I mentioned in our Mid-Range SSD Roundup that most SSD vendors like sampling the best balance of capacity/performance when it comes to SSD review samples. For the SandForce SF-2281 with 25nm NAND that just happens to be 240GB. Unfortunately there's a pretty big fall off in performance when going from 240GB to 120GB due to the decrease in total number of NAND die (8GB per die x 32 die vs. 16 die). I've explained this all before here.

Enter OCZ's MAX IOPS drive. Using 32nm Toshiba Toggle NAND instead of 25nm IMFT ONFI 2.x NAND the die capacity drops to 4GB, which means you get twice as many die per NAND device. The end result? 240GB Vertex 3 performance for slightly more than 120GB Vertex 3 pricing.

 

I ordered the 120GB MAX IOPS drive at the beginning of the week and just got it in yesterday so I've only had a small amount of time to test with it thus far. Check out the 120GB MAX IOPS drive vs. the Intel SSD 510 in Bench using our 2011 storage test suite. Expect the full review in the coming days.

POST A COMMENT

107 Comments

View All Comments

  • sean.crees - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    I am so glad they have comments on these articles. I swear i learn more from people who comment on the articles than the articles themselves.

    OCZ almost had my money. Anand never seems to put much emphasis on instability issues with the non Intel SSD's. Sure he mentions it in passing in a sorta "ho hum, you don't really have to worry about this because the hand picked samples i get always work" sort of way. But when there are huge bar graphs you see him talk those up a lot about how that's all that matters.

    The problem is there should not be a stability vs performance decision. Stability is non negotiable. It should not even be part of the equation. It should be speed differences in different types of work loads and applications and thats it. You would never see a CPU review of AMD or Intel where they talked at the end about "well if your willing to give up some stability you can get more speed from this". NO WAY! They would say "this thing is not stable, don't buy it" because it doesn't matter how fast it is if it only works 90% of the time.
    Reply
  • L. - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    99% of the OCZ drives have no issues it seems.
    There is a stability vs performance decision BECAUSE your OWN disk drives are NOT replicated locally and remotely.
    Reply
  • michal1980 - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    really 99% have to issues?

    You have some data to back that up? Or just another OCZ troll.
    Reply
  • DarkKnight_Y2K - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    You can go to OCZ’s Support Forum, count all of the unique Member Names that have signed up and posted a complaint about bsod issues with their drives and divide that number by the total amount of drives (Vertex 3s, Agility 3s, Solid 3s) sold.

    I believe the 1-2% is accurate but if OCZ is lying it’s probably not that difficult to find out the truth.
    Reply
  • michal1980 - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    Which ignores all users that just returned the drive. Or used phone support, or used support on a different forum.

    again, that 99% no problem number is just made up.

    P.S. did ocz release the number of drives sold?
    Reply
  • semo - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    OCZ are also running a very censored forum so some threads get deleted without an explanation. I also don't believe that arbitrary 1% figure.

    @OP. It took a very long time for Anand to even cover the 25nm transition fiasco. Even without a mass recall of all affected drives, Anand was satisfied with OCZ's handling of the issue.

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=21433...
    Reply
  • DarkKnight_Y2K - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    You have a valid point but would you just return drive or contact the manufacturer by phone? It’s possible but I believe most people in 2011 with SSD, HDD, memory, graphic card, motherboard, power supply, cpu problems are going directly to the manufacturer’s web site at least once to see if their issue can be resolved.

    I don’t know if OCZ have released worldwide sales figures but my general point was if they are lying someone with determination (competitors?) can find out the truth.
    Reply
  • michal1980 - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    a good chunk of the competion is using the same chipset, they have little to gain by bashing OCZ. Reply
  • e-drood - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    the sandforce 2000 series controllers have synchronicity & voltage transient issues beyond simple firmware update(s) resolution - the marchitecture has flaw(s)/omission(s).

    corsair acted quickly to recall to protect market rep AND establish "plausible denial of wrongdoing" should product defect litigation begin.

    ocz is AGGRESSIVELY deleting posts & threads containing any CRITIQUE of V3SF2000 ssd's & using HOSTILE online ocz staff forum comments to shift responsibility to any 3rd party chipset manufacturer AND to purchasers who are described/strongly implied to be technically incompetent and/or unable to follow simple installation instructions (ie: the multiple sets of 10-16 step instructions has reached the point of absurdity and INSULT).

    and the STAR PLAYER SANDFORCE has NOT issued single comment - first 1200 series controller disaster, NOW 2000 series controller mega-disaster -- THIS MARCHITECTURE DESIGN HOUSE HAS NO CREDIBILITY ANY LONGER! We Users Are Foolish To Support This Nonsense...
    Reply
  • werewolf2000 - Saturday, June 18, 2011 - link

    I agree with Jeff72 ... I had similar problems with Vertex 3 240 GB (two of them). I also discovered too late that these liars from OCZ created a slower version of this SSD and I got such crippled ones.
    Never more anything from them.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now