OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD review

**Dee** · 24-05-2010

I just posted the article OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD review.

Quote:

We check out the new OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD, and take a look at the powerful new SandForce SF1200 SSD controller.
Also check out the new MyCE Reality tests in this review.

Read the full article here: http://www.myce.com/review/ocz-verte...-review-30021/

Feel free to add your comments below.

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

*bean55* · 24-05-2010

As always Dee a great review.

Wish I could afford to get one, I was drooling as I read.

*Burnsama* · 25-05-2010

Thanks for the review Dee

*DukeNukem* · 25-05-2010

Could I get fries with that?

Great review. I think this will be my first SSD.

*H3rB3i* · 27-05-2010

great review Dee, I will buy one for my OS installation but I'm not sure if I should go for the 50GB Vertex 2 or the 60GB Vertex 2 (E), price difference is about 17€ (195 : 212).

Not that I really need one, I just must have one

.

**Dee** · 27-05-2010

Thanks for the comments.

@Duke
You can have ketchup with the fries too.

@Herbert
The 50GB version should be good for a typical Win7 install. I have a full install on the Vertex 2 now, and in total it only takes 29GB, partly due to DuraWrite compression.

*debro* · 05-06-2010

Methinks the sandforce controller is ... smoking fast.

XXCopy may be used for copies, with the program providing total time.
Not sure about *actual* performance of the program.

http://www.xxcopy.com

*~KIPPER~* · 16-06-2010

Dee you are the greatest.

Your SSD reviews are so well blended with technical information offset with easy to understand, easy to following testing and the reader should always finish your articles more informed.

MrCointelPro · 14-01-2011

No its not very informative

A Vertex 2 on an Atom Dualcore running XP has a MAXIMUM copy and paste speed of 3.6 Megabytes per second

Dee was OBVIOUSLY running Windows 7 for the tests and using a better computer for those tests

My tests are all run on a worst case scenario (XP + ATOM) for the MINIMUM specs

Windows 7's funky caching scheme gave me better results but innacurate results!

My results are accurate whether I am using all the OCZ tweeks or none at all

There were no differences in speed due to OCZ Tweeks

You should try your tests again on an XP Box and see what happens

Then try it on a slower machine and see what happens

*debro* · 14-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

No its not very informative

A Vertex 2 on an Atom Dualcore running XP has a MAXIMUM copy and paste speed of 3.6 Megabytes per second

Dee was OBVIOUSLY running Windows 7 for the tests and using a better computer for those tests

My tests are all run on a worst case scenario (XP + ATOM) for the MINIMUM specs

Windows 7's funky caching scheme gave me better results but innacurate results!

My results are accurate whether I am using all the OCZ tweeks or none at all

There were no differences in speed due to OCZ Tweeks

You should try your tests again on an XP Box and see what happens

Then try it on a slower machine and see what happens

Dude! There is something seriously wrong with your drive, your cable, your sata controller, sata driver, or your OS.

**Dee** · 15-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

No its not very informative

Sorry you didn't like the information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

A Vertex 2 on an Atom Dualcore running XP has a MAXIMUM copy and paste speed of 3.6 Megabytes per second

I have an ATOM N330 ION system, and the Vertex 2 manages 48Mb/s with copy and paste.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

Dee was OBVIOUSLY running Windows 7 for the tests and using a better computer for those tests

I clearly state the operating system and specs of the PC used for the review, and yes it is very much more powerful than an ATOM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCoinPro

My tests are all run on a worst case scenario (XP + ATOM) for the MINIMUM specs

This seriously had me laughing out loud. You're not measuring what the Vertex 2 is capable of, only what your ATOM can deliver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

Windows 7's funky caching scheme gave me better results but innacurate results!

Windows 7 results are accurate and they are what they are. It has little to do with fancy caching on Win7, it's all to do with how Win7 aligns at the data boundaries. Again the explanation in the review clearly explains this.

Quote:

From the review
Partition alignment and sector boundaries
Windows 7 will automatically align a partition during partition creation, Windows XP won’t. It is imperative that an SSDs partition is aligned. Windows XP is also restricted to sector boundaries, while Windows 7 will use 4k boundaries if it can. The SandForce SSD controller is 4k boundary aware, and will use these boundaries when it can. Of course it will also remap LBA’s for compatibility with the sector boundaries so the drive can be used with Windows XP.
IOMeter allows us to set the sector boundaries for conducting the tests, and we have therefore set the sector boundaries at 4K, which means the IOMeter tests are valid for Windows 7 and Windows Vista users. XP users will not be able to obtain such results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

My results are accurate whether I am using all the OCZ tweeks or none at all

There were no differences in speed due to OCZ Tweeks

No tweaks are required for Vertex 2 when running on Windows 7.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

You should try your tests again on an XP Box and see what happens

Then try it on a slower machine and see what happens

I don't have a rig old enough to be running XP. XP is an old OS, and never has, and never will be optimized for SSD.

MrCointelPro · 15-01-2011

Quote:
I have an ATOM N330 ION system, and the Vertex 2 manages 48Mb/s with copy and paste.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes of course it manages 48MB/sec with Windows 7
I myself got much better results with Windows 7 but my 5400RPM Laptop drive got the exact same relults as the Vertex in Windows 7 indicating the caching problem I described
----------------------------
Quote:
This seriously had me laughing out loud. You're not measuring what the Vertex 2 is capable of, only what your ATOM can deliver.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong!
My Western Digital 3 times faster than a Vertex 2 on the ATOM computer running XP?

If my ATOM were the limiting factor to how well the Vertex performs, then the Western Digital would not have beaten the crap out of the Vertex and would also have been limited in such a manner

My ATOM was used to AMPLIFY the differences in a copy/paste test
A 5400RPM laptop drive completed a copy paste test of 200MB of data 1 second faster than a Vertex 2.

With a faster computer, you would never notice that 1 second difference!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, your ATOM is fast enough for XP so you can stop saying you don't have a computer fast enough for XP

I should start making Youtube videos showing my results in realtime for these people who "never get it" regardless of how much info I post

MrCointelPro · 15-01-2011

Stop arguing Dee!

Just show me how fast "YOU" can copy/paste "to" and "from" the same Vertex 2 on your ATOM 330 computer running XP

We all know Windows 7 gives better results but this isn't about Windows 7!

Show me what you get in XP!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and by the way, I created a 2GB partition on the Vertex 2 to see how much data I could fit onto it

WHY?

Because with the compression built into the vertex 2, I should be able to copy more than 2GB of data to that partition, RIGHT?

Nope!

I can only get 2GB of "Compressible" data onto the 2GB partition

Can you verify that compression is actually occuring on "YOUR" Vertex?

Can you do it under XP?

*DrageMester* · 15-01-2011

@MrCointelPro: This is a discussion thread about a review, so why are you DEMANDING that Dee, the reviewer and author of the article, use time to install your favourite operating system in order to solve YOUR problem?

You do realize that the people here are not your own personal staff, right?

**Dee** · 15-01-2011

@MrCointelPro
Actually, a response is probably futile, as YOU DON'T GET IT.

Don't you dare tell me not to defend myself or my methods, and not to argue my point. I have nothing at all to prove to you.
If you want to test on "lowest possible spec" then fine do so, but go troll somewhere else.

RE Compression.
You need to read more. If you write 2GB of compressible data, the file system has to allocate 2GB to that data, no matter how small the compressed version is in NAND. (google for NTFS and the storage stack), and then visit the SandForce site and read up on how the SandForce controller actually works.
Compression on SandForce based drives is operating system independent, and the compression is done by the SandForce controller, not the OS.

RE ATOM Vs Core i5

Do you really think an ATOM could reproduce results that requires 39.66% of the processing power of a fast quad core desktop processor?

See pic below

I DON'T HAVE an XP box, and have no intentions of ever having one.

MrCointelPro · 16-01-2011

You're both Wrong!
My Western Digital 3 times faster than a Vertex 2 on the ATOM computer running XP

and I could care less if you don't want to verify factual info on a non-spyware platform

Windows 7 is a spyware platform, just like Vista was supposed to be, but failed

**Dee** · 16-01-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

You're both Wrong!
My Western Digital 3 times faster than a Vertex 2 on the ATOM computer running XP

and I could care less if you don't want to verify factual info on a non-spyware platform

Windows 7 is a spyware platform, just like Vista was supposed to be, but failed

Then, instead of ranting.
Create your own thread and present your benchmarks and results in a way that people can judge for themselves.

mickyjim · 17-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

You're both Wrong!
My Western Digital 3 times faster than a Vertex 2 on the ATOM computer running XP

and I could care less if you don't want to verify factual info on a non-spyware platform

Windows 7 is a spyware platform, just like Vista was supposed to be, but failed

Wow does that mean i replaced my western digital raptors for slower vertex 2 SSD's im gutted and i am going to ask for a refund,im not sure what you mean by spyware platform is it something to do with James Bond.?
Are you being a little bit biased with a username incorporating intelPro.

*debro* · 17-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCointelPro

You're both Wrong!
My Western Digital 3 times faster than a Vertex 2 on the ATOM computer running XP

and I could care less if you don't want to verify factual info on a non-spyware platform

Windows 7 is a spyware platform, just like Vista was supposed to be, but failed

Western Digital what? Which model? Which test? What mobo? What OS/CPU/RAM/Controller/Driver Revision/ Partition Alignment/Allocation Unit Size.

As mentioned previously, Windows XP doesn't properly support SSD's .. but I have a Falcon2 SSD installed in my missus's PC with Windows XP which smokes every HDD I have, and certainly kills the 500GB@7200rpm HDD that was installed previously.

But then I haven't tested an Atom PC.

If your SSD is slower than your HDD, there is something seriously wrong.

Post a new thread, so we can solve your problems, the hardware ones at least.

25-05-2010	#3
Burnsama Burns Attack Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 10,227	Re: OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD review Thanks for the review Dee __________________ MY SSD List Intel X25-M G2 SATA 2 ( 4 X 80GB ) ( 4 X 120GB ) Intel 510 Series SATA 3 ( 2 X 120GB ) OCZ Agility 2 ( 2 X 60GB ) Vertex LE ( 2 X 100GB ) Vertex 3 SATA3 ( 1 X 120GB ) Crucial RealSSD C300 SATA 3 ( 1 X 128GB ) New Crucial M4 SATA 3 ( 2 X 128GB ) Waiting Core i7-3960X ( Nov - 14 / 6 core 3.3 Ghz / LGA 2011 ) or Core i7-3980X

27-05-2010	#6
Dee Senior Administrator and Reviewer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 12,810	Thanks for the comments. @Duke You can have ketchup with the fries too. @Herbert The 50GB version should be good for a typical Win7 install. I have a full install on the Vertex 2 now, and in total it only takes 29GB, partly due to DuraWrite compression. __________________ We came to wreck everything and ruin your lives, God sent us MyCE SSD Reviews To become a member of MyCE.com just click here to join The Forum Rules \| The SSD FAQ \| The NEC/Optiarc F.A.Q. \| Liggy & Dee's NEC/Optiarc Firmware Page

16-06-2010	#8
~KIPPER~ Retired Moderator & Reviewer Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Northern California Posts: 1,834	Re: OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD review Dee you are the greatest. Your SSD reviews are so well blended with technical information offset with easy to understand, easy to following testing and the reader should always finish your articles more informed. __________________ American By Birth Biker By Choice Patriot Forever!

15-01-2011	#14
DrageMester Retired Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Honah Lee Posts: 19,885	Re: OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD review @MrCointelPro: This is a discussion thread about a review, so why are you DEMANDING that Dee, the reviewer and author of the article, use time to install your favourite operating system in order to solve YOUR problem? You do realize that the people here are not your own personal staff, right? __________________ Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
OCZ Technology Vertex series 120GB SSD Review update	Dee	Solid State Drives (SSD), Hard Drives (HDD) and NAS	2	19-06-2009 15:06
CD Freaks presents: The OCZ Technology 120GB Vertex series SSD review	Dee	Solid State Drives (SSD), Hard Drives (HDD) and NAS	36	25-04-2009 23:40
OCZ Technology Vertex Series 120GB SSD Review	Dee	Solid State Drives (SSD), Hard Drives (HDD) and NAS	23	24-03-2009 19:21

Today
Mr. Adbot Register to remove me Join Date: Today Location: Myce HQ Posts: Zillions

24-05-2010	#2
bean55 MyCE Resident Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Chicago Land Area Posts: 6,322	As always Dee a great review. Wish I could afford to get one, I was drooling as I read.

Today
Adbot Always the best offers Join Date: Today Location: Myce HQ Posts: Zillions

25-05-2010	#4
DukeNukem MyCE Resident Commenter Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Ajax, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,606	Could I get fries with that? Great review. I think this will be my first SSD.

27-05-2010	#5
H3rB3i Retired Editor, Reviewer & Senior Moderator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Austria Posts: 4,189	great review Dee, I will buy one for my OS installation but I'm not sure if I should go for the 50GB Vertex 2 or the 60GB Vertex 2 (E), price difference is about 17€ (195 : 212). Not that I really need one, I just must have one .

05-06-2010	#7
debro Blown to smitherines Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Between the CDFreaks Orange and Blue Portals Posts: 13,329	Methinks the sandforce controller is ... smoking fast. XXCopy may be used for copies, with the program providing total time. Not sure about actual performance of the program. http://www.xxcopy.com

14-01-2011	#9
MrCointelPro New Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 4	No its not very informative A Vertex 2 on an Atom Dualcore running XP has a MAXIMUM copy and paste speed of 3.6 Megabytes per second Dee was OBVIOUSLY running Windows 7 for the tests and using a better computer for those tests My tests are all run on a worst case scenario (XP + ATOM) for the MINIMUM specs Windows 7's funky caching scheme gave me better results but innacurate results! My results are accurate whether I am using all the OCZ tweeks or none at all There were no differences in speed due to OCZ Tweeks You should try your tests again on an XP Box and see what happens Then try it on a slower machine and see what happens

16-01-2011	#16
MrCointelPro New Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 4	You're both Wrong! My Western Digital 3 times faster than a Vertex 2 on the ATOM computer running XP and I could care less if you don't want to verify factual info on a non-spyware platform Windows 7 is a spyware platform, just like Vista was supposed to be, but failed