Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

The OCZ Vertex 2 Conspiracy: Lost Space, Lost Speed?

by

Several readers contacted me in the past two weeks, complaining about OCZ's recent adoption of 25 nm NAND and its effect on the capacity and performance of certain SSDs that they expected to be both larger and faster. I bought my own drives to compare.

Back in 2001, I saved up what I considered to be a significant amount of money—a little less than $30 000, if I remember correctly. Rather than doing something smart with it, I went out and bought a Mazda Miata, setting myself up for an endless stream Corky Romano jokes. Jerks.

Except, I didn’t keep the car for even 12 months. The 2001s were advertised with 143 horsepower in the US, though we actually got the 130 HP model. Mazda got called out on the missing ponies, confirmed it had screwed up, and offered to buy back—at full purchase price—the one-year-old cars.

I jumped all over that offer, turned around, and bought an IS300. Although I haven’t driven a Mazda since then, the fact was that the company’s willingness to satisfy its customers endeared it to me. And if there were ever another Mazda that I liked, I wouldn’t hesitate to be return business.

OCZ’s Miata?

More recently, several Tom’s Hardware readers brought to my attention that OCZ had recently stopped shipping its Vertex 2 drives with 34 nm NAND flash from IM Flash Technologies (and 32 nm memory from Hynix), replacing them with 25 nm flash from the same Intel/Micron joint venture.

The switch-over completed in mid-January, according to OCZ, and it was largely low-key. That is to say, it wasn’t really picked up on until customers started seeing lower capacities and reporting reduced performance from certain models compared to the older drives.

Fast-forward to mid-February. Sensing increased discontent over the community’s reaction, OCZ released a notice announcing its industry-first transition to 25 nm NAND adoption. The news purported that the smaller lithography would translate to more affordable performance-oriented SSDs. Indeed, the last time I looked at Vertex 2 pricing was mid-January, and the 120 GB drive was selling for $250. Today you can find the "exact same" model for $230.

What wasn’t addressed in OCZ’s release was whether the $230 drive, with its fancy 25 nm IMFT-based NAND actually is any slower or smaller than its predecessor. Naturally, I wanted to dig. After all, the complaint I received over and over again from Tom’s Hardware readers was that they were buying specific models and getting less usable capacity and unexpected performance results. I was instantly reminded of my own Miata experience.

Fortunately, I had an older OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G on-hand with the 34 nm flash. I hopped onto Newegg and purchased the same thing, hoping it’d be one of the new drives with the 25 nm NAND. All it took was a quick look at the drive’s capacity in Windows to know that it was, indeed, one of the new Vertex 2s.

So, is everyone making a big deal out of an over-hyped artifact of evolution, or is OCZ genuinely at fault for understating the effect of adopting the latest NAND devices?

Share:
6
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
aje21 21/02/2011 14:04
Hide
--1+

Would be interested to see how these tests would have turned out if BitLocker was being used.

ghoughto 21/02/2011 22:19
Hide
-0+

Hi,
Please can you clarify the number of chips in each SSD. "Test Setup And Benchmarks" says 64 Gb and 32 Gb chips which means 16 chips and 32 chips respectively.

The previous page says "What I do have currently is a run-down of a true apples-to-apples comparison: two 120 GB Vertex 2s, each with 16 chips, representing the 34- and 25 nm-based NAND devices."

Thanks

bobwya 22/02/2011 15:18
Hide
-1+

Ah interesting article... Props to OCZ - a pretty decent company IMHO... Personally I wouldn't touch a Sandforce controller SSD with a barge pole. I want predicable, glitch-free performance rather than variable performance - depending on the data-stream.

Gonemad 22/02/2011 15:44
Hide
-0+

Never, ever, change any specification of your products without changing part numbers accordingly, even with suffixes or preffixes. That's bad PR, and could ultimately harm your customers, even if you are protected by some form of "caveat emptor" regarding your products. OCZ should learn now.

Anonymous 22/02/2011 21:05
Hide
--1+

OCZ quality is pretty sporadic lately. I have purchased two OCZ VERTEX 2E 120GB SSD. First has suddenly died 1 week later. Retailer has promptly replaced for a new drive. Second drive has suddenly died 1 month later just like first one. I have switched off power saving. That most likely added some life span to the drive. Question is...wrong batch? Alienware M17 laptops doesn't like OCZ? poor quality of OCZ. one of the corps with pretty good reputation in the past. Looks like all companies goes same way..quantity rather than quality.

Ten98 25/02/2011 11:05
Hide
-0+

OCZ have made a fatal mistake here and damaged their reputation as market leaders in SSD which they have carefully built up over the last few years.

Changing to a much cheaper manufacturing process and only lowering the price to the wholesaler by a couple of $?

Worse still, failing to notify customers, reviewers (anyone!) of the change and trying to get away with it "under the radar" using the same part number? Shameful.

They may regret the decision to stop producing RAM and focus on SSD if they do not recover quickly from this mistake.

Best offers

Newsletters


OK