Just because they are same build version does not mean they have not branched and tweaked the 3.19 or 3.2 stable. If they all used exactly stock firmware they would all test exactly the same and they do not. Close but not the same.
Just because they are same build version does not mean they have not branched and tweaked the 3.19 or 3.2 stable. If they all used exactly stock firmware they would all test exactly the same and they do not. Close but not the same.
They don't test the same because of hardware spec differences, but as the article shows the firmware is the same. Do you really think OWC is "tweaking" Sandforce firmware? Do you have some evidence of this?
They don't test the same because of hardware spec differences, but as the article shows the firmware is the same. Do you really think OWC is "tweaking" Sandforce firmware? Do you have some evidence of this?
I'm referring to tests on the exact same HW. 1 computer x 15 SSD's etc.
OWC is not tweaking firmware, OCZ is.
"Thanks to the SandForce SF-1200 powering this drive combined with OCZ's tweaked firmware, the Vertex 2 has no qualm flaunting its remarkable performance."
"The SF-2281 controller can address eight NAND channels, each equipped in this 240GB drive with two 16GB 25nm Intel NAND chips. The MAX IOPS version uses more expensive 32nm Toshiba NAND alongside a tweaked firmware, but it's otherwise identical."
There is more all over the web usually buried in reviews. Usually talking about improved performance but improvement can also get dangerously close to unstable.
The SSD's that do use official firmwares (from what I have seen anyway) are more stable (Kinston, OWC, etc) OCZ is just the biggest name and appear to have the highest failure rates.
Crucial M4 here as well have the vertex 3 but had endless beach balls, and found it way to hard to even attempt to update the firmware. While the crucial was a quick and easy process and seems just as fast.