vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

OCZ ramps up the IOPS

by Navin Maini on 27 April 2011, 12:42

Tags: OCZ (NASDAQ:OCZ)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qa5px

Add to My Vault: x

We took a 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSD out for a spin last month, and the company has now announced a new addition to the line-up - the Vertex 3 Max IOPS edition.

 

 

Vertex 3 Max IOPS edition SSDs are said to deliver increased random write performance - with 4KB random write operations per second rated at 75,000 IOPS (120GB) and 65,000 IOPS (240GB).

Maximum sequential read and write performance measures in at 550MB/s and 500MB/s, respectively, and the manufacturer touts the new offerings as being beneficial to users requiring greater transactional throughput.

Fuelled by the SandForce SF-2200 SSD controller, OCZ also mentions the use of premium NAND Flash components, and as expected there's the presence of TRIM support too. Initially available in 120GB and 240GB varieties, there's also mention of a 480GB iteration, yet details are sparse at the time of going to press.



HEXUS Forums :: 12 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
“75,000 IOPS (120GB) and 65,000 IOPS (240GB)”

This must be the wrong way around.
You get these numbers now, but after the reviews are done OCZ will swap out the internals withouth changing the drive label/version.

I don't know how this dodgy company managed to recover from the V2 25nm transition fiasco.
semo
You get these numbers now, but after the reviews are done OCZ will swap out the internals withouth changing the drive label/version.

I don't know how this dodgy company managed to recover from the V2 25nm transition fiasco.

OCZ are hardly dodgy they were first to move over to 25nm and being the first they took the brunt others followed and learnt by their mistake, being the company they are by being first to market with leading edge technology might be the reason they can recover from a situation as such.

Moving to 25nm means in the future the process becomes cheaper and this price can then be passed on to users.

best knowing the facts before accusing a company of being dodgy.
Of course they are dodgy. How can you change the internals to such a degree that you not only affect speed but CAPACITY as well and not change the labelling?

Affected customers have not been contacted. A mass recall has not been issued. There are people out there thinking that they have a drive they've read reviews about where in reality they are slower or in some cases SMALLER.

This is in no way a technological issue. This is an entirely a consumer issue. You can not label and sell a 60GB drive when in fact it is 51GB (it should be 56GB when formatted in Windows).

Corsair just put an A at the end of their model numbers to indicate the change of internals. Nobody is arguing that 25nm is the way forward despite its shortcomings. OCZ's dodgy dealings is an entirely consumer one. Imagine buying a 1kg bag of strawberries and finding that it is actually 800grams when weighing it at home. The manufacturer of that 1kg bag of strawberries will have absolutely no way of excusing themselves and will have to admit their mistake. OCZ hasn’t because they haven’t issued a recall of the affected products.

So in conclusion, OCZ ARE A DODGY COMPANY.
Paulm@scan;2072893
OCZ are hardly dodgy they were first to move over to 25nm and being the first they took the brunt others followed and learnt by their mistake, being the company they are by being first to market with leading edge technology might be the reason they can recover from a situation as such.

Moving to 25nm means in the future the process becomes cheaper and this price can then be passed on to users.

best knowing the facts before accusing a company of being dodgy.

I don't think of OCZ as a dodgy company, however there is no excuse whatsoever for the 25nm fiasco. It shows extremely poor judgement by everyone involved in agreeing to perpetuate this lie.
Calling 115GB Drives 120GB drives is simply inexcusable. It is a lie, plain and simple. The pathetic excuse that they both have as much raw NAND (128GB) is plain wrong. Otherwise why are they not quoting the raw NAND capacity for their drives. Every other manufacturer uses the user available capacity for their capacity ratings. This includes HDD manufacturers where they also have spare area on their drives.

Another way of looking at it. By no measure on ever used on this planet, do their drives have 120GB of capacity. They have 128GB, 115GB, 112GiB or about 110GiB formatted.
How can they call the drive 120 GB?