backtop


Print 23 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jan 8 at 1:00 AM

OCZ delivers some astonishing performance numbers with its latest generation 2.5: SSD

It seem as though each day is better than the next when it comes to new product announcements here at CES -- especially when it comes to the hot field of SSDs. Everyone is in a game of one-upmanship, with Micron announcing its 415/260 (read/write) RealSSD C400 on Tuesday and Corsair announcing its 480/320 Performance 3 Series yesterday.

Now it's OCZ's turn to blow everyone out the water with its new Vertex 3 Pro. The Vertex 3 Pro is based on SandForce's SF-2582 SATA III/6Gbps compliant controller, and delivers read speeds of a whopping 550MB/sec and write speeds of an almost equally blazing 525MB/sec.

When paired with a SATA III controller, the real world numbers are equally impressive. Anand Shimpi of AnandTech was able to record a maximum of 492MB/sec sequential read and 518MB/sec sequential write using a prototype drive.

"Performance may even increase by the time OCZ actually ships the drive," said Shimpi. "Furthermore, this is the performance of a single drive with a single controller - there’s no funny on-board RAID going on, we’re just talking about the performance of a single drive."

The Vertex 3 Pro SSDs will be available in capacities ranging from 64GB to 512GB. We'll get your some up close and personal pictures of the SSDs (and hopefully a word on pricing) later today.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Incompressable data - 260MB/s
By XZerg on 1/6/2011 11:25:37 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed that most consumers will not even feel the difference between a SATA2 or SATA3 even with the SSD. Take a DVD image for example - 4.5gb on a SATA2 it would take about 15 seconds adn on SATA3 it would take about 9 seconds - 6 seconds more. That's one of the worst case scenarios for most "consumers" - note they don't do massive 4k random seeks. Hell i even test drove a SSD (Intel 40gb) to compile about 2000 files, the difference against a 500GB 7200RPM drive was not phenomenal. I realize the Intel V isn't the best representative but I felt the CPU was the bottleneck there, not the SSD - hence the point SSDs will not offer enough performance to be noticeable for most consumers, especially after ages of being used to waiting for things to happen.

SSDs are a step forward but most consumers they will only see the program load times cut by some noticeable and unnoticeable differences.

AGAIN MOST CONSUMERS - not enterprises, not heavy users and not uber "I MUST HAVE MAX PERF" folks.


RE: Incompressable data - 260MB/s
By geddarkstorm on 1/6/2011 2:19:24 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, a 4.9 gb DVD on SATA II would take ~18 seconds to read or write at 260 MB/s, which is the fastest the SATA II connection can do in the real world (actually, it's usually pegged out a little below that), while this new SandForce drive would do the same in the ~ >9 seconds you calculated.

That is, you'd be twice as fast with the Vertex 3 drive, and it looks like this drive may be pegging out, or almost pegging out, the SATA III real world speed. We'll have to see.

So, I respectfully, and completely, disagree with you. Every time a new piece of tech comes out people say the same as you did, and almost always they are wrong. Just looking at the Real C300's SATA III performance, which in real world application loading tests proves my point, as it's noticeably and significantly faster than SATA II. Again, in the real world. And that drive is no where near as fast as this new Vortex 3, nor no where close to saturating the SATA III connection.

Give people more speed and headroom, and they will always find ways to use it.


By mindless1 on 1/8/2011 1:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to be conveniently omitting a few things.

1) You have to be assuming either the source or destination is another equally fast SSD. How many of the small minority of users of a PC, will comprise the smaller still minority that have more than one SSD in their system, among the smaller still group having them not in RAID so there is a separate source and destination volume, and of this minuscule group, how many are going to be copying DVD images back and forth in a situation where it really matters how many seconds it takes?

IMO, common sense has gone out the window on your argument, particularly when it takes far longer just to read in the DVD from the source disc, and even moreso when you consider the average person doesn't even rip their DVDs to HDD at all and it is certainly not because there may or may not be an 18 sec vs 9 second difference from one particular SSD make and model they could be in the future.

You wrote "give people more speed and headroom and they will always find ways to use it"... Nope. The vast majority of semi-modern PCs turned on right now are idling away at under 5% CPU utilization, possibly an equally low storage throughput utilization, and their users are by far the biggest bottleneck.


RE: Incompressable data - 260MB/s
By LazLong on 1/7/2011 1:41:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
AGAIN MOST CONSUMERS - not enterprises, not heavy users and not uber "I MUST HAVE MAX PERF" folks.


You are forgetting about those of us who are lacking in the schlong department. We must always have the biggest, fastest, most phallic-enhancing tech!


By Shadowmaster625 on 1/7/2011 8:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well I can tell you this: when you are in the middle of a pvp game and listening to music or having anything else going on in the background, windows likes to stutter as it swaps out data to the pagefile. It is extremely frustrating but totally eliminated by using a decent SSD.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














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