NEW OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS moves back to 34nm!!??

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by pedrofan, May 16, 2011.

  1. pedrofan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    #1
    OCZ has just released the new version of his top of the line SSDs. The Vertex 3 max IOPS. The main advertised diferences between the versions are the number of IOPS, that seems to be a little bit higher in the new version.

    But in the "ssdreview" web page, they have opened them, and what was the surprise when they saw 34nm toshiba flash chips instead of the new 25nm that are used in the normal vertex 3 and in OWC mercury PRO.

    So if this is confirmed, they have achieved to maintain and improve the performance with 34nm flash chips that are said to last for 5,000 write cycles and are more expensive, while 25nm MLC NAND lasts for only 3,000 write cycles and are also cheaper.

    Both versions cost almost the same, with differences of only 10-30$. So in the paper, I should go for the max IOPS version if you found them, as they are faster and uses the longer lasting 34nm chips.

    You can see the full review here:

    http://thessdreview.com/our-reviews/ocz-vertex-3-240gb-max-iops-review/
     
  2. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #2
    vertex 3 -standart 2x @ span.com =£440
    vertex 3 - max iops edition- also at span.com £504 :eek:

    over $105 difference in the UK
     
  3. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #3
    Well the current one is a poor drive, so they had to do something...
     
  4. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #4
    why do u say that?
     
  5. awer25 macrumors 65816

    awer25

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    #5
    Based on what? People complaining about their devices online doesn't make it poor - heck, if you only read this forum you'd think the MBP is a crappy computer. I haven't had a bit of problem with mine...just instantaneous booting and program loading.
     
  6. pedrofan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    #6
    Vertex 3 is one of the best SSD drives in the world. I have one in my macbook pro and it goes insanely fast and stable. So don't talk about things you don't know only because you have heard something... please.. ;)
     
  7. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #7
    Also, the Vertex 2 has the same types of reviews. See below.



    If frequent customer dissatisfaction and reports of mass failure doesn't indicate a poor product, than what does?! :confused::confused::confused: A customer bought an item, used it, and found issues on it, that may be a fluke. But when hundreds of reviews identify the same or similar issues, I doubt that is a coincidence.



    Well, let's see the MacBook Pro on a Google product search...hmm...doesn't make it look crappy at all. Actually, I'd say it looks pretty good.
    [​IMG]


    Maybe the MacBook Pro just gets higher ratings than all solid state drives. Well, lets compare some user reviews of the:
    -Vertex 2
    -Intel X-25
    -Crucial C300
    -Samsung 470


    Intel
    (the X-25, which is their older generation due to not enough reviews for the refreshed models, which seem to be even better.)
    [​IMG]
    Here are some more reviews of the X25. Notice 5 of 7 are rated five out of five stars, one four stars, and one three stars



    Crucial
    (C300 mainly their older RealSSD C300 and no 'M' series)
    [​IMG]

    Samsung
    (Their current SSD, the 470)
    [​IMG]

    OCZ
    (The Vertex 2, their current, but flash mem size is varied for this drive)
    [​IMG]
    Here are some more reviews on the Vertex 2. Notice that of about 20 drives with 5 or more ratings, none have a 5 star rating, 13 have a four star rating, and 6 have a three star rating



    Does no one else find an issue with this? If not, then how do you explain these (and other) customer reviews and the studies that have shown higher failure rates?
     

    Attached Files:

  8. TheHoff macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
  9. awer25 macrumors 65816

    awer25

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    #9
    I checked Newegg for the regular Vertex 3 (which is what we were speaking about when you said it was a poor drive) and it has:

    5 Stars: 74% (40)
    4 Stars: 7% (4)
    3 Stars: 0% (0)
    2 Stars: 4% (2)
    1 Star: 15% (8)

    Further, of the 8 1-star reviews, two were by the same guy, leaving 7. 4 of the 7 had immediate issues within a week and had the drive replaced with a working one for free. 2 had incompatibility issues with their computer. 1 found out that the Marvell controller he has only gives a max of 400MB/s, not 550.

    Basically, the vast majority work perfectly and are the fastest drives around. If you happen to get anything less than stellar performance, just send it back for another. Odds of 2 faulty drives are pretty slim. Anyway, based on reviews I wouldn't call the Vertex 3 a "poor drive". It's also faster than the other drives, so there's an added bonus with the Vertex 3.
     
  10. Jiten macrumors 6502a

    Jiten

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    #10
    Holy crap NicKzac, talk about citing your sources.
     
  11. sydenham macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    #11
    It is important to take this guys opinion with a grain of salt. About 6 months ago he was saying how bad the stock drives that Apple ships with their computers are. He continued to post how bad and undependable they are without realising that Apple used hard drives from many different manufacturers including Western Digital, Toshiba, Samsung and just about everyone else. I pretty much begged him to stop posting these ridiculous claims as they had no basis on fact. Just like this silly assumption. Everyone I have seen post about the Vertex 3 has had nothing but positive results. When you cough up and buy one yourself Nik, then you can talk. Until then stick with your cheap Western Digital drives.....
     
  12. wangkom macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #12
    amen
     
  13. Glen Quagmire macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    How many people take the time to post how wonderful their SSD is?
    How many people take the time to post how awful their SSD is if they have problems with it?

    I'd argue that there's a lot more motivation to post negative things on the internet than there is to post positive things.
     
  14. Locodice macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    #14
    If people barely notice the difference (in everyday use) between SATA III and SATA II then sod paying $100+ more for a souped up SATA III drive.
     
  15. Macsavvytech macrumors 6502a

    Macsavvytech

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #15
    Also bare in mind there are those that would bag out the Vertex 3 only because they don't have one. Really nothing can be based on online reviews where the item is rated over 3 stars. Obviously there is a difference between a 1star product and a 5start product but from what I have found often there is no difference between 3 starts and 5 stars.
     
  16. JayMBP macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Location:
    Richmond, BC/Bellingham, WA
    #16
    As a Vertex3 owner, I really couldn't care less about the change. In what sort of real world application would those extra IOPS make a noticeable difference?

    I can't think of anything that I have in my MBP.
     
  17. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #17
    Very true matey - but i would much rather pay the $10-$20 extra for the 34NM NAND flash version, and premium Toshiba NAND flash - IMO

    only issue is when boiled down to cost in the real world, especially the EU market - the price difference is not the recommended $10-$20 but more likely $80-$100

    I was in contact with a good source of mine on ocz and may of found somewhere in the UK that will honour ocz recommended prices and sell the drive for a nominal extra, as they have recently just partnered up with OCZ as an offical distributor - heres hoping
     
  18. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #18
    PS - at this time - id rather go for an ocz than a crippled OWC ssd - which has even poorer f/w update, and ltd IOPS

    Yes, any real world differences is negligible, however, if you are paying a little extra more for something, one does expect it to be as good if not better than it's closest competitor.

    If OWC release a improved f/w updater and removed the cap on the IOPS by a new f/w; and consumer prices for the oc max iops ssd is of similar cost - there is not competition IMO!
     
  19. pedrofan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    #19
    It is not barely, it is so noticeable. I've had a mercury pro sata II and a vertex 3 and with vertex 3 everything goes insanely fast. With sata II you say.. yes, it is faster than a regular HDD but with sata III everything goes like, boom boom, instanctly.
     
  20. awer25 macrumors 65816

    awer25

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    #20
    ^^This. I used to have the Vertex 2 and there's a very noticeable increase in performance when going to the V3.
     
  21. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #21
    I dont get why OCZ has so many versions:
    Max IOPS - $329 550/500MBs 35k/75k IOPS
    Vertex3 - $299 550/500MBs ?/60k IOPS
    Agility3 - $259 525/500MBs ?/50k IOPS
    Solid3 - $249 500/450MBs ?/20k IOPS

    WTF

    OWC:
    Mercury EXTREME Pro - $319 559/515 60k/60k IOPS

    Corsair:
    Force3 - $219 550/510 85k/85k IOPS

    It's rather easy to see the Force3 is the easy winner. It has the speed of the OWC, the IOPS of the OCZ Max IOPS, and the price lower than the Solid.

    Where is the downside?

    *All prices/specs are from Newegg for 120GB drive excluding OWC, priced/specs from Macsales.com
     
  22. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #22
    Once again, you attack me with your words but you fail to offer any credible sources whatsoever, negating your argument in full.

    You are 1 person with a personal opinion, as am I. The reviews posted above are from many people. Generally speaking, you want to support your arguments with what other people say that are in agreement with your initial argument. Show me some of your 'facts' to prove that the Vertex line is not a sub-par SSD. Please? Other studies have also found high failure rates of your drives as well.

    The FORMER factory Apple HDDs on former MBPs, largely those from the 2009 era, were not as good as aftermarket ones from a comparison group, both speed wise and reliability wise. New, first of all, the hard drives used in the MBP in that era were similar to other makers (same drives, often relabeled), which is why information was compiled on them (as the MBP is not a business class laptop due to price). You can go online and type in model numbers and find that the factory hard drives used during 2009 were among the slowest on the market even at their time of release. Finding reliability data requires research skills, which you either are unwilling to exercise or simply lack. The 2009 era hard drives also sold for about $39-47 IIRC to the public (it was under 50 and the 2009's 250 GB HDD was under 40). I am comparing the factory drives to such as the WD Black/Spinpoint/Momentus 7200 and others that you could get on Amazon or from most retailers and wholesalers. Almost every hard drive maker has at least one tier HDD line that stands high above their others (EX: WD Scorpio Black versus their standard Passport boxed portables). These tiers were rarely used in factory-shipped computers. You, among others, previously mentioned how those hard drives are not standard because they are premium products, and I said, and still say, that a 3 thousand dollar computer is premium and should have the best. The 500 GB 7500 RPM hard disk drives with the highest statistical and user ratings can be had for under $100. I don't think that is unreasonable to request in a computer that prides itself on being premium.

    Notice the current SSD in the MacBook Pro is among the best, and from the reviews that I have read, the hard disk drives being used on the 2011 (and possibly later 2010s) now are also premium. During these conversations, you constantly told me I was wrong, but each time you failed to offer any support being your opinion. If you don't think that customer reviews on reliability indicate product quality, than yes, my reviews are and have been compromised from your perspective. Looking at MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) rates, smaller reliability studies, and user reviews, I was able to say the former factory drives were nowhere near as good as the ones I compared them to. Indeed, the MTBF had a relatively high standard deviation with a variety of missing values, and it is important to note that some variation exists on how makers define a "failure". Not all makers publicized their MTBF, and sometimes one must contact the manufacturer to get this information, although not all will disclose it. Also, MTBF generally sits at 1-2 million hours for higher end HDDs, and so comparing multiple higher end drives with 1 million MTBF ratings means very little. Comparing them to the factory Apple drives, however, did sometimes mean something, as many of the drives that they used were 600,000 MTBF. Those numbers in themselves need to be considered with other specs, and of course user reviews. At this point, you can look at non-recoverable read errors per bits read and load/unload cycles, but both had less variation, and most mid to higher end laptop hard drives sat at around 600,000 stop/starts, and some lower end hard drives were 300,000+/-, and some did not list this data. Warranty should also be considered. Makers offering 5 year or higher warranties on HDDs may say something about reliability, but surely say something about the user’s liability for mass drive failure. Despite all of the above specs, the ultimate test of quality is how well it works in the real world over time. User reviews of the individual hard drives in the examined MBPs (as well as user reviews OF the computers using those in which users indicated hard drive problems), identified a weakness compared to mid-premium user grade (and of course enterprise level) HDDs. Furthermore, more recent studies have identified the aftermarket drives used for comparison purposes among the most reliable on the market today, with most using full failure as the primary unit of calculation. Ultimately, the hard drives in the previous MacBook Pro did not match the computer, and some had questionable issues surrounding their long-term reliability. It seems the identified weaknesses was successfully addressed with the use of different tier 500 and 750 GB hard drives in 2011 models, however, my active research of the issue ended before the 2011 MBP was widely distributed.

    It is also worth noting that many of the older hard disk drives that were used in the Apple MacBook Pro had complaints of ‘clacks’. Noise was not an issue that was examined and some hard drives seem to just like to ‘chatter’, and this noise complaint was not used to measure reliability whatsoever.




    One Vertex 2 was more than enough for us thank you very much! But ultimately, it comes down the individual user to decide what they are going to buy. This is an opinionated form. You can say whatever you want to say, as can I, as can anyone else. I’m the first to admit that I can be wrong and that no research is infallible; but when you continually follow me around on a forum and tell me that I am wrong without providing evidence, I have a hard time believing anything that you say. Show me evidence, and I will admit fault to my reasoning. It isn’t that complicated.
     
  23. pedrofan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
  24. Glen Quagmire macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Location:
    UK
  25. johnnyturbouk, May 18, 2011
    Last edited: May 18, 2011

    johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #25
    i think you will find that anand found the OWC 6G SSD to be similar, if not slightly slower than the vertex3: also the current and only firmware available limits the 4k random write cap specs- will this not manifest in noticeable real world performance of the SSD? Also from memory, OWC are painfully slow at releasing f/w updates!

    Anand Lal Shilpi: on 5/5/2011 1:45:00 AM
     

Share This Page