The OCZ Vertex 3 Review (120GB)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 6, 2011 6:32 PM EST
Overall System Performance using PCMark Vantage
Next up is PCMark Vantage, another system-wide performance suite. For those of you who aren’t familiar with PCMark Vantage, it ends up being the most real-world-like hard drive test I can come up with. It runs things like application launches, file searches, web browsing, contacts searching, video playback, photo editing and other completely mundane but real-world tasks. I’ve described the benchmark in great detail before but if you’d like to read up on what it does in particular, take a look at Futuremark’s whitepaper on the benchmark; it’s not perfect, but it’s good enough to be a member of a comprehensive storage benchmark suite. Any performance impacts here would most likely be reflected in the real world.
If we use PCMark as an indication of light system performance, the Vertex 3 120GB does pretty well here.
153 Comments
View All Comments
Kepe - Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - link
I'd say the reason is usually that when a company has sold you its product, they suddenly lose all interest in you until they come up with a new product to sell. Apple used to be a very good example with its battery policy. "So, your battery died? We don't sell new or replace dead batteries, but you can always buy the new, better iPod."It's this kind of ignorance towards the consumers that is absolutely appalling, and Anand is doing a great job at fighting for the consumer's rights. He should get some sort of an award for all he has done. Reply
Super - Friday, April 08, 2011 - link
...perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize. ?? i've seen someone win it for a whole lot less *cough Obama ReplyA5 - Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - link
Agreed - glad they listen to Anand.The real question is why they didn't do anything until Anand bitched to the CEO directly. It's not like they weren't aware of the issue - the Storage Review article came out several months ago... Reply
darckhart - Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - link
It just goes to show that companies are not customer focused. Unless they get shoved hard enough, or see that the bottom line will be affected greatly, they just hope you'll give up after being mired in the revolving email chain or sent through 5 level deep phone support.Thanks Anand for reminding companies that some of us are still capable of making informed decisions and aren't afraid to express our dissatisfaction with our dollars. Reply
789427 - Thursday, April 07, 2011 - link
It's not about being customer focussed or not. Quite frankly, what percentage of upgraders will go into this level of detail?Furthermore, 25nm sounds better than 35nm to most people and that's salesmen included.
After all that, it's a victory for transparency for a tiny few.
In terms of marketing, there's little you can do except re-brand the entire product range.
e.g. Silver and Silver Pro for the lower capacities, Gold and Gold Pro for the higher capacities and explain on the box that fewer chips means generally lower performance
The problem here is that this is the cutting edge of technology and that in 12 months time, it will be surpassed. Then how do you re-vamp the line?
Graphics cards have this problem too and the model numbers are baffling for 99% of first-time buyers.
What I would advocate is a sticker valid for 3 months on the product that lets you know which product in terms of performance you are buying and a URL you can visit to check for an update.
e.g.
Your product: xyz 300-35
is better than xyz 300-24
but is worse than 300-ii
Check Real performance figures here: URL
Then it would be nice for salesmen to allow customers to verify this.
cb Reply
cactusdog - Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - link
Yep, at least OCZ have made a commitment not to use slow hynix nand and are being more transparent with real world performance but its all too little too late.Branding drives with the 25 or 34nm prefix is redundant now that all(or most) nand being produced is 25nm. Ocz made no real attempt to fix the problem when they needed to, and continued to sell the drives even after the consumer backlash.
I disagree with Anand that other manufacturers of sandforce controller drives hide the specs as OCZ did. Corsair rebranded their 25nm drives from the start. Other non sandforce drives from Intel also rebranded their 25nm drives.
Its true that many companies use different components and use the same branding but rarely does the performance vary as much as 30%. 30% is a huge and not acceptable for high end expensive parts..
Its a pity Anand didnt really have anything to add on the Spectek issue that hasnt already been said. I find it hard to believe a company like Micron would sell very expensive nand cheaper to Spectek unless there is some problem with it.
Saying Spectek nand must be OK because it is still rated at 3000 cycles doesnt sound very thorough or tell us the whole story. The cycle rating could have very different testing standards between Micron and Spectek.
I would have thought it would be easy for someone like Anand to ask Micron or Spectek if the Spectek nand is tier 1 nand or not. I wouldnt trust OCZ response given their track record.
Overall though thanks Anand for sticking up for the consumers. Reply
Powerlurker - Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - link
According to their corporate website "SpecTek began at Micron in 1988 as a component-recovery group." which would lead me to believe that they're Micron's low-end brand for disposing of lower performing dies. ReplyXneb - Thursday, April 07, 2011 - link
That is correct. testing is the same though so end users should not be able to tell the difference between spectek and imft nand in these drives. Replysleepeeg3 - Thursday, April 07, 2011 - link
You can't fault him for reporting honestly. There is no concrete data that shows Spectek NAND is inferior to Micron. ReplyAlkapwn - Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - link
Ditto! Keep up the great work! We all appreciate it greatly! Reply