• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NEW OCZ Vector

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
That's just it. I don't believe they are. They make a competitive product at, though heavily rebated, a very attractive price point. Seagate's interest would great for them, in particular for the consumer market given they don't have squat for a consumer SSD.

If that ship is still in port, I easily see them picking up OCZ as cargo before setting off. While everyone sees panic in the reports, I don't think they see the big picture.
 
OCZ makes a commodity product with a history of poor quality, dishonest marketing, and premature product releases.

While it is certainly possible that OCZ could release a quality product now, that they could charge enough to make a profit, and provide support for the product for five years or more, that is not a bet most smart people are willing to make.
 
jwilliams4200 said:
OCZ makes a commodity product with a history of poor quality, dishonest marketing, and premature product releases.

While it is certainly possible that OCZ could release a quality product now, that they could charge enough to make a profit, and provide support for the product for five years or more, that is not a bet most smart people are willing to make.
Click to expand...

I've had 5 OCZ SSD's, never a single issue. I Always run newest firmware.

My Vertex 4 is crazy fast.

I have no problem using them. I do agree with pre-mature releasing though, but they are improving with this.
 
Last edited:
Looks rather good, assuming the price is decent and it is reliable. Shouldn't be too bad with the new indilinx controllers, at least its not sandforce.

Will have to wait for the reviews and see if there are any release problems.
 
Railgun said:
I'm running five as well with no issues. So it's significant to those that actually own them and not base it on hear say.
Click to expand...

No, a sample size of 5 is not statistically significant here. Anyone with any background at all in basic statistics knows that a sample size of 5 is absurdly useless here.

In this case it is even worse than one might naively expect because the reported samples are certainly not random samples.
 
As I said, that's another thread.

One's first hand experience plays a larger part than some stats that may or may not hold any weight.

Speaking of which, have you had any?
 
My experience with the Barefoot 2 SATA2 controller has been good. Those are in the Vertex Plus R2 drives. (Totally different controller than the original Vertex Plus, which were problematic in the extreme.)

My three drives have been running fine so far, and there has been no firmware update posted that I am aware of for these drives.

It seems to me that Sandforce is far more problematic than Barefoot, and most of OCZ's poor reputation was because they jumped into bed early on with Sandforce, and Sandforce was using their OEM customers to effectively beta-test their drives and firmware.
 
Looks like the embargo is over. PCPer and HardOCP already have a review. It's very interesting. So far this controller and the LAMB controller are next gen controllers I've seen (there could be others) that get around .030 ms latency in AS SSD. I know AS SSD measures latency with what I feel is a useless 512bytes for SSDs. 4k would have been best, but it's a good gauge. Previous generation controllers all the way back to the 2009 Intel G1 are capable of .060 ms latency.

Latency and real world read benches (like Anand's light workload read) are the two good ways to get a feel of how nimble an SSD is and it's performance in real life. Sequential is primarily marketing. You really only see sequential speeds when cloning, backing up, etc.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Here are some benchmarks for the 256GB Vector.

Firstly, as a spare in Z77 in Windows 7 with an OC (3770k - 5100MHz, RAM - 2400MHz....) -

asssdbenchoczvector2711.png


201211271356.png



Secondly, as a boot drive in Dell XPS 17 (I7 2670QM) in Windows 8 -




asssdbenchoczvector2611.png


201211262205x.png


Remember this is on a laptop!

The new mantra for the new model OCZ is 'Stability'. When you open the box the all metal case certainly generates confidence and exudes quality.

Regds, JR
 
Last edited:
Mfusick said:
I have 15+ of them. Never an issue.

I bought only one Crucial and it crapped out.

Thoughts on that?
Click to expand...

It is more likely that 15 drives will work fine, than it is that at least one of them won't work. Of course, it's much less likely that one drive will crap out as opposed to one or more out of 15. But that's irrelevant because it's also entirely plausible that you just got unlucky with the Crucial drive. Your experience says nothing about the reliability of OCZ drives versus Crucial drives.
 
For some reason, it's popular to hate OCZ these days and I really don't understand it. The issues with vertex 3 were related to sandforce, which affected all sandforce drives; OCZ made a mistake by using the sandforce controller (IMO).

I've previously owned 2 vertex 2 drives which still work today. Anyway, After reading the review at H and tomshardware I gotta say, i'm impressed. The Vector will be cheaper than the 840 pro and perform similarly, not too shabby.
 
Railgun said:
As I said, that's another thread.

One's first hand experience plays a larger part than some stats that may or may not hold any weight.
Click to expand...

Only someone who is completely ignorant of basic statistics would make such a claim, so I'm not surprised that you evade the issue. But you would do better to learn some basic statistics rather than continuing to make statements that anyone with even a basic understanding of statistics recognizes as complete nonsense.
 
lehtv said:
Your experience says nothing about the reliability of OCZ drives versus Crucial drives.
Click to expand...

Of course that is obvious to most people, but I did not respond to him because he has demonstrated many times in the past that logic and math are meaningless concepts to him. I don't bother responding to him much anymore.
 
blackened23 said:
For some reason, it's popular to hate OCZ these days and I really don't understand it.
Click to expand...

It is not hard to understand. First, you need to abandon your straw man. Very few people "hate" OCZ -- it is just a corporation, not a person to be emotional about.

Once you get that out of the way, it is easy to understand why most people who are aware of OCZ's history want no part of their products. That history has been outlined here several times before, so I will not go into it other than to say that OCZ has a history of many years of dishonest business practices, misleading marketing, poor quality control, and rushing products to market before they are ready. The old saying, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" applies here. Why would any rational person take a chance on OCZ products when there are so many viable alternatives?
 
Maybe you can share specifics then, because this outline you speak of, I've not heard of it. I'm only aware that they had problems with the SF-2281, which obviously all manufacturers had issues with -- not just OCZ.

I really don't care about OCZ either way. I simply haven't had a problem with my vertex 2 drives years ago, and based on that i'd probably purchase again. If you have evidence proving otherwise (about deceptive marketing, etc), i'd love to hear it, my opinions are certainly subject to change. I haven't seen compelling evidence that OCZ intentionally sells bad products. If you would like to "outline" the reasons here, go for it. If your evidence certers completely around the SF-2281 i'd probably just dismiss your opinion because the defects with SF-2281 applies to all manufacturers. Sandforce basically sold a defective product, and in hindsight I guess OCZ should not have sold it (along with all other sandforce mfgrs)
 
Last edited:
jwilliams4200 said:
It is not hard to understand. First, you need to abandon your straw man. Very few people "hate" OCZ -- it is just a corporation, not a person to be emotional about.

Once you get that out of the way, it is easy to understand why most people who are aware of OCZ's history want no part of their products. That history has been outlined here several times before, so I will not go into it other than to say that OCZ has a history of many years of dishonest business practices, misleading marketing, poor quality control, and rushing products to market before they are ready. The old saying, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" applies here. Why would any rational person take a chance on OCZ products when there are so many viable alternatives?
Click to expand...

Because your assuming something based on the past (mostly Sandforce based SSD's) and applying it to all OCZ products. Remember OCZ was one of the first to release Sandforce based SSD's.

Remember Intel/SATA Chipset issues with P67?

All companies will have mistakes. It just happened OCZ was hit hard for releasing drives with firmware that were not ready for the market. If anything needs attention at OCZ, its this. Release products once ready, not because of a timeline.

OCZ released firmware that fixed the Sandforce issues with most of there drives.

Now they've moved away from Sandforce and reliability appears to be much improved.

My point is, your dwelling on something that has been mostly corrected through firmware updates, and something OCZ is vastly improved on.

I'm not defending OCZ, I just think your spewing garbage about OCZ that's no longer warranted. Since you love Stats, OCZ's Agility 4/Vertex 4 failure rates are around 4% which is market average in modern SSD's, while providing top tier speeds. (Including all firmware versions). They are also based on the same Marvell controller as the "Rock stable Crucial M4" while being faster. With there aggressive pricing and a 5 yr warranty, I don't see why anyone wouldn't consider one.
 
Last edited:
jwilliams4200 said:
Maybe you can do a little basic research yourself. I already said I am not going to repeat it. If you wish to stick your head in the sand, that is okay with me.
Click to expand...

What the hell is your problem dude? Sticking my head in the sand really?

I'm asking for compelling evidence of your claims, and I have not seen it anywhere. The only issues i'm aware of are those related to SF-2281, which as i've stated before, are not OCZ issues but sandforce issues. Yes, OCZ could have handled this better -- but I'm hesitant to apply 100% of the blame on OCZ. Sandforce made a defective product.

Instead of insulting me and going on a posting spree about how much you hate OCZ, enlighten me as to why OCZ is a big evil corporation. I don't care either way - but i'm genuinely interested in this data you speak of. I have not heard such things ever before. I suppose this is where you insult me again? If your claims are true, great, I won't buy from them. You know, insulting people will not win many arguments for you.

This also, will not many arguments:

1) Present claim
2) Someone asks for evidence
3) Your response "GOOGLE IT DUDE" 🙄
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top