jwilliams4200
Senior member
Which do you think is more likely, that IMFT sold out-of-spec flash chips to OCZ, or that OCZ just made some design mistake and failed to adequately test their product?
-
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.
OCZ falsely advertising 25nm Vertex 2 drives?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Which do you think is more likely, that IMFT sold out-of-spec flash chips to OCZ, or that OCZ just made some design mistake and failed to adequately test their product?
I dont even think they failed to test. I think they knew EXACTLY what they were doing and did it anyways thinking the customers would not notice, and really how many people are computer literate enough to notice.
OCZ has never been a reputable company as far as im concerned and this just proves it once again.
No matter what the technicalities are, if a product changes, the customer has to know about it. When was the last time you heard of an HDD capacity mix up? You just don't do it.
Also, I liked OCZ at one point. They were the first to introduce mainstream SF controller SSDs. But let's not forget how much damage jmicron did to the SSD concept and that OCZ played its part too (they must have known that they were selling junk even before Anandtech got involved). Now we're they're doing simple bait and switch tactics by building a customer base on selling 60GB drives and then switching out the components and selling 55GB drives with the same name.
SSDs don't need the bad publicity. OCZ, sort it out!
Also, I liked OCZ at one point. They were the first to introduce mainstream SF controller SSDs. But let's not forget how much damage jmicron did to the SSD concept and that OCZ played its part too (they must have known that they were selling junk even before Anandtech got involved). Now we're they're doing simple bait and switch tactics by building a customer base on selling 60GB drives and then switching out the components and selling 55GB drives with the same name.
SSDs don't need the bad publicity. OCZ, sort it out!
There is obviously a very loud roar coming from this forum and many others concerning the OCZ 25 nm SSDs. Although none of the discussions are complimentary with respect to either the hardware or OCZ's business practices, I am curious to know if there has been any consequential effect on OCZ SSD sales numbers. I am sure the statistics are very confidential but it would also be interesting to see how all OCZ branded products are faring in the market place now.
It seems Anand has taken notice of this issue. Below is a post from his latest SSD article
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4159/ocz-vertex-3-pro-preview-the-first-sf2500-ssd#comments
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4159/ocz-vertex-3-pro-preview-the-first-sf2500-ssd#comments
thescreensavers
Diamond Member
I got my SSD back in Jan (5th) it was the 25nm crap, still fast but was pissed it was not what I read reviews about
It was available well before I started the thread below (Dec 2010). I always wondered why Anand never covered such a breakthrough for the mainstream market. If he (or other sites) covered this properly no one would have had to find out the hard way how bad of a deal these are.
25nm SSDs. Are OCZ using IMFT?
Wow, this is incredibly lame. I hadn't heard of this before, but I guess this explains why they were selling them for $99. Super glad I got a C300 instead, but that was just because I missed the Vertex 2 deal.
So basically they are giving you less performance, less capacity and less lifetime while lying to your face? Terrible.
So basically they are giving you less performance, less capacity and less lifetime while lying to your face? Terrible.
taltamir
Lifer
Here is an excellent and detailed explanation of what was going on (BTW, OCZ now offers a free replacement):
http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vertex_2_25nm_review_oczssd22vtxe60g
Performance went down because OCZ tried to cut costs by having 8 instead of 16 chips (with more NAND die stacked inside each one), cutting down parallelism.
Space went down because OCZ overprovisioned more to counteract the lower lifespan of 25nm. (so, theoretically same lifespan, less space)
The new replacement uses 16 chips of 25nm NAND, and doesn't overprovision more than 32nm did. So you should have identical performance and size as the 32nm, but a lower lifespan... which still is a bit of a ripoff since the price hasn't gone down... OCZ pockets the difference. At least they no longer charge you for the replacement.
OCZ thought nobody will notice and that they could pocket the savings.
The article makes it very clear 25nm is NOT the problem, the problem is what OCZ was doing with it.
http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vertex_2_25nm_review_oczssd22vtxe60g
Performance went down because OCZ tried to cut costs by having 8 instead of 16 chips (with more NAND die stacked inside each one), cutting down parallelism.
Space went down because OCZ overprovisioned more to counteract the lower lifespan of 25nm. (so, theoretically same lifespan, less space)
The new replacement uses 16 chips of 25nm NAND, and doesn't overprovision more than 32nm did. So you should have identical performance and size as the 32nm, but a lower lifespan... which still is a bit of a ripoff since the price hasn't gone down... OCZ pockets the difference. At least they no longer charge you for the replacement.
OCZ thought nobody will notice and that they could pocket the savings.
The article makes it very clear 25nm is NOT the problem, the problem is what OCZ was doing with it.
Last edited:
As I understand it, the whole thing is a sideproduct because the SF controller needs a whole chip for RAISE and can't work with only a part. So everyone using higher stacked chips (independent on transistor size) and a SF controller will have the same problem, since they can't just provision less space (but maybe include an extra smaller chip? Do all chips have to be the same size? Probably)
But your conclusion still stands - OCZ wanted save some money and decided that noone would miss the space ~
It's nothing technical. taltamir is right
This is a consumer rights issue. Pure and simple. The consumer has the right to know what they're buying. OCZ telling people "Hey, here's a 60GB drive" and actually giving you 55GB is the simplest bait and switch scam
You just don't change the contents of a product and don't inform the consumer. How much milk do you expect in your carton (hint: it's writtent on the outside and the company would be crazy to lie to you)?
This is a consumer rights issue. Pure and simple. The consumer has the right to know what they're buying. OCZ telling people "Hey, here's a 60GB drive" and actually giving you 55GB is the simplest bait and switch scam
Did you people get as mad when they switched from Indilinx to Sandforce? Apparently the 120GB Vertex drives formatted to 119 and the 120GB Vertex 2 drives formatted to 111GB. During the entire time, it's still always been packaged with 128GB in NAND chips. That's less "usable" space in that transition too, but it's OK because you've been "cheated" that way before.
Not saying that I agree with the change. I've already RMAed both of my Vertex 2 drives. OCZ took the leap first, got burned, and is now trying to fix things. If they decide to market the new drives as 115GB, would that make people happy? Corsair seems to have done that with their new drives. What about chip manufacturers that start putting more air into the bags, less chips. At least they say the capacity in small text on the bottom. Do you feel less cheated then?
Not saying that I agree with the change. I've already RMAed both of my Vertex 2 drives. OCZ took the leap first, got burned, and is now trying to fix things. If they decide to market the new drives as 115GB, would that make people happy? Corsair seems to have done that with their new drives. What about chip manufacturers that start putting more air into the bags, less chips. At least they say the capacity in small text on the bottom. Do you feel less cheated then?
Hu? No they all formatted to 120GB or 120 * 1000^3/1024^3 GiB and weren't advertised as 128GB drives. Or maybe I missed it but I would love to see some proof for that.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
Actually it's true that the formatted capacities were different. My "60GB" Vertex was actually 60GiB (close to it at least, 59.5GiB or something like that IIRC). This was because the Indilinx controller didn't have any over-provisioning, so 64GiB of flash corresponds to 60GB, 128GiB to 120GB, etc. Unlike most disks, original Vertex was actually marketed based on its GiB capacity. Vertex 2 went back to advertising GB like most manufacturers use, though.
Anyway, the reason people are upset about the 25nm shrink is that it wasn't accompanied by a change in product name as was the case from Vertex to Vertex 2. Consumers received no heads up that they were receiving a functionally different product. They were selling a different product and still advertising it as a 60GB Vertex 2, when in fact it was only 55GB and slower as well. The two situations aren't even comparable.
Anyway, the reason people are upset about the 25nm shrink is that it wasn't accompanied by a change in product name as was the case from Vertex to Vertex 2. Consumers received no heads up that they were receiving a functionally different product. They were selling a different product and still advertising it as a 60GB Vertex 2, when in fact it was only 55GB and slower as well. The two situations aren't even comparable.
Ah yeah I remember some manufacturers selling drives with their actual GiB values - but then I'm pretty sure that was mentioned for those parts and also several manufacturers didn't (i.e. sold the drives as 64GB) and giving your consumers MORE space than they can reasonably expect is hardly the same as giving them less 😉
If I buy a disk that advertises that it contains X GB I want at least my X GB - if I get more I'll hardly complain (nobody sells HDD with 20% more advertised space just because the ECC and Co takes up some space).
And then there's also the part you bring up - people would probably still be pissed off if they had changed it midterm without any notification.
taltamir
Lifer
That is simply false.
OCZ did not get burned for taking the leap first. OCZ implemented SEVERAL cost cutting measures at once on a "new model" of a drive that was marketted under the same name. Known as bait and switch, or fraud. And OCZ did not try to make things right, they tried to wring more money with a paid upgrade plan. And even now when they finally relented, you are still not getting the drive you were promised, just a more equivalent one (you get the same speed and size, but you still lose out on write endurance; 2/3 is better than nothing though)
We people did not complain when OCZ switched from indilinx to sandforce because they didn't try to defraud anyone.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=736
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=736&type=expert
As you can clearly see, OCZ sold indilinx drives under the names Vertex and Agility.
While Sandforce drives as Vertex 2 and Agility 2.
While it gets more muddy with the LX and EX there are still unique names. If I buy a Vertex EX I can look it up and know EXACTLY what I am getting.
Also the sandforce drives were actually better.
The issue here is that people buying the "exact same" Vertex 2 after a certain date got a different, inferior drive... which was cheaper to make.
If Company X was selling Ginormo ring 20oz of gold and decided to "cut costs" by putting 19oz of gold in the same package that says "20oz gold" then they are committing fraud.
Also, they lied about its capacity, something which hasn't been done before.
Last edited:
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
There's no 64GiB of flash, there's 64GB of flash. 60GiB means there's 55.9GB of actual capacity. That equates to 8.1GB or 12.7% for over provisioning.
Actually exactly the other way round 😉 60GiB would be ~64GB
1 GiB = 1024^3/1000^3 GB or about 1.074GB
Last edited:
taltamir
Lifer
GiB = binary giga, GB = either binary OR base10 giga (it is not clearly defined).
Drive makers use it to mean base 10 giga (scientific notation) such that 60GB could mean 60,000,000,000 which equals to 55.88GiB = 55.88 binary giga.
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
You guys are right, its the other way around. Damn hard drive makers. 😛
That's still 4GiB/(or is it GB?) of over-provisioning.
That's still 4GiB/(or is it GB?) of over-provisioning.
watzup_ken
Member
This is exactly the problem. 25nm or not, it is the way they implemented it that made it have less space and speed. The heaviest hit is probably the write speed which see a proportionate decline due to the reduce in number of channels used. At this point they still refuse to own up addressing only to the loss of capacity issue. This is going to be the last product I get from a company that do not acknowledge their wrong doing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
