OWC - Hot on OCZ’s Heels

Other World Computing, a well known Mac parts reseller, is now also an SSD manufacturer with its own SF-1500 based product.

It’s called the OWC Mercury Extreme Enterprise SSD and is identical to OCZ’s Vertex LE. OWC appears to be a bit behind OCZ as the drives they’ve been sending out still have the older version of SandForce’s firmware. OWC’s pricing appears to be on-par with OCZ’s Vertex LE, but I don’t have final word on availability. Update: It looks like drives are actually available! No word on what firmware revision is shipping on these drives though, I hope to have that information next week.

OWC's SF-1500 sans supercap

The OWC 100GB drive I received performs similarly to last year’s Vertex 2 Pro and today’s Vertex Limited Edition but it’s still using the older firmware. I’m shipping it back to OWC and will hopefully get an idea of final pricing, availability and configuration shortly.

Index Crucial/Micron RealSSD C300 - The Closest Competitor


View All Comments

  • allessd - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - link

    maybe this site is of interest to you:

    "SSD Decoder Ring - an SSD comparison guide"
  • Jupie - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - link

    Great article - always nice to hear about SSDs as I clearly see them as the future for a boot drive at least.
    What I'm curious about is the performance of drives of the same series with different capacities. I'm not willing to spend ~800 USD on a drive but rather ~400 USD. How much performance hit does a Real SSD C300 really take? Manufactors clearly seem to prefer to send their biggest drives with the highest performance to test but what about the performance of the reasonalbe priced ~100 GB versions?

    Would be great to read about that as well ;o)
    Otherwise keep up the good articles!
  • MadMan007 - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - link

    Yeah this is an important point, it applies to regular HDs to a much lesser extent too. I would like to see tests on smaller capacity drives of a given series. I guess a lot depends on implentation, for example using the same number of flash chips with a given controller just of a lower capacity per chip versus using fewer flash chips and channels. Reply
  • Conscript - Friday, February 19, 2010 - link

    Not sure why I'd pay the premium for "limited" SF-1500 drives when I can just get the same thing here, for less...


    Anand, any chance you think they'd give you one for review? Thinking about putting one of these in my new MBP (when they come out). Unless the new MBP has SATA 3, in which case I might look hard at the C300.
  • iwodo - Friday, February 19, 2010 - link

    May be Anand can do an article on that. You mention previously that controller contribute VERY little to the total cost of SSD. NAND being the major part.

    If that is the case, then assuming we always need 8 chips for an SSD. SSD Prices wont ever dropped below $100? Because while capacity per unit will grow, it seems minimum unit prices dont fall that much.
  • icrf - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - link

    Yeah, I'd love to see a reliable, slow 8-16 GB drive for $50. I've got a RAID server that can't seem to keep up boot drives and would love something like that. Reply
  • Bolas - Friday, February 19, 2010 - link

    So if I'm willing to spend up to $1200 for a boot drive, what's the best option? Crucial? Vertex LE? Intel? OCZ Z-Drive? Something else? Reply
  • czesiu - Friday, February 19, 2010 - link

    Any chances for a Kingston SNV425 review? Reply
  • mckirkus - Friday, February 19, 2010 - link

    I would like to see what pure RAM drive based storage would do so we can get a sense of how close these drives are getting to some sort of maximum.

    I'm not sure if you can do this with a RAMDisk you create with software or if and entire image would need to run in RAM (HDTach, etc., will not work on RAM drives for some reason. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to benchmarks of RAM using a SATA interface.

    Good stuff yet again Anand.
  • mindless1 - Friday, February 19, 2010 - link

    There is no "sort of maximum", DRAM keeps getting faster.

    However, if you were to create and use a RAMDISK, however you ended up doing so, it would destroy any flash drive in terms of performance on every possible parameter. The question is not about performance at all, rather the implementation and volatile nature of using it... and of course that it's no small feat to end up with hundreds of GB worth of those chips for typical HDD replacement purposes (in a reasonably sized form factor).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now