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
RussianSensation - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
It seems after extensive use and degradation, the Corsair Performance Pro is one of the best, even besting the Crucial M4:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/m...
meloz - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
What's the deal with using such an enormous SoC built on 65nm process?I can understand OCZ / Indilinx not willing to shell premium for cutting edge 28nm process, but they could have at least used 45nm process.
With a 45nm process the SoC would be a lot smaller, thermal management would be easier (and cheaper), and power consumption would be lower (firmware update or not).
The cost of more modern process is easily balanced by the fact that they would get a lot more chips of a 300nm wafer with 45nm rather than 65nm.
Vertex 4 is a good improvement from OCZ, but they need to get serious about their execution and 'little details' if they still want to exist in another 5 years. Marvell, SandForce and Intel are not standing still and as competition increases the price of such poor decisions will weigh heavily against OCZ.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
While we obviously can't speak for OCZ, when it comes to processes do keep in mind that costs escalate with the process. Older processes are not only cheaper because they have effectively reached their maximum yields, but the cost of their development has always been paid off, allowing the fabs to sell wafer runs at a lower cost and still book a profit.For a sufficiently simple device, the additional number of dice per wafer may not offset the higher per-wafer costs, lower yield, and demand-driven pricing. 4x nm processes are still booked solid, and will be for some time.
NCM - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
Firmware "promises" aren't worth the guarantee they're not written on.We buy today's product, not the product there might be in some indefinite future.
rw1986 - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
seems intel NAND would cost more and OCZ buys most of their NAND from Micron I believeKristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
Without knowing the prices, it's hard to say anything. Intel and Micron NAND come from the same fab so the silicon quality is the same. Intel does rate their NAND higher (5000 vs 3000 P/E cycles) and both companies have their own validation processes, so it's possible that Intel NAND is slightly higher quality.It's possible that OCZ sources NAND from several fabs for the Vertex 4. E.g. Vertex 3 used NAND from Intel, Micron, Spectec and Hynix. Micron NAND is available in higher quantity as they own more plants, so that's why it's more common. Price wise I guess they are all about the same, though.
bji - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
Any time a drive has a significant amount of RAM in it, I get a bit worried about the possibility of data loss on power outage. If the drive has the name OCZ attached, this worry becomes a huge concern. I would not be at all surprised if OCZ increased performance in part by reducing durability in the face of power outage.If the RAM is used as a write buffer, then on power outage the data is lost. This is not a problem if the drive correctly reports this state to the operating system - i.e., not telling the operating system that the data is sync'd to permanent storage until it's been written out of RAM cache into the flash cells. But if the drive cheats by telling the operating system that the blocks have been written when they have been stored in its RAM rather than when the blocks have actually made it to the flash cells, then data can be lost despite the guarantee that the drive has given that it can't.
Cheating in this way could make write performance look better, and given that the drive looks particularly good for write performance and has a lot of RAM on board, I am very, very suspicious.
What about testing this drive's durability in the face of power loss?
geddarkstorm - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
That's a good question.However, from the article it sounds like the RAM is mostly being used to prefetch reads, rather than buffer writes.
bji - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
That's Anandtech's conjecture. Even if OCZ told them it was so, it's not proven, as OCZ could be lying to cover the deficiency.FunBunny2 - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - link
Exactly!! An "Enterprise SSD" with no superCap?? That needs some 'splainin.