OCZ Vertex 4 Review (256GB, 512GB)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 4, 2012 9:00 AM ESTFinal Words
After years of begging, OCZ has finally delivered much of what we've wanted in an SSD: low write amplification and very good random/sequential write performance. It could use a more aggressive real-time garbage collection algorithm but running an OS with TRIM, that's mostly picking nits. The Vertex 4 takes write performance seriously and delivers handsomely, besting even the latest from Intel and Samsung. The advantage over SandForce is clear, particularly because Everest 2 and the Vertex 4 are able to deliver consistent performance regardless of data composition. SandForce's realtime compression/dedupe technology is definitely exciting, but if you're able to deliver similar or better performance without the inconsistency of data-dependency the choice is obvious. SandForce definitely set the bar very high with the SF-2281, but Everest 2 has the potential to exceed it - assuming OCZ/Indilinx can deliver on its promises.
Sequential read performance is unfortunately just as important for client workloads, and the Vertex 4 doesn't do nearly as well there. If OCZ is able to improve its low queue depth sequential read performance through a firmware update in the coming weeks, it will truly have built a drive (and controller) that are among the fastest on the market. I see no reason that OCZ shouldn't be able to achieve this given the sequential read performance we saw from Octane, but as is always the case with these types of launches we have to review the product we have, not the product we'll get.
Should nothing change, the tradeoff is an interesting one. OCZ effectively gives us three of the four corners of raw performance, and competitive sequential read speeds under heavy load. Does giving up the bottom end of sequential read performance matter? For users with very write intensive or generally IO heavy workloads, the tradeoff is likely worth it. It almost feels like OCZ should have launched the enterprise version of the Vertex 4 first, given its strengths. For more typical mainstream client workloads, the Vertex 4 isn't as good of a fit. The drive is still usable, but it's far from industry-leading when it comes to low queue depth read speeds. Admittedly it is industry-leading in write performance even in mainstream workloads, but the combination of the two is really what's missing. As we demonstrated with our copy test, the Vertex 4 is able to deliver good real world read performance but as our Light Storage Bench suite shows the read performance isn't consistently high. It's a frustrating dynamic, one that I truly hope is mitigated with the next firmware release as OCZ has promised.
Idle power consumption is also a concern of mine. As it stands, consuming over 1W when doing nothing isn't ok for a notebook drive. OCZ tells us a fix is on the way for this as well, but someone buying today needs to keep this in mind if it's going into a portable. The impact to overall battery life shouldn't be tremendous, but if you're on a quest to squeeze every last minute out of a single charge you may want to consider some of the alternatives.
Validation is and has always been a hot topic with every new SSD. OCZ is taking things more seriously and more importantly, has better access to fix bugs as they come up. With direct access to the firmware source code (a benefit of owning Indilinx), OCZ shouldn't have the same limits it has had in the past when working with third party controller vendors. The presumption is that now, if bugs come up in the field or during testing, they can be addressed as quickly as the Indilinx firmware engineers can type out a workaround. It remains to be seen how this works in practice, but the concept is at least sound.
In the end, as with most brand new controllers and SSD reviews our conclusion is to wait. Vertex 4 is a unique drive that really delivers a lot of what we've been asking for from a performance standpoint, but with some tangible caveats that we're told will be resolved in the coming weeks. If you're buying an SSD today, our standarding recommendation (particularly for Mac users) is Samsung's SSD 830. If you have a workload that demands better write and/or random read performance, let's see how this and other soon-to-be-announced drives behave over time before jumping the gun.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
127 Comments
View All Comments
rw1986 - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link
This seems very speculative. OCZ has admitted collaboration with Marvell (for example on their new Kilimanjaro platform for the Z-Drive R5 PCIe SSD).here is the link to the OCZ Everest 2 announcement: http://www.ocztechnology.com/aboutocz/press/2012/4...
In the announcement, OCZ makes some specific claims surrounding Everest 2 -- for example:
"the Everest 2 SSD controller reduces latency to 0.043ms for read operations and 0.026ms for write operations, yielding an improvement of approximately 80 percent over the previous Everest SSD controller generation"
"The advanced, multi-level BCH ECC engine with progressive error correction adapts to the specific error characteristics of different NAND devices. The programmable ECC engine achieves an effective correction power of up to 128 bits per 1KB of data while significantly reducing the uncorrectable bit error rate (UBER)."
The Marvell sheet emphasizes some similar things (high performance, error correction technology) but these are more general claims than what OCZ has listed in their Everest 2 spec sheet.
Is the foundation of your assumption that Everest 2 is just the 88SS9187 that the spec sheets sound similar? That does not seem conclusive to put it generously
jwilliams4200 - Saturday, April 7, 2012 - link
There is no hard evidence that is publicly available since OCZ is keeping it quiet for obvious reasons.The Octane uses a rebadged Marvell 88SS9174, and the Vertex 4 uses a rebadged Marvell 88SS9187.
rw1986 - Saturday, April 7, 2012 - link
I'm just curious how you can make these claims so authoritatively when, as you say "there is no hard evidence that is publicly available" to support your position.What you seem to be suggesting is that OCZ made a 32 million dollar acquisition in April of 2011 (Indilinx) and then decided to simply license and rebadge controllers from Marvell rather than build internally (which is completely contrary to what OCZ has told investors and the public). On a Thursday conference call OCZ's CEO was quite adamant that Everest 2 is completely their IP and will improve their profit margin strucutre as a result (since they don't have to pay a fee to Sandforce for each controller as before). If what you are saying is true then OCZ has misled their investors at best.
This is a pretty serious accusation you are making here and it would be nice if you had a little more to say in support of it than "trust me, i know." If you were really in a position to know then I doubt you would be posting on the comments section at AT.
I'd be interested to hear some experts weigh in on this exchange. How could we verify or disprove that the Everest 2 is really not Indilinx but instead a rebadged 9187? Surely some analysis can be done on the ASIC
jwilliams4200 - Saturday, April 7, 2012 - link
It isn't very important to me either way, since I have no financial interest. But OCZ has a history of dishonesty, and it bothers me to see them get away it.If it is important to you, you could start by contacting the appropriate people at OCZ and asking whether the controllers in the Octane and the Vertex 4 have similar or identical circuits with Marvell controllers.
jwilliams4200 - Wednesday, April 11, 2012 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5741/ocz-confirms-oc...hackztor - Friday, April 13, 2012 - link
Good job on being correct. I think alot of people feel betrayed again by ocz. Last time i will purchase their product no matter what.pookguy88 - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
so wait, right now they'll (256gb, 512gb) ship with 1gb DRAM but later on 512mb? Is it just me or is that going to be a huge deal for customers once they realize that they basically got jacked 512mb of RAM vs early adopters?pattycake0147 - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
I inferred that the smaller drives will ship with 1GB but only 512MB will be used on the drive.Voo - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
Considering that was explicitly stated in the article there's not much to infer here is it?"Oh no I was jacked from 512mb that were deactivated anyhow - what a scandal!"
antef - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
Why is your standard recommendation still the Samsung SSD 830? Given the performance, prices, and most notably, the incredibly excellent reviews on sites like Newegg, the Crucial M4 would still be my recommendation to new shoppers.