OCZ Vertex Owners Thread - Test Results

1275 firmware will be out early this week it seems, most likely monday or tuesday, hope to see your benchmarks then.

Try and use Windows7 beta 7057 to do test results on as its supposed to be optimised a bit for SSD's.
 
clocka said:
Try and use Windows7 beta 7057 to do test results on as its supposed to be optimised a bit for SSD's.
Click to expand...

Yeah Win7 FLIES on these drives. Just used mine on it (120GB vertex, firmware 1199). Kills my VelociRaptors in everything.
Also way faster than my OCZ Core V2 SSD (60GB), which was pretty **** really because it used the poor Jmicron controller, and also suffered from stuttering.

I find it funny some people are using these with XP and then moaning about bad performance... what do you expect! XP should be avoided with SSD's.
 
Last edited:
the speed increase looks nice, around 5mb/s faster write and around 20mb/s faster read.

Lets hope someone with Windows 7 Beta 7057 x64 can run some benchmarks and see what this drive is really capable of:)
 
I got my three 30GB Vertex's yesterday and they are all installed in Raid 0 on ICH10R and working well 600+ mb/s read.

Here is an interesting point and maybe something to help justify the cost of the Vertex drives... My 3x30GB drives in Raid 0 shows a drive of 91.1GB in Vista when formatted NTFS.... So not only do i have slightly more than the advertised size there is no drop in size as with all other drives, including my G.Skill 128 which reads 117GB when formated.

Can anyone else confirm this in case it's just mine thats doing something odd?
 
91.1/3 = 30.4gb ish which means they cant advertise it as 31gb so you are getting what you pay for.

OCZ chose to label their drive as the ACTUAL size they will be as they got complaints when their ocz v1 drives said 32gb but were only 30.4gb so now they label 30/60/120 instead of 32/64/128. Some other manufacturers are following in the same way too.
 
30/60GB tend to perform a little slower than the 120/250GB drives. I think its because there's less chips and as a result less channels.

30/60GB = ~155 writes ~220 reads

120/250GB = ~200 writes ~250 reads

Either way, plenty fast.
 
vertex v2 drives will be out in a few months, they'll have raid0 setup inside each drive so will be a lot faster. Might be worth waiting for 1 of those. I personally wont be buying a SSD until sata3 is out, should get much better speeds with sata3 as sata2 is starting to hit it's limit with high-end ssd's like the intel ssd.
 
SimonMaltby said:
I got my three 30GB Vertex's yesterday and they are all installed in Raid 0 on ICH10R and working well 600+ mb/s read.

Here is an interesting point and maybe something to help justify the cost of the Vertex drives... My 3x30GB drives in Raid 0 shows a drive of 91.1GB in Vista when formatted NTFS.... So not only do i have slightly more than the advertised size there is no drop in size as with all other drives, including my G.Skill 128 which reads 117GB when formated.

Can anyone else confirm this in case it's just mine thats doing something odd?
Click to expand...

From OCZ website:
Consumers may see a discrepancy between reported capacity and actual capacity; the storage industry standard is to display capacity in decimal. However, the operating system usually calculates capacity in binary format, causing traditional HDD and SSD to show a lower capacity in Windows. In the case of SSDs, some of the capacity is reserved for formatting and redundancy for wear leveling. These reserved areas on an SSD may occupy up to 5% of the drive’s storage capacity. On the Core V2 Series the new naming convention reflects this and the 30 is equivalent to 32GB, the 60 is equivalent to the 64GB and so on.



LeJimster said:
30/60GB tend to perform a little slower than the 120/250GB drives. I think its because there's less chips and as a result less channels.

30/60GB = ~155 writes ~220 reads

120/250GB = ~200 writes ~250 reads

Either way, plenty fast.
Click to expand...

30 and 60GB have 32MB cache, 120 and 250GB have 64MB cache.
 
MR.B said:
30 and 60GB have 32MB cache, 120 and 250GB have 64MB cache.
Click to expand...

According to Tony all models include 64MB cache. The besides the cache isn't the reason for sequential speed differences, its the amount of channels that can be accessed at the same time. The larger drives can essentially do more simultaneously. Other SSDs with less than 64KB of cache are capable of similar speeds, so the cache is irrelevant except when it comes to wear levelling.
 
Windows 7 build 7057, 64-Bit

Single 120GB Vertex, with 1275 firmware:

ssd.JPG


Way better than on XP.
But as i always say... dont use SSD's on that ancient OS!

Oh and Vista SP1 gets very similar results to Win7 in benchmarks i've done, but 7 is still faster at installing software and start up/shut down times (but it's like this with any HDD/SSD).
 
Last edited:
jrwagh333 said:
Does anyone know, or even heard of the Vertex V2?
Click to expand...

There were some "prototype" benchmarks a few months back. But people said they were just simulated by putting 2 vertex drives in Raid. OCZ were indicating a late 2009 release for the drives. But because of the read and write speeds were around 500MB/sec its too much for a Sata II controller to handle. There was talk of it having 2 Sata II ports on it. But that would require the user to use there own raid solution anyway, which seems a bit of a rubbish design. I think they'll wait until Sata 3.0 comes out before introducing that drive personally. The OCZ Z-Drive will probably arrive before the Vertex V2.
 
jrwagh333 said:
Does anyone know, or even heard of the Vertex V2?
Click to expand...

ocz vertex v2 info here: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11365&Itemid=1

internal quad raid controller!

vertex2.jpg


says out Q1 2009 and that article was released in mid jan so realistically it will prob be out within 2 months as we haven't heard any info since jan.

No sata3 board out yet tho to take full advantage of the speed so the speeds will likely be capped a lot due to sata2 limitations.

Cant wait for sata3 boards with usb3 support too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom