OWC Vs OCZ(Both SATAIII 6GB/S SSD's)

[NickZac]

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.

Does that mean that neither OWC nor OCZ have any way of allowing the user to update firmware unless they either 1) have a Windows computer that is capable of doing it, or 2) sending it back for service??


3,000 write cycles is definitely a lot, but IIRC about 4 months ago, manufacturers and reviewers alike were reporting that the shrink would greatly reduce prices. Thus far, all I have seen is an increase. I'm not opposed to using (or personally buying even) SSDs with twenty-something nanometer flash memory, but I am opposed to paying more money for a product that will fail sooner. OWC changed their SATA2 Mercury Extreme Pro from 32nm to 2x( probably 25nm) flash memory, and they were very quiet when doing it. Well, it will still last a while and given OWC makes good products, it's high quality can be assumed, BUT, since it will need to be replaced sooner, the cost should be less. This is NOT the case. Why would anyone want to buy the current Mercury Extreme Pro (3.0) when a week ago they could have bought the same drive for the same price that will last almost twice as long?!?!?

 

[mac8867]

I have been running an OCZ drive for over a year now, two firmware updates, flawless. Their customer service has been great in both cases. I am not saying OWC wouldn't be the same, but thought I should pu in the testimonial.

 

[Weaselboy]

Does that mean that neither OWC nor OCZ have any way of allowing the user to update firmware unless they either 1) have a Windows computer that is capable of doing it, or 2) sending it back for service??

I know this is currently the case with OWC. I believe I read in the OCZ forums that they have a Linux boot CD solution.

3,000 write cycles is definitely a lot, but IIRC about 4 months ago, manufacturers and reviewers alike were reporting that the shrink would greatly reduce prices. Thus far, all I have seen is an increase. I'm not opposed to using (or personally buying even) SSDs with twenty-something nanometer flash memory, but I am opposed to paying more money for a product that will fail sooner. OWC changed their SATA2 Mercury Extreme Pro from 32nm to 2x( probably 25nm) flash memory, and they were very quiet when doing it. Well, it will still last a while and given OWC makes good products, it's high quality can be assumed, BUT, since it will need to be replaced sooner, the cost should be less. This is NOT the case.

I recall reading the same comments on the 25nm transition. I think in some cases there was a price drop. The Intel 320 replaced the Intel X25-M and went from 34nm to 25nm and there was a small price drop.

Others, like OWC you mentioned, just made the swap without publishing it and keeping the same model name. Less than forthcoming with your customers IMO.

Why would anyone want to buy the current Mercury Extreme Pro (3.0) when a week ago they could have bought the same drive for the same price that will last almost twice as long?!?!?

I agree completely.

 

[NickZac]

The Intel refresh really annoyed me as prices did drop, but I thought it was a very little price decrease, despite the claimed lower manufacturing costs of the SSD using 25nm flash memory.

I really like OWC's products and I loved their 34nm Mercury Extreme Pro, but changing to an inferior technology (in a longevity sense), not publishing/disclosing it, and not changing the price is disappointing at best, and not something I would have expected from them.

You are right, it seems that OWC is not the only to do this, as you noted. I have noticed that some SSD makers have removed the specs on die size that used to say 34nm, and have simply left it blank. Generally speaking, one expects upgrades to existing technologies to be better (can also include better costs) than the current generation; otherwise, why would anyone ever update it? Because the 25nm falls very short of 34nm, this information should have been and should be disclosed. I doubt the guys with the Vertex 3 or OWC 6.0 Mercury Extreme Pro are going to like to hear that their SSDs will die long before the more primitive SSDs do, such as those used in the Original MBA. While both will last a long time, and while most users will never max out a SSD, those spending the money on the newer SATA3 (6.0) likely have shelled out the big bucks because they do use/move/write/etc. substantial amounts of data, which means that you want as much longevity as possible.

So at this point in time, the Crucial C300 may be the best SATA3 drive if they still are 34nm, if you consider a blend of 1) longevity, 2) durability, 3) value, and 4) performance the ideal combination.

Finally, I am yet to see one single demonstration that has shown the SATAIII SSDs to perform better than the standard Apple/Toshiba SSD. I say demonstration because a benchmark score is a completely useless number which means almost nothing. If the Apple SSD launches MS Word in 1.5-3 seconds, how much time can you save with a faster SSD? You don't even have time to position your hand from the trackpad to type before it is loaded. I am waiting on real world demonstrations and I hope to see them. If they do show better speed equating to quicker function time in many areas of normal computing, perhaps the ridiculous costs are somewhat more justifiable.

 

[Locodice]

Couldn't agree with you more NickZac.

Probably the most important and helpful article can be found here

This has probably been linked before on these forums so please excuse me if you have read it.

Interesting to note that the new OWC SATA III would sit just behind the Crucial C300 on this chart. If we were going to split hairs as OWC SATA III is 85mb/s and C300 is 86 - very interesting.

 

[altecXP]

Just looking at the complaints on OCZ's own forums I'll be going to either an OWC SATA3 or MUSHKIN.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

has mushkin released a sata-3 drive with the SF2000 range controller?

 

[hehe299792458]

has mushkin released a sata-3 drive with the SF2000 range controller?

released? no.

 

[NickZac]

Just looking at the complaints on OCZ's own forums I'll be going to either an OWC SATA3 or MUSHKIN.

OCZ makes a crappy SSD IMO. They are fast and that is it. Every time I say this, someone disagrees, but if you go online and look at their reviews, they send out tons of defective SSDs and are the only modern SSD that people are reporting as shrinking. Compare the Intel X25 to the Vertex 2...more than likely after you see that you wont be buying an OCZ

..although with OWC's most recent move I'm not sure how I feel about getting a drive from them either

 

[NickZac]

I just noticed the Intel 510 uses 34nm?!?! WTF?!?!

 

[hehe299792458]

Is there a way to determine the fabrication used for a particular OCZ drive?

 

[Weaselboy]

Just looking at the complaints on OCZ's own forums I'll be going to either an OWC SATA3 or MUSHKIN.

Based on the comments in this thread and others here about OWC, if OWC had forums (they don't) what do you think the complaints would look like? I suspect not much different than OCZ. JMO

 

[Weaselboy]

I just noticed the Intel 510 uses 34nm?!?! WTF?!?!

Yep. That is why I bought one for my 2011 13" MBP. It has been trouble free. The Intel reliability data published and the existence of an Intel firmware update method for Macs (boot CDRom) is what pushed me that direction.

I noticed Intel is one of the few vendors to actually publish the NAND specs for their SSDs.

 

[kobyh15]

Yep. That is why I bought one for my 2011 13" MBP. It has been trouble free. The Intel reliability data published and the existence of an Intel firmware update method for Macs (boot CDRom) is what pushed me that direction.

I noticed Intel is one of the few vendors to actually publish the NAND specs for their SSDs.

Did the random read/writes benchmarks not scare you off or do you do a crap load of sequential stuff?

 

[johnnyturbouk]

Wirelessly posted (Johnny iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I think for short to mid term the ocz drive is up for the job- for longer term I would go for the added reliability and durability of an owc drive!

The intel reliability was for the old x-25; the intel 510 were riddled with issues! The new 320 seem more stable - but too early to comment!

Also I remember reading that table of reliability - owc was not listed, thus one can not just make grand statements that intel drives are the most stable ssds when the sample population was only ssds in France! Pls one needs to learn how to read credible studies and infer judgements based on critical analysis of the data and results - whilst understanding the limitations and credibility if the results
IMO intel ssds seem so bland!

 

[Weaselboy]

I think for short to mid term the ocz drive is up for the job- for longer term I would go for the added reliability and durability of an owc drive!

What is it about the OWC SSD that makes you think it would be more reliable? They both use the same Sandforce controller and off the shelf NAND. After all the NAND shenanigans with both OCZ and OWC, I am not a big fan of either, but I have seen nothing that would make one more reliable than the other.

The intel reliability was for the old x-25; the intel 510 were riddled with issues! The new 320 seem more stable - but too early to comment!

Also I remember reading that table of reliability - owc was not listed, thus one can not just make grand statements that intel drives are the most stable ssds when the sample population was only ssds in France! Pls one needs to learn how to read credible studies and infer judgements based on critical analysis of the data and results - whilst understanding the limitations and credibility if the results
IMO intel ssds seem so bland!

I agree the reliability data we know of is imperfect, but that is all we have at this point.

Just another data point to consider is all.

 

[kobyh15]

What is it about the OWC SSD that makes you think it would be more reliable? They both use the same Sandforce controller and off the shelf NAND. After all the NAND shenanigans with both OCZ and OWC, I am not a big fan of either, but I have seen nothing that would make one more reliable than the other.



I agree the reliability data we know of is imperfect, but that is all we have at this point.

Just another data point to consider is all.

Image

I think Anand mentions that when the numbers first came out they were controversial, but that each of the manufacturers said the numbers were pretty close in comparison to their own studies/statistics. So I think that those numbers are fairly accurate.

 

[NickZac]

Yep. That is why I bought one for my 2011 13" MBP. It has been trouble free. The Intel reliability data published and the existence of an Intel firmware update method for Macs (boot CDRom) is what pushed me that direction.

I noticed Intel is one of the few vendors to actually publish the NAND specs for their SSDs.

Than it is as simple as this. The Intel 510 is (at least speaking from a statistical perspective) the best SSD on the market with a blend of quality and performance as the goal. And as far as Intel's record with SSD reliability...anyone who does not think that they are the best is using faulty data. If you look at 'professional reviews', one may be misled as they emphasize speed; if you look at the thousands and thousands of user reviews, you will see their overall scores are in the upper 90s out of 100, in which no other SSD maker is even close. Forget the OWC or the OCZ, get the Intel given it will last a lot longer and its quality is almost guaranteed to be superior.