Interesting SSD comparison: 25nm Vertex 2 180GB vs OCZ Summit 120GB

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by 1BadMac, Feb 9, 2011.

  1. 1BadMac, Feb 9, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011

    1BadMac macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #1
    I recently "upgraded" from a 16 month old 120GB OCZ Summit drive to a new 25nm 180GB Vertex 2. Each was running the latest firmware for the drive (1.28 for the Vertex2 and 19C1 for the Summit). As you know, the Vertex 2 is based on the Sandforce controller and the Summit on the supposedly shameful Samsung controller.

    Usage wise, the Vertex 2 is faster. I run Star Trek online through Wineskin and the Summit had noticibly longer "load" times. FPS in game is the same, but load screens were longer with the Summit. Many apps still launch in one bounce on the dock, such as Outlook, Word, Firefox. PS5 and the rest of the creative suite still take only 3-4 seconds to load. So app load times didn't really improve, but I haven't used all of them yet.

    Synthetic benchmark wise - I'm getting mixed results. Xbench (yes - the loathed and outdated tool that shouldn't be used but still is) - reports interesting results. Slower sequential speeds but much faster random speeds. Write @ 4k improved, which is where the Summit always performed dismally in every benchmark out there. How much that translates to real world performance I can't say.

    AJA test shows a much more consistent result with the Vertex 2 over the Summit. Even after a secure erase to restore the Summit to pristine condition, it had several spikes in the writes. The Vertex 2 holds steady at 239 mb/sec read and 193 mb/sec write on the 256 and 512 mb whack test. The Summit came in at 210 mb / sec read and 160 mb / sec write on the same tests, but the line wasn't as smooth. I will chalk that up to age of the drive.

    So after all of this, I'm not sure the "investment" was as sound as I had led myself to believe it was. I already had a fast machine with low power consumption (the Summit has the lowest idle power consumption of all SSD's I've researched). I now have a marginally faster machine, but again - not that much faster. Perhaps there is a break in period?

    Or as is suggested in the threads over at OCZ - this may just be how the 25nm devices benchmark. Either way, the Summit isn't the POS I was led to believe and tell myself it was. It may have a second birth in my PS3 rather than make it's way to eBay.

    Just posting up for awareness and to see if anyone else has made the switch.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #2
    thanks for posting. I had a Vertex 2 (sold my MBP, kept the drive) and also had an Intel X25m 80gb. The reason I "upgraded" was due to the auto Garbage collection with the SF1200. My intel showed slowing down after 5 months of use (tested via initial benchmarks and then benched again later down the road). So before I would just install windows on it, run TRIM and then time machine back on the OS. Well with the Vertex 2, I'm not going to have to worry about that since there's been plenty of benchmarks etc out there that shows hardly any drive degradation or slowing even after being worked hard. Other than that I "felt" the X25m was just as fast as Vertex 2. But I did notice the speed improvement in sequential when I copied a few larger bulk files over and installed SC2.
     
  3. Tikkabhuna macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    #3
    Go with how it feels. Benchmarks are a weird one with SSDs. Different benchmarks produce different results, manufacturers recommend different benchmarks too. Personally I wouldnt upgrade an SSD for another (unless it was for more space) but don't regret your choice. :)
     
  4. 1BadMac thread starter macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #4
    For what I paid, it was a good deal ($300). I guess that really is the only thing 25nm NAND is bringing to the market - lower prices.
     
  5. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #5
    Been hearing that for a while now.. don't upgrade, lower prices coming! A year has passed... and we've maybe dropped $0.25 per gig, get what you feel is worth it to you now. Which I did, and it looks like you did as well.
     
  6. 1BadMac thread starter macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #6
    Yep, I don't think price breaks will be passed down to the consumers for a while now. As a matter of fact, OCZ is just phasing in 25nm in place of 34nm. So someone might get a good deal on a last gen drive, but these mythical major price reductions just aren't coming.

    The Summit is presently on eBay. If it doesn't sell, I'm going to mess around with putting it in the 360 or PS3 just for fun! :D
     
  7. Kauai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #7
    Sadly, I read about this a while back and an SSD in either a PS3 or 360 show's zero improvement over a HDD because both consoles limit the internal speeds. :( Would be cool to have a fully working SSD in one though.
     
  8. 1BadMac thread starter macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #8
    Doing a little more testing. In PS5, larger .psd's in about the same amount of time. No noticeable difference in working with images with multiple layers, etc.
     
  9. 1BadMac thread starter macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #9
    Actually, I just found some recent threads online about this topic and it appaers that the SSD in the PS3 at least provides for a pretty decent speed bump in game load times from disk. If you google on SSD and GT5 you'll see that game time loads were cut in half. I believe the primary bottneck of the PS3 is the BluRay drive's slow read, so it does not provide all of the benefit it should, but I guess any improvement is better than nothing. :)
     

Share This Page