipping costs. My SSD was more expensive in the smaller format so I got the 3.5" version :/

It looks like their subsidising the lower prices on the 90/120GB versions with the higher prices of the 240/480GB versions, which is a shame, how about we stop messing about with these inbetween sizes and get TB drives rolling. In my eyes it would be a bonus is they doubled up as a foot stool :)
 
HW91 said:
^ why? they can use smaller capacity and therefore cheaper NAND chips

the only two things which increase in cost per are the shell and the PCB, both of which cost pennies to the manufacturer
Click to expand...

They won't be using any more or less NAND chips than before, that's a factor of the number of controller channels, which won't have changed. Plus NAND prices per GB actually go down as capacity goes up.
 
rjkoneill said:
they have up to date firmware and have all the same features as a regular vertex2. there is no degredation due to the trim command on windows 7
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, if someone decides to hammer their Sandforce based drive with tons and tons of hard to compress data then performance will degrade a lot and won't recover until a secure erase is performed.
 
It shouldn't be a major issue as long as you don't do tons of AS SSD/CDM benchmarks, or don't copy many gigabytes of compressed videos to it.

On the OCZ forums the drives only really degraded a ton when someone set CDM to write 36GB of compressed data to the drive each test, it took around 7-8 tests until the drives write speed was down to around 80MB/s

Towards the bottom of this page

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/f...Erase-TRIM-and-anything-else-Sandforce/page14
 
Last edited:
I'll just be using it for OS, got a normal HDD for everything else.. still, had I known before I might have opted for the Crucial.
 
Broken Hope said:
It shouldn't be a major issue as long as you don't do tons of AS SSD/CDM benchmarks, or don't copy many gigabytes of compressed videos to it.

On the OCZ forums the drives only really degraded a ton when someone set CDM to write 36GB of compressed data to the drive each test, it took around 7-8 tests until the drives write speed was down to around 80MB/s

Towards the bottom of this page

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/f...Erase-TRIM-and-anything-else-Sandforce/page14
Click to expand...

According to that thread they will eventually recover themselves to much closer to 'fresh' performance if you stop hammering them with loads of data.
 
i want the 120gb one and that price swings it.
i had planned on getting the 2.5" version, but with these i save money AND don't have to sellotape it somewhere in my case. WINx2!
 
That's the one I ordered (120GB) as it seems to be the best value, I'll just have to see how it goes after only ever using conventional drives I expect to be blown away regardless of any degradation niggles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom