OCZ Z-Drive R3

OCZ also demonstrated the new Z-Drive R3, a PCIe SSD with four SF-1500 controllers behind a Marvell RAID controller. The end result is the performance of four SandForce SSDs in RAID-0 on a single half-height PCIe card:

OCZ ran a quick run of ATTO on the Z-Drive R3 at the show, showing peak reads/writes of 1GB/s.

New 3.5” Chassis

OCZ also demonstrated a new, slimmer chassis for its 3.5” SSDs like the Vertex 2 and Agility 2:

 

On the other end of the spectrum, OCZ presented an even bigger (physically) drive: the IBIS XL. Now this isn’t going to be productized, but it’s simply something to test the waters with. The IBIS XL fits into a standard 5.25” drive by and starts at 4TB. 

Speaking of IBIS, OCZ plans to bring an optical version of the IBIS’ HSDL interface to the market. OCZ didn’t have a live demo of optical HSDL, but here’s a shot of an optical HSDL card:

Unfortunately OCZ has yet to convince any motherboard makers to implement HSDL ports on boards, so at this point the standard continues to be quite limited.

OCZ's Vertex 3 Pro
POST A COMMENT

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • evilspoons - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    The Vertex 2 / Agility 2 dissipate like ONE WATT while being tortured (http://www.anandtech.com/show/3681/oczs-vertex-2-s...

    I hardly think it's a problem.
    Reply
  • ppokorny - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    I recently had a chance to use those new 3.5" drives, and they mix plastic and metal mounting holes in a way that makes the mechanical fit not be flush on the sides.

    That caused problems when I had to mount the drives in a hot-swap drive tray of a server.
    Reply
  • marraco - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    Of course, the Vertex 3 should saturate SATA 2 on sequential speed, but I wish to know how much slower performs on 4 Kb tests when connected to SATA 2. Reply
  • Marc HFR - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    Dear Anand,

    4K Random read is more than 3 times faster than SF-1200 one.

    Are you sure you 8GB LBA space restriction on this test ?
    Reply
  • H8ff0000 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    A lot of us want to know this. I know there's probably no info on this, but some sort of ballpark figures would help OCZ's business. If people heard a ballpark figure that didn't scare the piss out of them, they very well might actually wait for this to come to market instead of buying a C400. If I remember correctly, they said somewhere around $200 for a 120GB C400. If this were $250ish ballpark I'd wait. Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    Problem is that if they threw out a number now for a product they are hoping to launch in 4-5 months, even saying it is "ballpark" people will complain if they don't hit it. Say they said $250 right now, and you wait, and they launch in June at $300 for 120GB. Some users would be extremely upset by the wait and the "price increase". Reply
  • tjoynt - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    Why the heck did Intel decide to name their "some % random" IOMeter write strategy "pseudo random"? "pseudo random" already means something and it is not that. :( Reply
  • vol7ron - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    Page 1:
    "I get 518MB/s sequential write speed and nearly 500MB/s for sequential read"
    - Are you sure that's accurate, or is it natural to have sequential write faster than sequential read?

    Page 2:
    '5.25” drive by'
    - Probably meant drive bay
    Reply
  • glugglug - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    On normally HDDs, random write is almost always faster than random read because the buffer cache used by the controller has a far more significant impact on writes.

    On an SSD maybe this applies to even sequential I/O as the wear leveling algorithm/ logical-to-physical block mapping may make your sequential operations not really 100% sequential.
    Reply
  • FilipK959 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link

    Well, my old Pentium 3 PC the PC 100 sdram had a transfer rate 420Mb per second according to SiSoft Sandra if I remember correctly so this is just amazing that a mass storage device can pull this off. :)) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now