OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD review

vbimport

#1

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

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-vertex-2-100gb-ssd-review-30021/](http://www.myce.com/review/ocz-vertex-2-100gb-ssd-review-30021/)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

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

#2

As always Dee a great review.

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


#3

Thanks for the review Dee :slight_smile:


#4

Could I get fries with that?

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


#5

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 ;).


#6

Thanks for the comments. :flower:
@Duke
You can have ketchup with the fries too. :slight_smile:

@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.


#7

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


#8

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.


#10

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


#11

[QUOTE=MrCointelPro;2569364]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[/QUOTE]
Dude! There is something seriously wrong with your drive, your cable, your sata controller, sata driver, or your OS.


#12

[QUOTE=MrCointelPro;2569364]No its not very informative[/quote]Sorry you didn’t like the information.

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

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. :slight_smile:

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

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.

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. [B]XP users will not be able to obtain such results[/B].

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

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.


#13

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. :smiley:

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


#14

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?


#15

@[B]MrCointelPro[/B]: This is a discussion thread about a review, so why are you DEMANDING that [B]Dee[/B], 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? :wink:


#16

[B]@MrCointelPro[/B]
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 [B]troll[/B] 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? :smiley:
See pic below

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



#17

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


#18

[QUOTE=MrCointelPro;2569757]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[/QUOTE]Then, instead of ranting.
Create your own thread and present your benchmarks and results in a way that people can judge for themselves.


#19

[QUOTE=MrCointelPro;2569757]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[/QUOTE]

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.


#20

[QUOTE=MrCointelPro;2569757]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[/QUOTE]
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.