Article index
Author
Final thoughts and the conclusion
Final thoughts and the conclusion
Positive:
- Silky smooth operation as a system drive and completely stable.
- Outstanding reading and writing performance.
- Outstanding 4K random I/O performance
- Excellent multitasking potential.
- TRIM support under Windows 7
- Lightning fast access times.
- Completely silent operation.
- Fast operating system start-up and shutdown times.
- Fast application loading.
- 3 years warranty.
- MTBF: 2,000,000 hours
Negative:
- Expensive with high cost per GB of user storage.
User experience
A modern operating system such as Windows 7 rarely does one thing at time; it processes hundreds of threads at once. Just take a look at the processes and services that are running in task manager for an idea of how much is going on, even with the PC idling at the desktop. When you start running applications on top of this, the workload increasing in line with the amount and type of applications you are running. It’s also fair to say that many of these processes are already loaded into system RAM, but many are also loaded and unloaded into RAM from the system drive as and when they are required.
The fact of the matter is this. If you are running a mainstream or high end modern PC with a powerful CPU and graphics card, and are still running a traditional HDD as a system drive, regardless of how fast that HDD is, it is still bogging the system down substantially. It has long since passed the stage where one can have meaningful debate if an SSD is really faster than a traditional HDD. The fact is they are, and not just by a little bit: they are much faster.
When I first started testing SSDs more than 2 years ago, it was less clear then how much an SSD improved performance. A lot of things have changed with SSDs over the last 2 years. The SSD controllers are much more powerful and the NAND itself is getting smaller and faster.
If we look at the 3 basic requirements for a fast SSD, they are as follows.
- Small file threaded performance needs to be high
- Small random file performance needs to be high
- Sequential read and write speeds needs to be high
As I said at the top of this article, I have been able to long-term test the original OCZ Vertex and Agility and also the Intel X25-M. All of these SSDs are very fast indeed. While the Intel X25-M excelled in 4k random writes and also had good small file threaded performance, the Intel X25-M most definitely lacked sequential write performance. On the other hand, the original OCZ Vertex and Agility SSDs excelled in sequential read and write speeds, and had adequate 4k random write and small file threaded performance.
One drive’s strong points cancelled out the others weakness, so you ended up having great difficulty in telling which of these drives were fastest. In practice, both these series of drives seemed about equal in regarding how fast they performed in real use.
The OCZ Vertex 2 has changed things, because for the first time I have got my hands on an SSD that excels in all 3 areas. It has excellent small file threaded performance, and phenomenal 4K random and sequential performance. But does all this mean the OCZ Vertex 2 still ‘feels’ faster in use?
Although I was quite surprised by this: yes, it does feel faster, and what’s more, it feels distinctly quicker. Everything just happens in an instant, so much so that when I first started using the OCZ Vertex 2 as a system drive, I had to keep checking when I saved a file that the file had actually been saved, as it happened in an instant.
Conclusion:
Let us summarise the most important positive and negative points below:
The main positive points:
The OCZ Vertex 2 series drives are good: in fact, extremely good. Reading and writing access times are lightning fast and applications load in an instant, making the OCZ Vertex 2 series of drives ideal as the operating system drive with all the user’s installed applications.
4K random IOP performance is phenomenal and small file threaded performance is excellent.
With TRIM support in Windows 7, and the DuraClass technology from the SandForce SF1200 SSD controller, the OCZ Vertex 2 should remain at near peak performance during the expected life cycle of the drive.
Noise levels from the drive are null; there are no moving parts so the drive is completely silent.
The main negative points:
Price is still a stumbling block to purchasing an SSD drive, and the cost of NAND memory isn’t helping matters. At the moment, the OCZ Vertex 2, and other SandForce based SSDs are pretty expensive.
To sum up, this is what we would say:
It is inevitable that the OCZ Vertex 2 will be directly compared to other SandForce SF1200 based SSD drives. The special firmware that OCZ have exclusive access to for the Vertex 2, despite a pre production firmware being leaked to a competitor, will inevitably give the OCZ Vertex 2 the edge in the long term when firmware updates that further improve stability and performance become available. SandForce doesn’t have things all to themselves though, as always knocking on their door are the Intel drives. There are other fast alternatives available, such as SSDs based on the Micron/Marvell SSD controller which also sport a SATA 6Gbps host controller. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to test these drives, so I cannot comment any further.
Pricing at the moment for SandForce based drives is expensive. No doubt the SandForce SF1200 plays a part in the overall pricing of the drive, the other factor being the large amount of NAND in reserve (28GB in the Vertex 2 100GB). There will also be cases of vendors cashing in on a new drive, especially with an SSD which has performance like the OCZ Vertex 2.
OCZ are readying an “E” version of the Vertex 2 (Vertex 2E) which will allow more of the onboard NAND for user storage, the “E” variant will use 13% NAND over-provisioning rather than the present 28%. OCZ are currently testing how much this will have an impact on durability and the lifespan of the drive. It will however bring down the “cost per GB” of the Vertex 2E.
Pricing, taken from ebuyer at the time of writing (21/05/2010). Price in Euro, is from the current exchange rate.
|
Model |
User capacity |
Price |
Cost per GB |
|
OCZ Vertex 2 100GB |
93.1GB |
£315.81 |
£3.39 |
|
OCZ Vertex 2-E 120GB |
119.2GB |
Not confirmed |
Expected cost per
GB |
|
Intel X25-M G2 80GB |
74.5GB |
£188.04 |
£2.52 |
|
Crucial RealSSD 300 128GB |
119.2GB |
£319.99 |
£2.68 |
|
OCZ Vertex 120GB |
119.2GB |
£299.99 |
£2.51 |
There is no getting away from the fact that the OCZ Vertex 2 is expensive at the moment, but a new firmware update is on the way which may allow for more user capacity from the 128GB of NAND onboard the Vertex 2. Personally I would prefer they leave the Vertex 2 with 100GB of user space, as I would much prefer the long term performance and durability that all that over-provisioned NAND will potentially provide, even if that does mean paying a premium price for it. In the end, even though the price is high, the OCZ Vertex 2 is state of the art, and my personal opinion is the extra cost is worth it. The OCZ Vertex 2 100GB is now my system drive, so long term testing begins now.
For those who would rather have the extra available user capacity, the Vertex 2E may well suit your needs, and we will be testing the “E” variant of the Vertex 2 very soon.
Our parting sentence is
“The OCZ Vertex 2 is a phenomenal SSD, its state of the art, and strong in every area it needs to be and the fastest SSD we have tested here on MyCE.com”.
The performance and usability of the OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD drive was so good, that we decided to award the drive our MyCE.com “Editor’s choice” award.
You may comment on this review below.
Thanks to:
|
|
EFD Software for providing the fully licensed versions of HD Tune Pro |
|
|
Simpli Software for HD Tach |
|
|
Alex Schepeljanski for AS SSD Benchmark |
18 Comments on OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD review
Wish I could afford to get one, I was drooling as I read.
Great review. I think this will be my first SSD.
Not that I really need one, I just must have one
. 
@Duke
You can have ketchup with the fries too.
@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.
XXCopy may be used for copies, with the program providing total time.
Not sure about *actual* performance of the program.
http://www.xxcopy.com
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.
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
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
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 |
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
No its not very informative
|
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
A Vertex 2 on an Atom Dualcore running XP has a MAXIMUM copy and paste speed of 3.6 Megabytes per second
|
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
Dee was OBVIOUSLY running Windows 7 for the tests and using a better computer for those tests
|
|
Originally Posted by MrCoinPro
My tests are all run on a worst case scenario (XP + ATOM) for the MINIMUM specs
|
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
Windows 7's funky caching scheme gave me better results but innacurate results!
|
|
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. XP users will not be able to obtain such results. |
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
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 |
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
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 |
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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?
You do realize that the people here are not your own personal staff, right?
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 troll 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?
See pic below
I DON'T HAVE an XP box, and have no intentions of ever having one.
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
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
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 |
Create your own thread and present your benchmarks and results in a way that people can judge for themselves.
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
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 |
Are you being a little bit biased with a username incorporating intelPro.
|
Originally Posted by MrCointelPro
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 |
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.
Latest Comments
Hot Threads
- skoville, last post: skoville 7
- midnightmike, last post: roadworker 3
- DoMiN8ToR, last post: Wombler 2
- Nadja Dee, last post: pepst 11
- cd pirate, last post: xeriax 118
