OCZ SSD 25nm vs 34nm (Vertex 2, Agility 2)

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by ActionableMango, Feb 11, 2011.

  1. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #1
    Many on these forums including myself have recommended OCZ Vertex 2 in the past.

    This is just a head's-up that the current model Vertex 2 (25nm version) is noticeably diminished in write speed, lifespan, and capacity than the previous 34nm version. This affects models 180GB or smaller.

    The speed is slower for writing non-sequential data that is not compressible (fallen from 130ish to 80ish MB/s). The lifespan has fallen from 5000 P/E cycles to 3000. The unformatted capacity has fallen by about 4-5GB (for example, a 120GB model is reduced to 115GB, a 4% loss). Obviously this means a larger percentage is lost from a smaller drive (60GB to 56GB is a 9% loss!).

    OCZ is indicating that none of this could be helped, as the NAND manufacturer is forcing 25nm on them. I agree. However, particularly damning is that there was no model change, no warning, no decrease in the advertised capacity, and rumor is they are actively deleting complaints on their forums.

    http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?84598-Drives-Shipping-With-25nm-NAND.-Q-amp-A

    http://www.guru3d.com/news/ocz-vertex-2-with-25nm-nand-flash-reported-slower/

    There is no visible method for determining whether your Vertex/Agility 2 is 25nm or 34nm other than opening the case, a warranty-ending move. Perhaps it can be checked by way of reported capacity. Does anyone know what the formatted capacity is in OS X of a drive with 120GB unformatted capacity?
     
  2. DanielCoffey, Feb 11, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2011

    DanielCoffey macrumors 65816

    DanielCoffey

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Location:
    Edinburgh, UK
    #2
    My OCZ Vertex2 120Gb (firmware 1.24) has a raw capacity of 120.03Gb and a formatted capacity of 119.69Gb. I have had it a couple of months so it is the older generation and I am very pleased with it.

    EDIT : I believe OCZ said they were increasing the over-provisioning on the 25nm models which effectively reduced the formatted capacity to about 115Gb?
     
  3. kbonnel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Location:
    In a nice place..
    #3
    Yea, this is definitely something that concerns me. I recently purchased a 240GB 3.5" vertex 2, and I just haven't been completely "wowed" by it, and cannot determine 100% if this is a 25nm or the 34nm. (or if my expectations were too high) Since I had the 1.28 firmware, I suspect 25nm, but OCZ has indicated in the forums that firmware level does not indicate 100% which NAND is being used. What concerns me, as with many others, is how OCZ handled this, keeping the same name, which leads to same speeds assumptions. (I based my purchased decision heavily on performance capabilities)
     
  4. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #4
    Can't you determine the die size by the non-sequential write speed?
     
  5. rob0t macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    #5
    and that raises a question if normal user could ever observe any change?

    it seems the change is from 55 to 51GB
    http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?84445-Vertex2-60GB-formatted-size
     
  6. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #6
    So once again it looks like ssds are still not ready for prime time. I guess we need to wait some more. oh well
     
  7. kbonnel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Location:
    In a nice place..
    #7
    Not sure what the best bechmark tools there are for OSX, so far there seems to be limited free options, at least to test 4k tests. here is xbench:

    Disk Test 338.90
    Sequential 209.10
    Uncached Write 246.71 151.47 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 253.15 143.23 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 114.40 33.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 419.37 210.77 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Random 893.48
    Uncached Write 1005.37 106.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 442.83 141.77 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 3129.68 22.18 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 1105.62 205.16 MB/sec [256K blocks]
     
  8. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #8
    Mine shows the same numbers as yours in disk utility and under finder get info for formatted. I'm hoping mine was the 34nm as I purchased it from NewEgg on January 10, 2011.
     
  9. VirtualRain, Feb 13, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011

    VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #9
    This is bizarre. Isn't 25nm NAND flash way cheaper than 35nm flash? It also requires better ECC algorithms to compensate for the reduced endurance. Why is OCZ trying to say they are being forced to use lower cost NAND in one of their flagship products?! Why are the implementing this without updating their controller firmware?! If this is really the case, then they have very poor control over their supply chain and to top it off, are not taking a very good system engineering approach to implementation. It's all very odd. I wouldn't buy any more OCZ SSD's until this is sorted out.

    Here's some info on 25nm NAND...

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4043/micron-announces-clearnand-25nm-with-ecc
     
  10. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #10
    I agree about using it on one of their flagship product lines. As for using it in general, I'm not upset about that, this is what everyone wanted.. the use of 25nm to reduce costs etc. I've been hearing about it for the past year when people have asked if it is "worth" upgrading to an SSD now or later. Well here it is! And it isn't as awesome as we thought eh? haha
     
  11. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #11
    Yeah, I expected 25nm products to be announced about now, but as complete engineered systems with next gen controllers, and at a much better price point.
     
  12. mdgm macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #12
    It is disappointing but I guess it is still pretty new technology. Hopefully once they've sorted things out, the price will be more affordable. I'm happy to wait a while.

    I hope you're right and they come out soon. I guess if the supply of the 34nm flash is drying up then the hand of the SSD manufacturers will be forced.
     
  13. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #13

    vertex 3 with sandforce 2000 and better memory should be out in a couple of months according to some ocz reps.
     
  14. Icaras macrumors 603

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #14
    What I've been reading on various forums and news articles is that the new 25nm Intel G3s have also been delayed and that the Intel 510s are supposed to be taking over their release for this month.

    So it seems all around that 25nm SSD technology in general still needs some work?
     
  15. hitek79 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    #15
    Just bought one

    These drives just showed up on Newegg.com with a $25 price drop, and a $30 MIR, so I decided to take a gamble on it. Final cost should be $176 for the drive. It's worth the experiment because I'm sick of waiting for the latest and greatest to finally ship. This will pacify me for the time being, and the 20% savings makes me feel ok with the experiment.
     
  16. ActionableMango thread starter macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #16
  17. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #17
    This move is not looking smart on behalf of OCZ... with the denser NAND, they are using half the channels which is impacting some benchmarks. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I would stay away from OCZ SSD's now until this is cleared up.

    StorageReview.com review of 25nm OCZ Vertex 2...

     
  18. brentsg macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #18
    Having used a lot of OCZ RAM and power supplies over the years, I have to say I'm disappointed in this. They were always straight and reliable for me, but this just doesn't make any sense.
     
  19. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #19
    Well I have to say they were pretty good to me about the RMA. My Patriot Inferno Rma was pretty quick and so was my corsair RMA. having a 50% fail rate for each of the 3 companies I pretty much gave up on ssd's.

    I give kudos to intel for the slow but sure approach including recalls before the gear is released.
     
  20. ActionableMango thread starter macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #20
    I have both a Vertex2 and Agility2. They work well and I am happy with them.

    However, I have given up on recommending SSDs at all. Too many reports of failure. And to those who say Intel is somehow perfect, look at Newegg reviews. The reviews are chock-full of reports of failure from all manufacturers, including Intel.

    One of the touted advantages of SSD is the reliability over a moving-parts storage device like hard drives. So far it appears as if this reliability is only theoretical. SSDs are on the cusp of being mainstream--heck, the MacBook Air uses one by default. Yet they still feel a little bleeding edge to me.
     
  21. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #21
    Even though my intels are 20 for 20 it does not mean they are failsafe.

    It means they were 20 for 20. my other ssds were 3 for 6 and all 3 rmas worked so they are 6 for 9. I am talking

    about turning into bricks over night.

    Not occasional stutters or sleep issues. So for ssd users they are still not as good as I would like.

    RIGHT NOW I DON'T USE THEM! Most of my computer business had been upgrades of mac mini's.

    I can see where ssd as work drives to be used and burned up for large file edits as a huge time saver makes a lot of sense. If my non-Intel ssd rates are accurate 6 for 9 there will be lots of happy users. If you are the 1 in 3 user that it bricks you are not going to like them.

    The only truly bad mechanical hdd I had was a seagate I had a 8 for 14 failure rate in mac minis for the 500gb 7200 rpm 2.5 inch first and second edition model's dates from aug 2008 to july 2009. What I don't like about ssds is across many companies and models there was a high failure rate. For myself and lots of other users. So if you need two 100 dollar ones in a raid0 for a work setup it may be a money maker after a few weeks of use. But if you want a nice sized 512gb ssd as a killer osx/itunes drive think about waiting a bit.
     
  22. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #22
     
  23. nbizic macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    #23
    OCZ VERTEX2 120Gb

    I can tell that my
    120Gb ocz verex 2 is 115Gb on macbookpro 5.1 late 2008.
    Also write speed is slower then read speed
    Read is something about 280 and writ is 170
     
  24. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
  25. ActionableMango thread starter macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #25
    Did you send the right link? I clicked through and got a story about Vertex 3 Pro, and some general thoughts about life expectancy.
     

Share This Page