backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by ZoZo.. on Aug 21 at 9:30 AM


The mini-USB port can be seen in this picture beside the SATA power port.
OCZ announces larger, faster SSDs with a built-in mini-USB port for firmware upgrades.

Things are really moving quickly in the solid state disk (SSD) market. On July 1, OCZ shook the storage market with its new OCZ Core Series SSDs which were priced at $169, $259, and $479 respectively for 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB models -- street prices were actually a bit lower after a mail-in rebate that OCZ offered on the drives.

The other key selling point -- besides the price -- for the drives were their rather remarkable performance ratings. The drives featured read speeds of 120 to 143 MB/sec and write speeds of 80 to 93 MB/sec.

OCZ is not resting on its success with the OCZ Core Series and today announced its brand new Core Series V2 SSDs. With the Core Series V2 drives, OCZ not only ratcheted up the storage capacity, but also performance.

The SSDs will be available in 30GB, 60GB, 120GB, and 250GB storage capacities. In addition, read speeds have increased to 170MB/sec while write speeds are now listed at 98MB/sec across the whole product family.

Another interesting feature of the drives is the addition of a mini-USB port which allows end-users to increase the performance of their drives with future firmware updates from OCZ.

"OCZ continues the trend of enabling consumers with the latest in cutting edge solid state disc technology with the introduction of the new Core V2 SSD," said OCZ Technology CEO Ryan Petersen. "As SSD technology progresses, OCZ will continue to release updated and enhanced solutions to ensure our customers stay on the leading edge. The new Core V2 drives offer consumers and system integrators increased capacities up to 250GB, improved read and write performance and faster seek time, all coupled with a new mini USB port empowering customers with the ability to further improve performance and compatibility by updating firmware in the future."

Pricing and availability for the Core Series V2 SSDs aren't known at this time, but DailyTech will keep you informed as more information rolls in.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Change in size.
By Mr Perfect on 8/14/2008 7:12:36 PM , Rating: 3
Just out of curiosity, do they give a reason for changing from the usual capacities? From 32 to 30, 64 to 60, etc?




RE: Change in size.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/14/2008 7:14:45 PM , Rating: 5
This is in the small print on the product page:

quote:
*Consumers may see a discrepancy between reported capacity and actual capacity; the storage industry standard is to display capacity in decimal. However, the operating system usually calculates capacity in binary format, causing traditional HDD and SSD to show a lower capacity in Windows. In the case of SSDs, some of the capacity is reserved for formatting and redundancy for wear leveling. These reserved areas on an SSD may occupy up to 5% of the drive’s storage capacity. On the Core V2 Series the new naming convention reflects this and the 30 is equivalent to 32GB, the 60 is equivalent to the 64GB and so on.


RE: Change in size.
By Screwballl on 8/14/2008 7:33:01 PM , Rating: 5
all I can say is it is about d**n time... I would rather see both companies use one or the other... not this 1TB = 931GB crap... this is a move in the right direction by OCZ


RE: Change in size.
By clavko on 8/15/2008 2:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well, actually, hard drive manufacturers are right, "giga" means 10^9, not 2^30... It's the OS that usually gets it wrong. Sure it's been nice thing to lie about it long ago because 1024~1000, but it ain't so no more. The key is to have OS reporting actual capacity, and that brings us again to OS wars. One Linux to rule them all :)


RE: Change in size.
By William Gaatjes on 8/15/2008 6:41:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Well, actually, hard drive manufacturers are right, "giga" means 10^9, not 2^30... It's the OS that usually gets it wrong. Sure it's been nice thing to lie about it long ago because 1024~1000, but it ain't so no more.


Rubbish.

Since the invention of the computer it worked with the binary system. This means powers of 2.
When you talk about a kB it means 1024 bytes.
or 2^10.It always was.Every part of the computer works with powers of 2.If that maybe software or hardware. Even your hdd works like that. Or do you think that the controller inside the hdd calculate in a decimal system ? No it doesn't, it is a digital system working with powers of 2.

K =1024.

M = 1024 * 1024.

G = 1024 * 1024 * 1024

in the digital domain.

But since some marketing scheme of the hdd manufacturers K can mean 1000 or 1024. Manufacturers should just write the unformatted correct amount on the hdd. The storage on the hdd is used for error correction, formatting, partitioning, File allocation tables and the data it self. The amount of space varies depending on which filesystem you use.

In if they have to make it easy for people just write the amount of data that can be stored when :

Formatted as 1 partition in FAT32.
Formatted as 1 partition in NTFS.
Formatted as 1 partition in EXT3.
Formatted as 1 partition in HFS.

Simple, nobody being tricked.


RE: Change in size.
By yacoub on 8/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Change in size.
By clavko on 8/15/2008 7:49:44 AM , Rating: 5
I disagree. You can express storage values with binary prefixes, however, you can't use the same prefixes as if they were decimal - there are adequate binary prefixes that are to be used. Everywhere "kilo" is considered 10^3 of something, kg, km, kWh, you name it; it's a convention. It's "defined" that way - you cannot change definitions if you want standards.

Mind you, digital systems are hardly "all binary", as you stated - its enough to look at e.g. network speeds. Lots of inconsistency there :)

Furthermore, sure it is atm convenient for hard drive manufacturers to do business this way, but just because it is doesn't change the fact that it's the right way to do it. The problem should be handled at OS level - showing clear difference between 4,7GB and 4,7GiB.


RE: Change in size.
By William Gaatjes on 8/15/2008 9:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
That all maybe, But that some smart salesman tricked you is your own fault. In the pc you work with the binairy system, everybody knows that. If you are not aware , i suggest you should do some reading on how computers do the works.

1GB of main memory is very clear.
512MB of video memory is very clear.
But 30GB of storage memory is not very clear.
I don't find that normal but you do i guess.

Besides what is the big deal anyway, you are going to loose some storage space anyway because of the reasons i mentioned in my previous post.

And when it comes to network speeds. Is that not logical.
You are using the tcp/ip protocol. To protect your data some bandwith has to be sacrificed for error detection and correction. Also the way bits are encoded on the hardware level you loose some bandwith. But that is normal. It is very understandable that a 4096Kbit line does not give you 512KB/sec of bandwith.

A rule of thumb is your raw bandwith / 10. That would make 400kB/sec and that is a number that you can reach in reality under good conditions.


RE: Change in size.
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 10:22:42 AM , Rating: 4
What some people fail to realize is that the computer industry uses the same prefixes as SI for a meaning that is similar but different. And it has been this way for decades. You can't change the history. For example, one kilobyte has always meant 1024 bytes - it has never meant 1000 bytes, ever.

There are two general cases that I'm aware of that brought in standard SI prefixes for "byte":

1. Communication systems, which are typically based on powers-of-ten clocks, e.g., Ethernet

2. Disc storage, where the marketing folks figured out long ago that defining a "megabyte" to equal 1,000,000 bytes increased the apparent storage capacity compared to competitors that defined it equal to 1024*1024 bytes. Marketing gimmick, pure and simple.

There probably are other cases as well.

But really, the debate is pointless. They are two different units of measure - we just have to accept that both are being used and be clear about that.


RE: Change in size.
By clavko on 8/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Change in size.
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 2:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm using Windows Vista, and when I view the HDD properties, I get two measures of the capacity: 250,024,554,496 bytes and 232GB. So, I would say that Windows is reporting my "250GB" drive in a reasonable way, especially since Vista pre-dates general acceptance of the "GiB" type standards.


RE: Change in size.
By mindless1 on 8/15/2008 5:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't really matter when Vista came out, MS et al should not cater to the HDD manufacturers mislabeling their drives. The industry settled on standard capacity terms before any hard drives were sold with the mislabeling. People just didn't raise as much of a stink about it years ago because the smaller the drive was the less difference there was in GB (as a whole # instead of a %) between the lie and the truth.


RE: Change in size.
By William Gaatjes on 8/15/2008 3:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well, let me just put it this way.
When you have 170GB or GiB (as you like) of free space you will not be able to put 170GB of data in a real life situation. The platter is divided into sectors. Let's say 1 sector is 512 bytes in size. Even if you have 1 byte of data you still use 512 bytes. Together with error correction, formatting, partitioning, File allocation tables and the data, you will normally not be able to use what is specified on that hdd anyway pure for data alone.
That's what i mentioned above.

I think people should not worry to much about losing a little bit of free space. And if there really was a lawsuit, well that is just insane.


RE: Change in size.
By mindless1 on 8/15/2008 5:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
Don't blame windows for the HDD manufacturer's mistake.

Fact is, data on a hard drive is stored binarily. Fact is, the HDD manufacturers already knew the entire computer industry had settled on the binary definitions of terms when they deliberately used a deceptive system to make it seem as though their products had more capacity than they really did.

There was a standard in place long before HDDs, and that standard is still used today for most everything else including memory which directly addresses ratings of a SSD since it is only logically a drive, physically it is memory. Even logically it still stores binarily.

What OCZ has done is make a huge mess out of a standard that was pretty simple, if I understand their statement properly. They should express the size as the total available capacity before formatting, in the binary computer industry standard form. It should not include capacity unavailable because it's reserved, just as with a HDD you don't have spare sectors contributing to their total.


RE: Change in size.
By clavko on 8/15/2008 7:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
> Fact is, data on a hard drive is stored binarily.

Fact is, data on a hard drive is stored on a flat magnetic surface that has nothing to do with binary nor decimal system whatsoever.

> There was a standard in place long before HDDs

Why, yes... it's called sth like...um... Système International. And it defines some prefixes and says precisely what they mean. These are decimal prefixes - they are defined via powers of 10. They shouldn't be used for something else. If you need binary prefixes, there is IEC standard, so use these.

Nobody says you shouldn't use binary values. You only shouldn't say that something is "giga", if it's not equal to 10^9. If it's 2^30, just say it's "gibi", no harm done. I don't see hard drive manufacturers stating their drive capacities in gibibytes, right? So why do you expect them to be in gibibytes? Because Microsoft tells you gigabyte is gibibyte.

Talking of consisteny - why does Windows use KB? What does K mean, actually? If it means 'kilo', then why don't they use lowercase 'k'? If it means 'kibi' (it does), why did they rip-off binary prefixes uppercase 'K', as in KiB? Just a coincidence? I don't think so :)
quote:
Fact is, data on a hard drive is stored binarily.


RE: Change in size.
By danrien on 8/20/2008 1:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
NO, FACT IS DATA IS STORED IN BITS. BINARY. how else do you expect us to store data? Quaternary? An off, sort of off, sort of on, and on switch? Or should we wish the data on there? The data is stored in a bit, a magnetic polar positive or negative, changed by a head that flips the polarity depending on the data given with an electric charge. Thus the data is stored in binary. On or off. Binary. Thus, we measure how many bits, or memory allocations for an on or off switch, can be stored on the drive. The actual medium that the data is stored on is inconsequential when it comes to measuring storage capacity.

And giga kilo mega etc. have been in use in the computer industry since long before my time, so I somehow doubt that Microsoft has much to do with a commonly accepted standard. I may hate them and use Linux myself, but to lay the blame on Microsoft for this is to blatantly ignore oh 30-40 years of computer history.


RE: Change in size.
By sirokket16 on 8/15/2008 2:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mind you, digital systems are hardly "all binary", as you stated - its enough to look at e.g. network speeds. Lots of inconsistency there :)


You are not comparing two "digital systems". Network speed and hard drive capacity are two different realms of computing. Digital means "binary", 1s and 0s.


RE: Change in size.
By semo on 8/15/2008 8:00:01 AM , Rating: 3
giga is an SI unit prefix and it means 10^9. the si standard is as good as set in stone and the standard definition of kilo, mega and giga are 10^3, 10^6 and 10^9 respectively

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI#Units


RE: Change in size.
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 10:26:56 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it's not that simple. Actually, Wiki does a good job of capturing the actual situation:

The term "megabyte" is ambiguous because it is commonly used to mean either 1000^2 bytes or 1024^2 bytes. The confusion originated as compromise technical jargon for the byte multiples that needed to be expressed by the powers of 2 but lacked a convenient name. As 1024 (2^10) is roughly equal to 1000 (10^3), roughly corresponding SI multiples began to be used as approximate binary multiples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte


RE: Change in size.
By mindless1 on 8/15/2008 6:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
A prefix can be defined to mean one thing in one discipline and something else in another discipline. And it is, has been for decades.

giga means raised to the ninth power of 10 if and only _IF_ it's used in a decimal system, that it is used in a decimal system based on tens is the only time it is raised to a power 10 (duh?). Having a definition of a word or prefix never means there can't be another definition for it. Open Webster's sometime if you doubt it.


RE: Change in size.
By omnicronx on 8/15/2008 2:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
Engineers vs Programmers buddy.. Computers using binary is the reason OS's use 2^30 but that does not change the fact that technically 10^9 is a giga or 1,000,000,000.. 2^30 is 1,073,741,824..

In other words technically HD manufacturers have always been correct, 2^30 was just to make things easier for programmers, especially when back in the day capacity for pretty much any storage device was a tiny fraction of what it is now.

p.s manufacturers do write the unformatted correct amount on the hdd, a 40GB HD regardless of what filesystem it is using has 40x1000K of space for use. And you whole speil about overhead (how much space different filesystems take) is pointless, While NTFS does have more metadata, it also has a much lower cluster overhead, its not unheard of to store more data on an NTFS volume than on a FAT volume, but usually they are very very close on a default setup.


RE: Change in size.
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 2:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you think that HDD manufacturers are justified in using powers-of-ten, then you must also think that HDDs are manufactured with sector sizes in powers-of-ten. But if you thought that, of course you'd be wrong.

The fundamental construction of HDDs is that their sector size is powers-of-two, e.g., 512 bytes. Therefore, it becomes obvious that they went out of their way to convert it to powers-of-ten for marketing purposes, which is why they got takedn to court.

This is different than, for example, gigabit Ethernet speeds, where the underlying crystal frequency is actually powers-of-ten.


RE: Change in size.
By omnicronx on 8/15/2008 3:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
I am not trying to justify anything, the 10^9 vs 2^30 battle has been going on almost before the existence of hard drives as we know them today. I remember in 1990 buying a PC with a 100MB hard drive, thats 2.4M difference between the two formats, are you actually trying to say that when hard drive manufacturers back in the day started using 10^6 (it was only M back then which is 10^6) just so they can market the drive as having 0.24M extra space on a 10MB drive?

This just was not the case, sure it all worked out in the HD manufacturers favor, but that does not change the fact that in reality, the confusion can be blamed totally on programmers, there was no reason other than to make things easier for them to be using base 2 in the first place. Probably so that they did not have to go through an extra conversion process back when processing power was not expendable.


RE: Change in size.
By mindless1 on 8/15/2008 6:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
There never was any battle. The binary term was the already existing industry standard and HDD manufacturers deceptively advertised their capacity knowing full well what the different industry standard that pre-dated them was. It seems a trivial thing in some cases but maybe there needed to be a few lawsuits long ago to remind them what standards are.


RE: Change in size.
By ATWindsor on 8/15/2008 4:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about the underlying technology? Kilo, Mega, Giga and so on are clearly defined, and has been since long before the computer age. If you need to have a prefix that means 1024, by all means, have one, just don't use the same one that is defined as 1000. The HD-manufactureres are right, regardless of how non-noble their motives may be.

AtW


RE: Change in size.
By ZoZo on 8/21/2008 9:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but I find you logic completely wrong.

A sector size can be a power of 2, it only implies that the total capacity is an even number, not a power of 2.
If there are 1000 sectors, the size of the drive is 512 000 bytes and not 2^19 bytes.

The only place where measuring capacity in powers of 2 has ANY meaning is when you're talking about the number of bytes which are addressable. For anything else than that, the SI units kilo = 10^3, mega = 10^6 and so on are just as well suited.


RE: Change in size.
By William Gaatjes on 8/15/2008 3:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
p.s manufacturers do write the unformatted correct amount on the hdd, a 40GB HD regardless of what filesystem it is using has 40x1000K of space for use. And you whole speil about overhead (how much space different filesystems take) is pointless,


Not exactly, the average user may expect that they can use the amount of storage what is written on the hdd up to the last byte. Afcourse it is true, it is just not all data. I was pointing out that this is the case.

And that there are size differences between filesystems is not the issue. It can be expected because of different implementations.


RE: Change in size.
By rastor on 8/14/2008 11:41:25 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, a business that is honest with it's consumers... i'm impressed.


RE: Change in size.
By sleepeeg3 on 8/15/2008 9:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
No, you guys misread that. They are still using the 1000000 bytes = 1GB, but you are losing an *additional* 5% due to SSD formatting. Reality is the 30GB drive will still be 28.6GB.


RE: Change in size.
By masouth on 8/15/2008 10:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
How do you figure? Their claim seems fairly straight forward and unambiguous

quote:
These reserved areas on an SSD may occupy up to 5% of the drive’s storage capacity. On the Core V2 Series the new naming convention reflects this and the 30 is equivalent to 32GB, the 60 is equivalent to the 64GB and so on.


They are stating that the new 30GB HDD is actually the same size as the previous 32GB HDD however the name now accounts for the estimated "lost" space.

I'm not saying their math is going to be accurate but what you said is 100% opposite of the point they are trying to make and I'm honestly not sure how you interpreted it that way.


RE: Change in size.
By masouth on 8/15/2008 12:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
NM...I see exactly what you mean now...my apologies.


RE: Change in size.
By DragonMaster0 on 8/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Change in size.
By IvanAndreevich on 8/15/2008 1:30:28 AM , Rating: 2
No. Come on, I thought everyone knows about this. I don't even want to explain. Let's just say that a 60GB HDD is reported less by the O/S.


RE: Change in size.
By psychobriggsy on 8/15/2008 5:29:24 AM , Rating: 5
SSD capacity is usually a power of two. 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, etc. Read up on the internals of a RAM/ROM/Flash chip and you'll see why (it has to do with addressing memory within the chip, so the width is a power of two, and also the depth is a power of two).

As the article says, about 5% is reserved for error recovery and to remove bad blocks, hence the lower reported capacities.

The argument of SI giga (10^9) versus SI gibi (2^30) is pointless, everyone uses the defacto standard of giga to mean 2^30, so the whole SI unit thing is a waste of time.

Kudos to this company for reporting capacity in a consumer friendly manner. Apart from that 250GB drive, shouldn't that be 240GB?


RE: Change in size.
By Mr Alpha on 8/15/2008 8:32:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The argument of SI giga (10^9) versus SI gibi (2^30) is pointless, everyone uses the defacto standard of giga to mean 2^30, so the whole SI unit thing is a waste of time.
I use the SI system everywhere. The weights and measures of stuff I buy in the store use the SI-prefixes. The ranges on a map use the SI-prefixes. I measure the fuel-consumption of my car with SI-prefixes. The frequency of my MP3 files use the SI-prefixes. I get my weather-reports with SI-prefixes.

Then suddenly my OS is measuring hard-drive capacity with the binary prefixes. It does stand out. Every unsophisticated computer user around here assumes a Kilobyte is a thousand bytes and when you tell them differently they go "Who's dumb idea was that?"

It gets worse. When people are talking about bytes they are most often the binary prefixes. When people talk about bits, all bets are off. There both the binary prefixes and the SI-prefixes are used, and you have no idea which one somebody is using.


RE: Change in size.
By kensiko on 8/15/2008 12:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
You all have it wrong. Look at this picture:
http://uppix.net/7/3/4/a484f6c78c25d57dbe553cddf75...

This is for OCZ Core V1. The V2 60 GB will have exactly the same number of chips.

In SSD, you need to have 2^x capacity. It's simple, here the chips are 64 gigabits.

The reason for showing 60GB is because of the wear leveling, it's because of the MLC ! Also, when you format, you can't have use each bytes of the 60GB because there is a part for FAT.

This is completely different than hard drives where there is no restriction in disk capacities.


Firewire??
By dondino on 8/14/2008 7:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone else think this is odd? Why update through a firewire port? Can't they make it so you can upgrade the firmware through the sata port like a conventional hard drive? Unless this is not a user upgradeable firmware? /boggle




RE: Firewire??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/14/2008 7:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about Firewire? It's a mini-USB port.


RE: Firewire??
By dondino on 8/14/2008 7:23:01 PM , Rating: 3
Oops, I meant mini-usb not firewire. But the question stands.


RE: Firewire??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/14/2008 7:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
It could be something to do with the SSD controller onboard. That being said, it's not as convenient as updating via the SATA port, but it's better than no firmware upgrades at all...


RE: Firewire??
By lightfoot on 8/14/2008 7:45:45 PM , Rating: 3
It's likely for security purposes - you don't want malware to be able to rewrite your firmware. Of course a jumper setting could achieve the same purpose.


RE: Firewire??
By DragonMaster0 on 8/15/2008 1:06:26 AM , Rating: 3
Probably, and updating the firmware of HDDs has always been more complex than anything else. DOS-mode or Linux bootable CDs, with a special software for every drive models, etc.

The firmware is probably in a separate memory, since the µC needs to read it before being able to read the flash memory on the drive. Maybe that memory is unreadable or writable from the SATA port, or maybe they use a microcontroller with embedded flash which can only be reprogrammed from USB, etc. There's a reason somewhere...


RE: Firewire??
By dondino on 8/15/2008 2:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting ideas guys, makes sense. Thanks for the feedback.


RE: Firewire??
By xxsk8er101xx on 8/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Firewire??
By dondino on 8/15/2008 2:05:21 AM , Rating: 4
Did you even get my point? Have you ever upgraded the firmware on a hard drive? I have. It's updated through the IDE cable. The same IDE cable that connects the hard drive to the motherboard. This has nothing to do with the obsolescence of USB. I was just wondering why they couldn't transfer a firmware update through the SATA cable like conventional hard drives. Why require a seperate connector?

Also, there are tons of external enclosures that will take a SATA drive that have USB connectors so not sure where you're going with the external drive thing. Do you mean using the drive w/o an enclosure? O.o


RE: Firewire??
By DigitalFreak on 8/15/2008 7:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
Some people are just stupid


RE: Firewire??
By yacoub on 8/15/2008 7:22:35 AM , Rating: 4
I hear it's going to be a serial port. :D
;P


Looks promising :-)
By prickly on 8/14/2008 7:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
I am (obviously) looking forward to the prices becoming a little more affordable and then I will be looking for a decent and small(er) NAS type box for these drives with RAID 5,6 or 10 options, gigabit, and hopefully a fairly low wattage when running :-)

I have read reports of maybe 9 or so SSDs maxing out a high end RAID controller - so this kind of performance in a NAS box would be awesome - who knows maybe we will need dual gigabit lol ;p

Great for my ESXi box (and for other backups) or maybe by then I can install them directly into my ESXi box - as time goes by we'll see how well these things last too.




RE: Looks promising :-)
By Spectator on 8/15/2008 2:53:54 AM , Rating: 2
Im Hoping they get a little smarter and add 2-4gig of dram in there on a seperate partition for the cursed win swap file. :)

You know it makes sence. so i thought id get the firt poke in at them.


RE: Looks promising :-)
By A Mad Pole on 8/15/2008 12:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
5 of these in RAID0 and 1Gb Ethernet is already saturated:

http://www.stec-inc.com/interface/fc.php


RE: Looks promising :-)
By blaster5k on 8/15/2008 1:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't one enough to saturate it (with reads)? 1Gb is 125 MB/sec. The read speeds for this drive are 170 MB/sec supposedly.


RE: Looks promising :-)
By A Mad Pole on 8/15/2008 1:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
You are right, I had a Friday pre-weekend brain freeze :)

And the specs actually show 220MB/s read and 115MB/s write.


awesome!
By DeepBlue1975 on 8/14/2008 8:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't quite finish drooling over the first version of OCZ's drives, which are just recently starting to be widely available, and they just come up with a significantly faster, and yet feature improved version.

But the omission of target prices, and the proximity between both version launches, make me suspect that you'll need to smash a fine bit bigger chunk of money to get one of these new puppies.

Kudos for OCZ anyway. I think they're trying to establish their brand in the SSD business and are incurring in their first steps dividing higher end parts from lower end ones.




RE: awesome!
By walk2k on 8/14/2008 9:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
At over $500 for the 128GB I'll wait for the prices to come down... A LOT.

Definitely looks like SSD is the future of storage though.

250GB is what I have in my computer now (and another 250GB in a HT-PC). If they can get the price of that down to the $300 range I'd buy one to use as a OS/app drive in a flat second, and just use the spinny-HDDs for mass storage.


RE: awesome!
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 8/15/2008 11:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
I cant wait for the day SSd drives become practical for Tivo/DVRs


RE: awesome!
By TomZ on 8/15/2008 12:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure that the strengths of SSD really fit that application very well. They're not designed to be portable, so the mechanical reliability is not a concern. DVRs also need to maximize storage space at a given cost, and the power consumption is not important since they are always plugged in. I would guess that HDDs are a better fit.


RE: awesome!
By Generic Guy on 8/18/2008 12:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
I understand what you are saying, but I'd have to pitch some support to drank12 -- for perhaps non-obvious reasons.

I'd say the number one TiVo problem in aggregate is mechanical hardware failure of the HDD. Many weird TiVo glitching, freezing, non-responsiveness issues are fixed with a drive replacement. Because the units are always on and active, TiVos may wear out mere mortal drives before their time. [Of course not necessarily a good argument for flash-based SSD, either.]

But the biggest issue is noise . Having owned a number of TiVos (along with family, friends) and had a number of HDD failures I've found there are a lot of replacement HDDs which are simply far too noisy especially for a TV area.

Heat can also be a problem. One of my Tivo units died from overheating after I had stuffed two Seagate 300GB units into it, they generated that much heat. The power supply broke from all the reboots and strain, and both drives needed RMA replacement. I learned to avoid dual-drive setups.

The point is SSD drives should throw off less heat, as well as be extremely quiet. That's the appeal of SSD in a TiVo or perhaps a Home Theater PC. Be a hella expensive TiVo, that's for sure!


Multiple usage
By epobirs on 8/14/2008 8:04:17 PM , Rating: 4
If the mini-USB port would also allow the drive to be used as an external unit, that would be a great convenience. For instance, when instlling it to replace an existing hard drive, only a 75 cent cable is needed to enable the cloning software to see both drives.

Laptop dies? No need to go shopping for an enclosure. Just pop out the drive and connect via a cheap cable to access needed data until the laptop is fixed/replaced.




RE: Multiple usage
By kickwormjoe on 8/14/2008 10:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
Don't really need an enclosure when you've got doohickies like this:

http://tinyurl.com/6aapob

I use it a lot to clone drives, recover data, etc.


RE: Multiple usage
By DragonMaster0 on 8/15/2008 12:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
Unlike IDE 2.5" drives, laptop SATA drives use the same connectors as desktops. Where's the problem?


Mini-USb
By Souka on 8/14/2008 7:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
I would have thought the mini-USB port would/could allow the user to attach the drive to another PC via USB...




RE: Mini-USb
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/14/2008 7:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
I much prefer its use for firmware upgrades -- that is something truly innovative IMHO.

You can get a SATA to USB enclosure for dirt cheap if you want to go the USB route.


RE: Mini-USb
By Flunk on 8/14/2008 8:28:50 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention that for the price of an SSD like this you would have to be mentally unbalanced to plug it into a USB port and lose all the performance you are paying the premium for.


Tacit Branding (Bundling) Agreement?
By InternetGeek on 8/15/2008 12:15:36 AM , Rating: 1
So Intel will keep using the Core term for their CPUs and now OCZ will use kind of the same term... Will people just fall for it?

OoooooOOhhh look. This SSD says Core like my laptop! I'm sure they will work faster than the rest when put together!




RE: Tacit Branding (Bundling) Agreement?
By gorka on 8/15/2008 1:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
we're almost done with "Core" ;)


By Baov on 8/15/2008 2:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
And then, will come Core i7.


Firmware updates for a SSD?
By Doormat on 8/14/2008 7:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Thats badass.

Still, cant wait to benchmark these and see if the 170MB/s read speeds make a difference in real-world performance.




RE: Firmware updates for a SSD?
By Googer on 8/14/2008 10:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'd love to try one in my PS3.


=D
By Mortal on 8/14/2008 7:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
120GB would be perfect for an OS/game drive for me. If the pricing is decent I may be tempted to bite the bullet, though with all these improvements happening quite rapidly it'd be a risky investment given who knows where the speeds will be in 3-6 months time. That being said I'm loving the way this tech is progressing!




RE: =D
By Mortal on 8/14/2008 7:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
^ Sorry, forgot to take into account the firmware upgradability with the mini-port. Makes it look even more tempting. Hmm.


A question:
By Cunthor666 on 8/15/2008 2:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
How does a typical laptop hard drive compare to this in read and write speeds?




RE: A question:
By lothar98 on 8/15/2008 5:08:16 AM , Rating: 2
Usually when I go looking for reviews of HDD performance I go to storagereview.com Just a quick look over there found this article that might help answer some of your questions.

http://www.storagereview.com/Hitachi250WD320.sr
A multiple mobile drive review and benchmark from this year.


The reason for v2?
By theplaidfad on 8/15/2008 8:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
I've read on a few reviews that people were having horrible speeds when copying large files, and in most of those instances their older HDD's were faster. Perhaps that is one of the things version 2 fixes, or is that something that quite a few SSD drives struggle with in general?




RE: The reason for v2?
By Ralgha on 8/15/2008 10:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't just horrible write speeds. The drives periodically HANG the ENTIRE SYSTEM for 5-30 seconds at a time. Don't buy any SSD from OCZ unless you have time to screw around with it, are willing to reinstall your OS (possibly several times), and are buying from a place that will accept a return for refund or credit - i.e. NOT NEWEGG. (Yes, I am bitter.)


Wow
By Polynikes on 8/14/2008 8:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
If these are proportionally as affordable as their other SSDs, I might just get one.




By Frallan on 8/15/2008 9:39:31 AM , Rating: 2
Or do i need special chipsets to work with them or something else that will make it impossible.

/F




not expecting much
By 8steve8 on 8/15/2008 10:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
wonder if this drive will have the same performance issues as the first drive had:

http://www.alternativerecursion.info/?p=106




mini USB
By RU482 on 8/15/2008 4:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Core Series V1 64GB drive. It does have the pads for the mini-USB connector, but the actual connector is not loaded.

I am finding that this V1 drive is approximately as fast as the 5400RPM 80GB Hitachi it replaced, and is substantially faster than the 5000 series Sandisk 32GB drive I have tested with as well (both real world and in Passmark performance testing)




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki