Well I'm a sick camper just sold my OWC 200gb Extreme Pro Sata 2 and ordered the new 240gb Sata 3 drive. Okay that is not the funny part what is I have the Intel 510 250gb drive in already running the OS. Looks like swords at dawn as to who is getting the OS sata 3 port. Have to wait 10 days for the new OWC. I'm thinking the OWC will be faster though. Loser goes into the optical bay for storage and backup.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OWC Vs OCZ(Both SATAIII 6GB/S SSD's)
- Thread starter mak713
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not saying you're wrong, but at the end of the day it's a moot point. Everyone is going to switch to 25nm NAND and 34 nm NAND is simply going to fade out of production. The smaller tech is just more economically viable. It's a matter of progress, much like you can't buy 90nm CPUs today, even if you really, really wanted to. Now, if a company handles the switch to 25nm NAND poorly - and OCZ AND OWC certainly screwed that up, and it's true that OWC got off lightly - it's time to complain. The switch in and of itself however is inevitable and nothing to get worked up about. So while I completely understand where you're coming from, there are definitely two different issues at stake here: the switch to 25nm NAND (which is inevitable) and the communication of said switch by the relevant manufacturers (which has not been handled well in all cases).
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
If i remember correctly from the work from official ocz staff - the main problem ocz had was using double density die size thus utilizing less channels - if i remember correctly the initial transition from 34-25nm = poor benchmarks and performance as 64gb die size was employed, this was later replaced by the 32gb die size - still using 25nm NAND, which resulted in better performance. The main problem was that it was like russian roulette on which drive you received - as you mentioned the model name remained the same! OCZ did resolve the issue by releasing a programme allowing the user to differentiate between the drives (die size) and offered to replace the affected drives!
+1
Our product line is both designed and built in the USA based on reference Sandforce specifications, but final engineering/design to our own. In looking at the new 2281 120GB capacity, I believe we are currently the only manufacturer to be be building with a true 16 channel solution... which is why our 120GB is benching so much faster than other 120GB SF2281 based solutions. There are more than one way to design and build these products and in early testing we safe significant impacts to performance in various real-world testing of 10-75% when dropping from 16 or 12 channels down to only 8. Anyway... moving on...
The reason we don't have a Mac specific updater today is because originally there was a commitment by Sandforce to provide a universal solution, so we didn't pursue this. Last fall we did begin development when this never came to fruition and are actually very close to releasing a clean, Intel Mac universal, firmware update solution for our drives. At the moment, regardless of what brand SSD you have - if it is Sandforce based, the only currently reliable path to do so on a Mac requires that Windows be booted via bootcamp. Our current information on this here:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Customized_Pages/Framework.cfm?page=sf_firmware.html
As for why it's taking this long to provide an update utility for Mac.... well - without going into a ton of detail, Apple is who has made this an extra special challenge and we're excited about our expectation of soon having a beta release of a our Mac universal updater none the less. We are very careful and cautious as this is a data solution product and I should need say no more.
FWIW - this is an example of quite an engineering adaptation, our MacBook Air 2010 SSD solution:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/Aura_Pro_Express
Yes, we're not a giant company - but with well over 120 direct employees and well over 130 on our team overall - we're not tiny either and significant resources go into these projects to make the products possible.
Various aspects are very frustrating with the SSDs, especially firmware issues beyond our control... but, again, very excited to soon have the update issue within that sphere.
Larry,
Can you comment more specifically on the memory configuration inside the 120 version?
Your product page states: "Synchronous Tier 1/Grade A 2X-nm NAND Flash Storage"
Does this mean you are doing 2 64Gbit die per device vs. 1? (32x 4GB)
Anandtech has noted that the Vertex3 120Gb is configured as 16x single die (8GB), whereas the 240 GB Vertex 3 is 32x8, resulting in some significant performance differences between capacities.
Do you see a performance drop between the OWC 240 vs the OWC 120?
Power consumption
Larry, can you also comment on the power consumption of the new 240GB drive? I noticed on the page, there are no specs for power usage. I have the 240GB Vertex 3 and have noticed about a 1 hr reduction in battery life for a typical workload (MS office, web browsing) in my 2011 15" macbook pro. A lot of the reviews of the vertex 3 point to high power consumption (a lot higher than OCZ's rated specs). I understand that a faster drive will consume more power since it's working faster, but it should also be returning to idle faster, and hence the overall battery life shouldn't reduce by much. Is this something inherent to these new Sandforce controllers or something specific to the Vertex 3? Does the new OWC 240GB also exhibit this behavior?
Larry, can you also comment on the power consumption of the new 240GB drive? I noticed on the page, there are no specs for power usage. I have the 240GB Vertex 3 and have noticed about a 1 hr reduction in battery life for a typical workload (MS office, web browsing) in my 2011 15" macbook pro. A lot of the reviews of the vertex 3 point to high power consumption (a lot higher than OCZ's rated specs). I understand that a faster drive will consume more power since it's working faster, but it should also be returning to idle faster, and hence the overall battery life shouldn't reduce by much. Is this something inherent to these new Sandforce controllers or something specific to the Vertex 3? Does the new OWC 240GB also exhibit this behavior?
Another possibility is if the SATAIII controller on the board eats more power than the SATA II...
I've thought as well that the controller could be a reason (or some combination of the controller and the drive) but I can't think of a way to test it since I don't know of a way to toggle SATA3G/6G on the same drive. I have an X25-M laying around that's SATA3G but that doesn't really help...
This "vendor-that-isn't-mac-specific" just developed a fix for SSD problems in 17" Macbook Pros, described here and sold for as little as $2.99. They are the first and only company to figure this out, in spite of being a teensy, tiny bit smaller than, say, Apple, Inc.
. We in the Mac community might owe them a little appreciation and thanks. So:Thanks OWC! Great little company you got there!
This "vendor-that-isn't-mac-specific" just developed a fix for SSD problems in 17" Macbook Pros, described here and sold for as little as $2.99. They are the first and only company to figure this out, in spite of being a teensy, tiny bit smaller than, say, Apple, Inc.
Thanks OWC! Great little company you got there!
Way to snip a partial quote out of context. Below is my full comment which is clearly referring to the fact they offer no way to update firmware on OS X machines, which makes their SSD no different or better than any other vendors as far as a Mac goes. As of today, my comment is still accurate.
You are right, I did snip your statement, so here it is in its entirety, along with my response:
Weaselboy: +1 How OWC can continue to tout themselves as a Mac specific vendor, yet STILL offer no way to update firmware on OS X is just amazing. At least OCZ offers a Linux boot CD solution.
Frankieboy: This "vendor-that-isn't-mac-specific" just developed a fix for SSD problems in 17" Macbook Pros, described here and sold for as little as $2.99. They are the first and only company to figure this out, in spite of being a teensy, tiny bit smaller than, say, Apple, Inc.. We in the Mac community might owe them a little appreciation and thanks. So:
Thanks OWC! Great little company you got there!
Thanks OWC! Great little company you got there!
I think I read on Storage Review in their review of the 120 GB OWC 6G or somewhere else that Larry built the company from inside of his garage? They now employ over 120 people I believe. That is admirable to say the least, and many that have dealt with OWC say their customer service is bar none. I think it is clearly stated that the reason they do not have (or anybody else for that matter) an OS X firmware updater is because Sandforce said they were going to develop it, and then backed out. OWC is not a huge corporation, I'm sure they've been working their asses off trying to make a new 6 Gbps drive and a firmware updater. Give them a break, they're a small up-and-coming company that doesn't have unlimited manpower at their disposal. Firmware updaters don't just grow on trees. I give Larry and OWC a lot of credit for what they have done and continue to do, and the fact that they are Mac specialized is pretty cool. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I guess that's just me.
Another partial quote
, but that's what seems to be the case .OWC are a convenient place for Mac users to shop, nothing more, nothing less .
Without Sandforce support for Macs (and SSD support by Apple), I assume they will always be a bit behind the bigger competition .
Not really. OCZ may may not make all parts of their SSD's but they do decide what parts are used and how they are manufactured much more than OWC does.
Last edited:
Not only that but its pretty obvious now that OWC basically made this up as an issue that didn't really exist. Nice one OWC.
I have not been thrilled with OWC's service lately. I have ordered a lot of memory from them in the past. Recently I received several ram chips from them and one was visibly curved and would not fit into the slot. When I called OWC the "service" rep all but called me a liar and said all their memory was checked before it left so it wasn't possible this piece was defective. Well excuse me as I have installed hundred of memory chips in all sorts of computers for years, know what I'm talking about, and didn't just make it up. Their solution was to charge me for another chip and credit me when they received the defective one. A friend of mine also received defective ram from them and when he returned it for replacement they actually charged him because the price had gone up in the few days since he received defective ram. Oh and I also ordered a hard driver enclosure from them a couple years ago that did not fit together.
Mac focused? All they are, is a company that brands them self as mac "experts" that sell the regular computer products labeled as "mac" compatible; etc. You pay a premium for the same stuff that amazon, newegg; etc sell.
And like you said you had bad experiences from them before... so why even bother with them? you think its easier to get a ssd replaced than ram lol.
I'd go with owc if I had to buy another ssd again. Dealing with them felt like I was treated as a face to face customer and not just an order number.
Ive bought many things from them in the past and they've even credited me for drops in prices days after they delivered which was extremely nice of them.
As for someone complaining that they have to have a hold on their card for an exchange, show me another company that doesn't do that.
Owc's drive is clearly faster. Im buying something for the quicker performance.
Ive bought many things from them in the past and they've even credited me for drops in prices days after they delivered which was extremely nice of them.
As for someone complaining that they have to have a hold on their card for an exchange, show me another company that doesn't do that.
Owc's drive is clearly faster. Im buying something for the quicker performance.
Anybody else like to chime in please?
I bought a 120gb Vertex 3 and the 120gb OWC.
In initial bench testing the two are nearly identical on reads but the OWC is faster on writes.
I really think I'm going to go for the OWC. Just waiting for Anand's Benchmarks on the new OWC SSD's!
The speed difference between the OWC and OCZ 6.0 SSDs is a mute point given they are both so fast. I'm not impressed by OCZ's quality control and I loved me 34nm Mercury Extreme Pro, BUT, as other people have stated, the 34nm technology is more expensive and more durable, and OWC has switched from the 34nm flash mem to the lesser 2X (WTF) memory in their existing SATAII drives and use it on their new SATA3 drives. This makes both drives less appealing IMO, especially since with the twenty-something nm memory, the price should have decreased.
Furthermore, I think this is a major reason that Apple has chosen to use a Toshiba SATA2 (2.6 to be exact) SSD in the MBPs that utilizes 34nm NAND flash mem.
Beyond all, the issue of the longevity of the 2X nm memory compared to 34nm has still not been directly addressed by ANY of the SSD makers that utilize it to any satisfactory degree, and the supposedly substantial cost decreases have not occurred. Yes, 2X nm memory will still last a loooooooong time, but still IIRC only about 3/5ths of 34nm. As of now, you pay more for less.
Furthermore, I think this is a major reason that Apple has chosen to use a Toshiba SATA2 (2.6 to be exact) SSD in the MBPs that utilizes 34nm NAND flash mem.
Beyond all, the issue of the longevity of the 2X nm memory compared to 34nm has still not been directly addressed by ANY of the SSD makers that utilize it to any satisfactory degree, and the supposedly substantial cost decreases have not occurred. Yes, 2X nm memory will still last a loooooooong time, but still IIRC only about 3/5ths of 34nm. As of now, you pay more for less.
I have no regrets with my OWC SSD drive - it's fast, I got excellent customer service from them, and have had nothing but positive customer service experiences when I had to deal with the negative end of things (once swapping out an IcyDock for something more reliable, once for a RAM module that bit the dust).
I think this is accurate to say about any of the newer SSD drives. In normal usage I doubt anybody can tell the difference among them in a blind test.
At this point I think the best thing to do is go with what you think is the most reputable company. Also consider firmware updates on your Mac. Does the company provide a way to do this? Some like Intel and Crucial provide a boot CDRom ISO you can use to update firmware on a Mac.
I read that 25nm NAND cells are good for 3,000 write cycles and 34nm NAND for 5,000 write cycles. I agree in normal use you are not likely to ever hit this limit, but some might prefer the extra cushion.