OCZ vertex 120gb SSD $345 at Amazon (was $332)

[Binky]

OCZ OCZSSD2-1VTX120G 120GB SATA 2 Vertex Series Solid State Drive
$345 & eligible for free shipping with Amazon Prime (price increased from $332)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001NPCTBO


Edit: Looks like the Gskill Falcon is down to $304 at Newegg (increased to $319), making it $332 delivered to California. Almost identical in price to the Vertex through Amazon (no tax). Coincidence?

***Disclaimer - unfounded ramblings below. Use at your own risk***
I still see the other vendors at $370-$400 for this OCZ unit. Maybe the price will drop at other outlets since OCZ is now competing with Gskill, Super Talent, and others with similar drives. I think OCZ still has the advantage with 3 year (vs 2) warranty and what looks like a pretty active support forum. I think Gskill and/or Super Talent have already implemented the Trim feature and OCZ has said it will be done soon for the Vertex series (not that you can utilize it yet...).

 

[imported_Shaq]

What I don't understand is you get a 2-3 year warranty for a drive that is supposed to last 1,500,000 hours. Raptor drives last one-tenth that time and you get a 5 year warranty. Suspicious if you ask me as you should never need to replace it.

 

[postmortemIA]

keep paying for research of this new tech, 3 yrs form now they will cost as much as regular drives.

 

[plion]

will trim be added via firmware or new revision model?

 

[Stas]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
keep paying for research of this new tech, 3 yrs form now they will cost as much as regular drives.

For 3 years these "supporters" will be doing things WAY faster than you and they will enjoy their computers more than you (because it takes them 2 sec to open browser, IM, email client, winamp, <insert>, as opposed to... idk, 2 min?).

 

[Emulex]

just raid-0 two old slc ssd's. they'll be just as fast and last much longer.

i'm waiting for SAS SSD SLC to come down in price

 

[Binky]

Just because you haters can't afford it doesn't mean that other people shouldn't buy shiny new toys. :laugh:

Deal appears to still be alive. Other vendors haven't lowered their prices on OCZ. Like I said above, the prices on the Super Talent and Gskill parts (~120gb) were dropped. to near $300.

 

[jinduy]

i dont own one but based on reviews and such it seems foolish to not buy one for your main HD if you plan on building a brand new rig for the long term (4-5 years minimum)

it's not that expensive when you spread it out over that term

 

[Raider1284]

Originally posted by: Shaq
What I don't understand is you get a 2-3 year warranty for a drive that is supposed to last 1,500,000 hours. Raptor drives last one-tenth that time and you get a 5 year warranty. Suspicious if you ask me as you should never need to replace it.

the 1.5 million hour thing is more for how many "writes" the drive can handle before it can write anymore. All of the ssd drives have this problem. But they have figured out how "under normal load", whatever that is, to last an incredibly long time.

Anyone know how they define "normal load" to get these hour ratings?

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Stas

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
keep paying for research of this new tech, 3 yrs form now they will cost as much as regular drives.

For 3 years these "supporters" will be doing things WAY faster than you and they will enjoy their computers more than you (because it takes them 2 sec to open browser, IM, email client, winamp, <insert>, as opposed to... idk, 2 min?).

LOL, I don't have 5.4krpm but10k rpm drives... with superfetch there's no wait but during boot-up. I am all for performance but not at price $3 per GB, it it exactly 30 times more to pay for than regular drives.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Stas

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
keep paying for research of this new tech, 3 yrs form now they will cost as much as regular drives.

For 3 years these "supporters" will be doing things WAY faster than you and they will enjoy their computers more than you (because it takes them 2 sec to open browser, IM, email client, winamp, <insert>, as opposed to... idk, 2 min?).

LOL, I don't have 5.4krpm but10k rpm drives... with superfetch there's no wait but during boot-up. I am all for performance but not at price $3 per GB, it it exactly 30 times more to pay for than regular drives.

Your Raptor isn't a "regular" drive. I suspect you paid ~$1/GB for your Raptors. SSDs based off of the Indilix controller are faster than your drive in just about every aspect. Take your threadcrap elsewhere.

 

[smackababy]

I love all the people complaining about the cost of SSDs. I remember when I bought my 36GB raptor for $300. Not only is this the same price, but it has most space and is a heck of a lot faster. I would be down for this if I didn't have two 60GB vertexs >_<

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: smackababy
I love all the people complaining about the cost of SSDs. I remember when I bought my 36GB raptor for $300. Not only is this the same price, but it has most space and is a heck of a lot faster. I would be down for this if I didn't have two 60GB vertexs >_<

I'm not going to argue either way since I have a VR and like it a lot for the performance per $ but am also interested in getting an Intel X25-M at some point.

But I wanted to point out that I've seen someone else try to make that same point about the 36GB Raptor and that argument doesn't fly very well. When it was released it was an enthusiast's drive that offered high performance and not a lot of space. The same is true for SSDs now, but that doesn't make them a "good deal" compared to the Raptor since they are many generations apart. If a 36GB 10k RPM Raptor was released today, heck yeah the SSDs are a spectacular deal!

 

[TemjinGold]

Originally posted by: Imyourzero

Originally posted by: smackababy
I love all the people complaining about the cost of SSDs. I remember when I bought my 36GB raptor for $300. Not only is this the same price, but it has most space and is a heck of a lot faster. I would be down for this if I didn't have two 60GB vertexs >_<

I'm not going to argue either way since I have a VR and like it a lot for the performance per $ but am also interested in getting an Intel X25-M at some point.

But I wanted to point out that I've seen someone else try to make that same point about the 36GB Raptor and that argument doesn't fly very well. When it was released it was an enthusiast's drive that offered high performance and not a lot of space. The same is true for SSDs now, but that doesn't make them a "good deal" compared to the Raptor since they are many generations apart. If a 36GB 10k RPM Raptor was released today, heck yeah the SSDs are a spectacular deal!

No but one can argue that this deal is just as good of a deal as that was back then. In other words, it's a good deal for anyone who thought the Raptor was also a good deal back then.

 

[IceRedwing]

people who compare conventional drives with solid state drives are seriously clueless in what they are comparing. Unless you have actually used a quality SSD, you are in no way a credible source for comments regarding the two.

I was no different when it comes to many of you regarding my way of thinking towards SSDs. But having made the switch, I can tell you now that there is no comparison between the fastest conventional drive versus a quality SSD.... just none whatsoever.

If you don't want to believe personal recommendations, then all you need to do is simply read -all- the reviews regarding these SSDs being sold. And they will make the same claim that many of us have.

As far as the 10,000 writes go, that's 10,000 writes to the capacity of the entire drive. Which is quite awhile if you think about it since the writes are spread across the entire drive.

Now is it worth it? that's a personal preference. Many people think those who spend top $ on anything is stupid and the comments of waiting X years to get it only makes sense.

But then again, you will always be X amount of years behind. Those people who had purchased the newest stuff are probably X amount of years ahead of you again by the time you buy whatever the hell you were waiting for to go down in price 😛

 

[plion]

someone please clarify this, these drives are faster than the intel x25m correct? On newegg it says Sequential Access - Read: Up to 250 MB/s and Sequential Access - Write: Up to 180MB/s Sustained Write: Up to 100MB/s Yet intel's 80gb x25m is "Read: Up to 250MB/s and Sequential Access - Write: Up to 70MB/s" Am I missing something?

 

[Emulex]

sorta. the x25m has ZERO cache. it uses its ram (256) for wear leveling mostly.

the indilinx (ocz vertex) uses 64 write back cache.

guess which will pooch if you lose power or it crashes?

intel is light years ahead of others in their tech.

regardless i'd never use MLC in a server environment.

A good drive should last 6-10 years 24x7x365. and they do.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Raider1284

Originally posted by: Shaq
What I don't understand is you get a 2-3 year warranty for a drive that is supposed to last 1,500,000 hours. Raptor drives last one-tenth that time and you get a 5 year warranty. Suspicious if you ask me as you should never need to replace it.

the 1.5 million hour thing is more for how many "writes" the drive can handle before it can write anymore. All of the ssd drives have this problem. But they have figured out how "under normal load", whatever that is, to last an incredibly long time.

Anyone know how they define "normal load" to get these hour ratings?

Huh? MTBF has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how many writes a drive can "handle." The MTBF for the current Raptor is 1.4 millions hours which by my math is nowhere near 1/10th of 1.5 million for whatever SSD drive you were referring to. Practically all drives today have an MTBF around 1.5 million hours. If you do the math (correctly), 1.5 million hours is roughly 170 years. Now clearly, no drive is going to last 170 years, and equally obvious, no hard drive manufacturer would make such an unprovable claim that their drives would in fact last that long. MTBF is statistically relevant only to large numbers of drives. So if a company had 1.5 million of a single type of drive you would expect one drive to fail every hour. The only way you could apply this number to a single drive is if you replaced the drive every time its service life expired (typically 5 years) with an identical model new drive. So if you replaced your drive every 5 years, one out of every 34 drives over the course of 170 years would fail. In other words, MTBF is a meaningless number to any home user, because it doesn't apply to 1 or 2 drives they would typically own. Not to mention that the MTBF of any current selling driving is purely a guesstimate by the manufacturer based on some testing, previous generation drives and other factors. The real MTBF of any given drive family isn't known until years after it has been on the market.

LOL, I don't have 5.4krpm but10k rpm drives... with superfetch there's no wait but during boot-up. I am all for performance but not at price $3 per GB, it it exactly 30 times more to pay for than regular drives.

If you haven't used a quality ssd like the Vertex series, or Intel's, then you simply don't know what you are talking about. A 60GB Vertex drive is less than 5x as much per GB compared to a 300GB VRaptor, while the VR is over 6.5x's as much per GB vs everyone's favorite the 1TB WD Caviar Black. When you consider the Vertex is far faster compared to the VR, than the VR is compared to the Caviar Black, you got royally screwed on value buying a Raptor.

someone please clarify this, these drives are faster than the intel x25m correct?

Sometimes. Overall, no. Sequential read/write speed is an extremely poor method of comparing real world performance of different drives. The Intel drives are definitely better. If you can afford it, and want the fastest, that's the choice.

 

[Emulex]

the indilinx drives are like back when they tweaked 3dmark to score better with cars.

show me vmware tiles comparison or a real benchmark. after a few weeks of using the device.

really the sacrifice is simpler . # of raid-0, aggressiveness of cache, aggressiveness of wear leveling.


pick 2.

slc is 10x as good (Assuming same implementation) as mlc. which is why nobody puts mlc in a server.

 

[imported_Shaq]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Raider1284

Originally posted by: Shaq
What I don't understand is you get a 2-3 year warranty for a drive that is supposed to last 1,500,000 hours. Raptor drives last one-tenth that time and you get a 5 year warranty. Suspicious if you ask me as you should never need to replace it.

the 1.5 million hour thing is more for how many "writes" the drive can handle before it can write anymore. All of the ssd drives have this problem. But they have figured out how "under normal load", whatever that is, to last an incredibly long time.

Anyone know how they define "normal load" to get these hour ratings?

Huh? MTBF has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how many writes a drive can "handle." The MTBF for the current Raptor is 1.4 millions hours which by my math is nowhere near 1/10th of 1.5 million for whatever SSD drive you were referring to. Practically all drives today have an MTBF around 1.5 million hours. If you do the math (correctly), 1.5 million hours is roughly 170 years. Now clearly, no drive is going to last 170 years, and equally obvious, no hard drive manufacturer would make such an unprovable claim that their drives would in fact last that long. MTBF is statistically relevant only to large numbers of drives. So if a company had 1.5 million of a single type of drive you would expect one drive to fail every hour. The only way you could apply this number to a single drive is if you replaced the drive every time its service life expired (typically 5 years) with an identical model new drive. So if you replaced your drive every 5 years, one out of every 34 drives over the course of 170 years would fail. In other words, MTBF is a meaningless number to any home user, because it doesn't apply to 1 or 2 drives they would typically own. Not to mention that the MTBF of any current selling driving is purely a guesstimate by the manufacturer based on some testing, previous generation drives and other factors. The real MTBF of any given drive family isn't known until years after it has been on the market.

LOL, I don't have 5.4krpm but10k rpm drives... with superfetch there's no wait but during boot-up. I am all for performance but not at price $3 per GB, it it exactly 30 times more to pay for than regular drives.

If you haven't used a quality ssd like the Vertex series, or Intel's, then you simply don't know what you are talking about. A 60GB Vertex drive is less than 5x as much per GB compared to a 300GB VRaptor, while the VR is over 6.5x's as much per GB vs everyone's favorite the 1TB WD Caviar Black. When you consider the Vertex is far faster compared to the VR, than the VR is compared to the Caviar Black, you got royally screwed on value buying a Raptor.

someone please clarify this, these drives are faster than the intel x25m correct?

Sometimes. Overall, no. Sequential read/write speed is an extremely poor method of comparing real world performance of different drives. The Intel drives are definitely better. If you can afford it, and want the fastest, that's the choice.

oops..I was thinking about power supplies for some reason. My power supply has a 100,000+ MTBF and is backed by a 3 year warranty. So these SSD's are a little under-warrantied for their estimated service life compared to Velociraptors and especially compared to a power supply which is one-tenth the life of a quality hard drive/SSD. On that note will the new WD line of SSD's have a 5 year warranty? I plan on buying an SSD in a couple of months once I can get a fast 120GB for about $250 or so.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Emulex
the indilinx drives are like back when they tweaked 3dmark to score better with cars.

show me vmware tiles comparison or a real benchmark. after a few weeks of using the device.

really the sacrifice is simpler . # of raid-0, aggressiveness of cache, aggressiveness of wear leveling.


pick 2.

slc is 10x as good (Assuming same implementation) as mlc. which is why nobody puts mlc in a server.

No one puts an MLC into a server because it wears faster. SLCs have 10x the durability of an MLC. However, for consumers, you're probably going to replace the drive in 3-4 years so it doesn't matter much longer it lasts. A server however, uses more way more GB per day than your average home PC, so they need the extra writes.

The vertex drives as well as the "summit" samsung drives each have their own methods of dealing with performance loss after you "fill" the drive up. The vertex drives have a "wiper" tool (can't be used in raid) that will clear out deleted space. The summit drives clean themselves out in idle mode with no external program.