I have direct personal experience w/ OCZ V2, V3 & V3 Max used as boot drive + mech hdd + raid (ssd x4) as Sandforce controller function is of interest to me. Intel ssd's in same system config running separate / parallel - same os throughout.
I think your full of it and it's flowing out your mouth at this point. Put yer money where yer mouth is here. Let's talk about the inner workings/algorithms of these drives if your so.. "up".. on them. How's about a simple screen shot of that max IOPS? Love to see that 4x SSD raid screen too. Methinks BULLS*IT WALKS. lol
The Sandforce controller based ssd's (both 1000 & 2000 series) have demonstrated a succession of stability/interface issues beyond firmware updates &/or motherboard bios &/or driver resolution - the Intel X25 (initial + rev'd) have not been problematic.
You call bricked drives and lack of trim on initial release NON-problematic? I'm only now starting to realize how vast your knowledge really is.
Several Marvell controller based ssd's - short term comparisons - also were not problematic. Any ssd should "drop-in & function" or we are all wasting our time...
Again with the vast knowledge here. Ummm?.. poor GC and recovery issues? Even pulled up a little excerpt from the Saviour himself for you to partake of.
just weeks after I got my C300,
the drive stopped working. Crucial sent me another drive which didnt die, but let me discover that the C300 had serious issues when it came to worst case scenario performance. Similar to the original X25-M firmware when given a random enough workload, the RealSSD C300 could be backed into a corner that it would never get out of.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3812/the-ssd-diaries-crucials-realssd-c300 and that's nothing compared to the multitude of posts I read over at Crucials forums about those drives issues early on. You really need to go back to SSD school and study here cause you're just sinking faster and faster by the post.
First, in particular OCZ has a corporate culture and corporate business plan embracing abusive customer service. This is not racist, as I have arranged for several individuals / various regions / f&m / to sample and have observed pointedly abusive responses - 2yr5mo extant...
HAHA.. you have such pull in this world that you have OCZ forum watchdogs?.. NOW THAT'S FUNNY STUFF! with user ssd issues always being heavily placed on chipset manufacturers, closely followed by "user doesn't know how to o.c. motherboard, NOW closely followed by "We, OCZ, ONLY Support Motherboards operating at Chipset Specs - ie: NO O.C.'g of Motherboards NOW Recognized By OCZ!
LOL.. much of that is taken out of context and leveraged for your own personal interpretation/vendetta against that company. Let's back up to the beginning of this post.. you mean to tell me you have all those SSD's in your system from a company that you despise and resent so much? ESPECIALLY considering they are so "problematic" and not any faster than your Intel? Wouldn't the lie make more sense if you had many Intel drives(which you love) with only 1 OCZ SSD(which you hate)/you should conjur it to be the Max IOPS version too since that's such a cool drive to have these days). Something stinks of BULLSH*T here.
In other words "NO RMA's of OCZ SSD's" --- unreasonable & unsustainable nearterm given extremely limited product line-up... enterprise buyers will walk...
Holy SH*T dude! No RMA's???.. do you even read that forum?.. they offer it freely whenever a customer doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with a lengthy troubleshooting protocol! OCZ RARELY denies a RMA request. It's a fact and many applaude them for that very fact even when they do have issues. Get some facts straight at least once in all this rambling babble of a post. Seriously.
Yes, I have direct personal experience with OCZ
(seems highly doubtful so far with all the incorrect facts given here), but my genuine interest is their sales volume of Sandforce controller based ssd's.
Which is known by what means or manner? Please tell me you have a mole inside that make you privy to that info! That would just be the icing on the cake here. 
Second, there is the matter of start-up fabless Sandforce now having exhausted A, B, C & D Funding Rounds, and Round D, 25mil usd will be the final round unless the Series 2000 controllers are a runaway marketing success - whether the controllers are reliable or not - and said controllers have been foisted on users prematurely as an act of desparation AND YOU DARE ASK "WHATS UP WITH MY POSTS?"
Not so much what's up with your posts(because it's becoming painfully obvious you don't know Sandforce from yer A*S or a hole in the ground)?.. but more like where do you concoct all this info from? Do you realize that Sandforce has grown and ventured into an agreement with Intel? Doesn't sound like the last breaths of a company on its way out to me. Intel wouldn't even touch a partner that it wasn't 100% sure would be there to help it make money longterm. Now there's a fact for ya to chew on. It helps to think.. study facts.. THEN post. :hmm:
The SATA 2.6 spec MB chipsets are functioning correctly. Sandforce is deflecting Series 2000 controller non-compatibility issues using ssd resellers & legions of unpaid fanboi's to flog disfunctional ssd's on users...
sigh.. I'm under NDA at the moment and would love to enlighten you on that subject(and the players involved which actually does involve Sandforce as well).. but you seem to have it all figured out already and would be a waste of breath it seems.
And I'm sure you meant "manufacturers" since no one "resells" a Sandforce SSD as they don't even manufacture them. You are almost right about the "unpaid fanboi's" thing though. My spin on that is that sometimes you have to fight evil?.. with evil. I just share what I know to be fact.. and many just share what they think based on speculation and breed negativity because they are miserable and don't have any other outlets besides a forum to vent it. You seem to have the market share for the latter just in this thread alone. Can't wait to see all the future enlightenments you have to share with all the other anti-OCZ communists around here.
Sandforce is presently demonstrating that there isn't any need for "industry specification ratification" when the continuing smoke/mirrors/dog&pony show is making "reasonable users" go through all manner of technical contortions to have "largely functional" series 2000 ssd's ONLY EXPERIENCE OCCASIONAL BSOD's/System Slowdowns/Hanging!!!
By "reasonable users" I assume you mean.. "affected users"? And some are finding their way through the darkness already. 2.08 firmware has helped a few so far(granted.. not nearly enough to even warrant its release), as have jumping through the hoops to SE and start fresh with recommended currently known workarounds for the underlying issues here. Stay tuned, watch them sort through it, and see where some of the final blame falls in the end(maybe even the saviour himself will elaborate in an editorial, eh?). It won't be entirely where you think and Sandforce can only do so much to circumvent the underlying issues, although it's quite obvious they should share blame,IMO. Again with the NDA stuff though. Not that I would entertain you with the details. You'd just have to follow around and pick it up from others being helped along with their issues. Yours are far too large for any one post of mine to help a great deal and it's pretty tough to fill a cup that's already full.
You Are Truly Joking If This Is Normal Product Introduction...
For sandforce controlled drives? it surely is. Doesn't have to be right or wrong and is just the way it's been since they came out more than a year ago. It's regardless of manufacturer using their chips too.
Lastly, my direct personal experience is that there is virtually NO realworld productivity difference between sandforce ssd's & intel ssd's - synthetic benchmarks aside - 7/24 reliability combined with significant throughput increase will always prevail...
NOW I KNOW YOU DON'T OWN ONE! or at least you don't actually write to your Intel drives. LOL Sandforce has become a liability for the principle investors...
Facebook
Twitter