• 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 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
josephjpeters said:
It was mentioned on another forum by one of the marketing guys at the company. Looking at the Top Sellers and reviews on Amazon and Newegg it supports it.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced, if you are talking about all SSD models. With the more expensive models like the Samsung 840 Pro and the OCZ Vector, it does appear that the 256GB models may be outselling the 128GB models.

But in the value segment, I don't see any clear evidence that the 256GB models are outselling the 128GB models (it could be, I just haven't seen any evidence).

That is why I asked for evidence to support your statement.
 
Last edited:
jwilliams4200 said:
I'm not convinced, if you are talking about all SSD models. With the more expensive models like the Samsung 840 Pro and the OCZ Vector, it does appear that the 256GB models may be outselling the 128GB models.

But in the value segment, I don't see any clear evidence that the 256GB models are outselling the 128GB models (it could be, I just haven't seen any evidence).

That is why I asked for evidence to support your statement.
Click to expand...

I went to double check and you're right. The 256GB >> 128GB >> 512GB trend was for one particular drive. Thanks for calling me out on it.
 
josephjpeters said:
I went to double check and you're right. The 256GB >> 128GB >> 512GB trend was for one particular drive. Thanks for calling me out on it.
Click to expand...

It hardly takes statistical evidence to imagine a trend towards larger drives becoming more and more popular(increased sales).. as $$/GB continue to drop.

Then add the fact that data size/availability is ever increasing and it makes perfect sense that the 256GB drives are more quickly becoming what the 128's once were for entry level enthusiasts and first time buyers. Single bay laptop owners are also more inclined to move beyond measily 128Gb drives for SSD upgrades as well.

But I do agree that 256GB SSD's won't completely become entry level/most popular until we start seeing TLC nand implementation pushing us further towards 1TB+ for consumer drives. At that point.. many of the mfgrs won't even offer 128GB capacity points for their upper level drives and 64GB drives will start to disappear completely.
 
Last edited:
Common sense says that the earth is flat. But there is plenty of evidence to show that the earth is roughly spherical. I'll go with the evidence.
 
jwilliams4200 said:
Common sense says that the earth is flat. But there is plenty of evidence to show that the earth is roughly spherical. I'll go with the evidence.
Click to expand...

If you want evidence go look at a particular drive (Say, Vertex 4?) and see what capacities people (verified owners) are writing reviews for on Amazon. A "quick and dirty" glance shows that the majority are 256GB.
 
josephjpeters said:
If you want evidence go look at a particular drive (Say, Vertex 4?) and see what capacities people (verified owners) are writing reviews for on Amazon. A "quick and dirty" glance shows that the majority are 256GB.
Click to expand...

A "glance"? No, that is not evidence. Show me the numbers.

I know you have an extreme aversion to looking at reviews from one retailer, so at a minimum I expect you will include data from amazon and newegg.
 
jwilliams4200 said:
A "glance"? No, that is not evidence. Show me the numbers.

I know you have an extreme aversion to looking at reviews from one retailer, so at a minimum I expect you will include data from amazon and newegg.
Click to expand...

Newegg top sellers:

91GB - 128GB (9)
129GB - 256GB (12)
257GB - 512GB (6)

Quick and dirty (again) but there's some more "data". Now you'll say we don't know what the distribution (difference between drive #1 and #29). Well, you know what? We don't (and won't) but this is pretty decent "data" to draw a conclusion with (especially when you look at other sources of information).

Maybe 256GB isn't the top sellers (yet), but it's getting pretty darn close.
 
josephjpeters said:
Newegg top sellers:
91GB - 128GB (9)
129GB - 256GB (12)
257GB - 512GB (6)
Click to expand...

Without more information, that means little.

What criteria does newegg use to declare something a top seller? Is it based on number of sales, or dollars of sales?

Can one of the items on that list sell ten time as many units as another also on the list? If so, then a simple count of "top sellers" is useless in determining the number of sales of each model or capacity.

Since you lambasted me for only looking at newegg data, where is your second or third data source?
 
jwilliams4200 said:
Without more information, that means little.

What criteria does newegg use to declare something a top seller? Is it based on number of sales, or dollars of sales?

Can one of the items on that list sell ten time as many units as another also on the list? If so, then a simple count of "top sellers" is useless in determining the number of sales of each model or capacity.

Since you lambasted me for only looking at newegg data, where is your second or third data source?
Click to expand...

Newegg's Top Sellers list is sales volume.

Just keeping with the Vertex 4 example I looked at the past week of reviews and it's 60% 256GB, 30% 128GB and 10% 512GB. I just looked at the last 60 reviews and I know that's not terribly statistically significant (especially for someone like yourself) but it's meaningful information for someone like me.

I get it though. You want hard data and I'm not Newegg or Amazon so I can't provide it. I don't even know what you're arguing here. Arguing for arguing sake?
 
Last edited:
josephjpeters said:
Newegg's Top Sellers list is sales volume.

I get it. You want hard data and I'm not Newegg or Amazon so I can't provide it. I don't even know what you're arguing here. Arguing for arguing sake?
Click to expand...

Is that sales in dollars, or in number of units?

I was interested in any evidence you might have to back up your statement that "there are more 256GB drives being sold now than 128GB drives".

First you seemed to retract the statement (except for a particular unspecified model mentioned by an unspecified marketing person at an unspecified company).

Then you posted again, appearing to say that there is evidence to support your claim. Now you say that you don't have any evidence.

If that is your final answer, then I guess there is nothing more to say on the subject.

Unless you want to change your answer or claim again.
 
jwilliams4200 said:
Is that sales in dollars, or in number of units?

I was interested in any evidence you might have to back up your statement that "there are more 256GB drives being sold now than 128GB drives".

First you seemed to retract the statement (except for a particular unspecified model mentioned by an unspecified marketing person at an unspecified company).

Then you posted again, appearing to say that there is evidence to support your claim. Now you say that you don't have any evidence.

If that is your final answer, then I guess there is nothing more to say on the subject.

Unless you want to change your answer or claim again.
Click to expand...

I retracted my original statement because what I read was for a particular drive (Vector) but my observations seem to support my initial claim of a shift to 256GB and that it *may* be more of a general trend and not just isolated to one particular drive or manufacturer.

I use Top Seller lists and review counts as a form of data because I do not have access to any 'hard data' that I'm sure most manufacturers would be reluctant to provide.

It's not perfect, but it's what we have to go by as 'outsiders'.
 
josephjpeters said:
Not at larger capacities? Not with adaptive DSP tech which should lengthen the drive endurance well beyond the raw NAND endurance?
Click to expand...

I do not know all that much about the tech involved, it is just a feeling. It just does not seem reliable. In regular hard drives cheaper often equaled less reliable. Cut too many corners and you have a circle. Big Foot was an extreme example 🙂
 
capeconsultant said:
I do not believe that TLC nand is reliable enough and do not think it will catch on.
Click to expand...

capeconsultant said:
I do not know all that much about the tech involved, it is just a feeling. It just does not seem reliable.
Click to expand...
This is total comedy. By your own admission you do not know much about the technology involved yet you have decided that you do not think it is reliable. What that had to do with the OP or one of the many sub-topics is also a mystery.

In essence, TLC is a lower endurance version of MLC. As Anandtech have proved many many times that consumer users are not likely to use a fraction of their NAND endurance, a market for TLC does exist. That market will include enterprise clients where all of the heavy lifting and data storage is handled by a server, or low power users who use the internet, office and ebay.

Next time I build a rig for somebody depending on their usage model, I would certainly consider the Samsung 840 now all of the 830's are nearly gone.
 
In my professional guesstimation.. which should be no less acceptable or relevant to anyone else's since none of us actually design and mfgr these things.. the ONLY way that TLC will catch on more quickly is if consumers are offered products that have significantly reduced prices and prove to not have significant reduction in life expectancy. The 840 doesn't hit the mark on either count just yet.

We need to keep in mind that it was only about 2 years ago that many guides and "experts" complained about the switch from 5k nand to 3k(and 10k to 5K before that).. and moving swap's and other various temp files off our SSD's to improve lifespan. While most of us now realize that this stuffs "main systems useful life" is far expended by constantly improved models.. the damage has been done and the public at large wants a drive that they can be assured will last them 10 years or more. IMHO, it's silly.. but that's what history shows us.

When the firmware has evolved to such a degree that 1k nand in 256GB.. or better yet.. larger 500GB/1TB SSD's can easily outlive older/entry level 5k/128GB drives?.. this stuff will sell like hotcakes at a flapjack festival. People just expect too much and they aren't well known/mainstream/large enough for OEM to even offer them on basic models just yet. 1TB SSD's at $499 could surely change that opinion and create new trends nearly overnight though.

But.. MLC nand shortages caused by transitional changes to TLC could also change that more quickly too. Then.. people will just buy what they must.. and not necessarily what they want. Which of course is pretty much where we're at right now and have always been anyways when it comes to SSD. lol
 
Last edited:
groberts101 said:
In my professional guesstimation.. which should be no less acceptable or relevant to anyone else's since none of us actually design and mfgr these things.. the ONLY way that TLC will catch on more quickly is if consumers are offered products that have significantly reduced prices and prove to not have significant reduction in life expectancy. The 840 doesn't hit the mark on either count just yet.

We need to keep in mind that it was only about 2 years ago that many guides and "experts" complained about the switch from 5k nand to 3k(and 10k to 5K before that).. and moving swap's and other various temp files off our SSD's to improve lifespan. While most of us now realize that this stuffs "main systems useful life" is far expended by constantly improved models.. the damage has been done and the public at large wants a drive that they can be assured will last them 10 years or more. IMHO, it's silly.. but that's what history shows us.

When the firmware has evolved to such a degree that 1k nand in 256GB.. or better yet.. larger 500GB/1TB SSD's can easily outlive older/entry level 5k/128GB drives?.. this stuff will sell like hotcakes at a flapjack festival. People just expect too much and they aren't well known/mainstream/large enough for OEM to even offer them on basic models just yet. 1TB SSD's at $499 could surely change that opinion and create new trends nearly overnight though.

But.. MLC nand shortages caused by transitional changes to TLC could also change that more quickly too. Then.. people will just buy what they must.. and not necessarily what they want. Which of course is pretty much where we're at right now and have always been anyways when it comes to SSD. lol
Click to expand...

I think TLC will be just fine for the consumer and offers 33% cost reduction (theoretically) from MLC. Ideally that cost savings gets passed onto the consumer and widens the adoption of SSD's (ie. in ultra books and even tablets).

As long as the capacities are "high" (> 250GB), SSD controllers have reduced write amplification enough that the average user should be fine with TLC. If a user writes more data then they become more of a prosumer which will probably always be MLC based products.

This is, of course, not touching on the topic of adaptive DSP which is quite the game changer. Other things to consider is the ability to heat up NAND to lengthen the raw endurance of a cell and the introduction of 3D NAND. Not that we'll see these anytime soon, it's important to know that there are many technologies/techniques that are in the pipeline that should ensure that NAND continues on it's trajectory (50% cost reduction per year or 50% increase in bit density per year, which ever way you want to look at it)
 
Coup27 said:
This is total comedy. By your own admission you do not know much about the technology involved yet you have decided that you do not think it is reliable. What that had to do with the OP or one of the many sub-topics is also a mystery.

In essence, TLC is a lower endurance version of MLC. As Anandtech have proved many many times that consumer users are not likely to use a fraction of their NAND endurance, a market for TLC does exist. That market will include enterprise clients where all of the heavy lifting and data storage is handled by a server, or low power users who use the internet, office and ebay.

Next time I build a rig for somebody depending on their usage model, I would certainly consider the Samsung 840 now all of the 830's are nearly gone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured some comic relief was necessary 🙂 Still, for my own data I would never use one. We'll see how it shakes out. Cheaper is not always better. Make it too cheap and it falls apart. I am glad Intel does not try and make cheaper CPU's but BETTER CPU's that sometimes happen to be less expensive, sometimes not.
 
I've been reading up about this topic mainly because I was looking to purchase a Samsung 840Pro and wanted to know what was different between the SSD's. Most SSD drives use 2 nand controller chips for data storage and recovery. The Pro version uses 3 nand controller chips. You mention TLC which has a lower read and write life expectancy. I believe that you can get around this if you create a Ramdrive and direct all the temp files and intensive read and writes to run on the Ramdrive. That will decrease the actual read and writes to the drive itself and thereby improve it's life expectancy. That may be a way to make TLC drives attractive to buyers if you incorporate the Ramdisk software with the purchase of these drives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top