OCZ Vertex 4 Review (256GB, 512GB)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 4, 2012 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload
Our new light workload actually has more write operations than read operations. The split is as follows: 372,630 reads and 459,709 writes. The relatively close read/write ratio does better mimic a typical light workload (although even lighter workloads would be far more read centric).
The I/O breakdown is similar to the heavy workload at small IOs, however you'll notice that there are far fewer large IO transfers:
| AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload IO Breakdown | ||||
| IO Size | % of Total | |||
| 4KB | 27% | |||
| 16KB | 8% | |||
| 32KB | 6% | |||
| 64KB | 5% | |||
Our light workload is far more representative of a mainstream client workload (read heavy) and this is where the Vertex 4's sequential read performance hurts it the most. The Samsung SSD 830 ends up being considerably faster here. Once again, if we look at the breakdown of reads and writes we see why:
Read performance is around half of the best performers, while write speed is around 30% better. The combination results in competitive but not class-leading performance.If OCZ is able to deliver, at a minimum, Octane levels of read performance, the Vertex 4 should find itself much higher in the overall charts.
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.