Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    423
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked
    18 times in 17 posts
    • GaryRW's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte P35C DS3R
      • CPU:
      • Q6600 @ 3ghz
      • Memory:
      • DDR2 4gb
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GT
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520w
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 2032BW

    Exclamation OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    I've just done a quick search and can't see this has been highlighted by anyone - apologies if it has.

    It seems OCZ has quietly moved to 25nm flash in their SSD's. (I haven't seen a massive reduction in price, have you?) Lots of people are reporting both that the performance is not as good and the formatted capacity is lower due to increased over-provisioning.

    The performance issue seems to be a bit unclear at the moment. OCZ certainly don't seem to be openly holding their hands up to any performance hit. But they do seem to be openly admitting that there is a requirement for increased over-provisioning. The explanations on their forum seem a bit misleading to me - they keep saying that the amount of flash is the same (e.g. for 120 gig drive, it still has 128 gig) and keep referring to the age old problem of GiB vs GB. However, people are reporting that the new 25nm Vertex 2 120 drives are showing up as 115GB (first link below confirms OCZ accept that), not 120GB and they seem to side step that the drives are actually reduced in usable/formatted capacity.

    So if all this is taken at face value, OCZ seem to think it's ok to reduce usable space without making it a new product or informing customers of the change...

    a few links:

    http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...ighlight=115gb

    http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...OCZ-SSD-drives

    http://www.guru3d.com/news/ocz-verte...ported-slower/

    http://www.storagereview.com/ssds_sh..._you_need_know

  2. #2
    Pre-Cambrian nibbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    913
    Thanked
    266 times in 216 posts
    • nibbler's system
      • CPU:
      • i5-2410m
      • Memory:
      • 6GB ddr3 1333mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Plextor M5S SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 1GB 6650M
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 64 bit

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    My vertex 2e 120gb shows as 111gb, I'm pretty sure this happens with many drives, no problem for me, I knew it before hand and it's still a great drive.
    Join the HEXUS Folding@home Team!!


  3. #3
    Pork & Beans Powerup Phage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    6,093
    Thanks
    1,519
    Thanked
    578 times in 494 posts
    • Phage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair VI
      • CPU:
      • 1700x @ 3.9
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb Corsair LPX
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 512Gb + 2Tb Seagate SSHD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080ti
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 850w
      • Case:
      • Fractal R4
      • Operating System:
      • W10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Agon Gsync

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Quote Originally Posted by nibbler View Post
    My vertex 2e 120gb shows as 111gb, I'm pretty sure this happens with many drives, no problem for me, I knew it before hand and it's still a great drive.
    Same here. I believe that those blocks are set aside as vacant space to kep performance up.
    Society's to blame,
    Or possibly Atari.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,308
    Thanks
    599
    Thanked
    289 times in 201 posts

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Still a good drive but for people that have an older drive and are looking to upgrade or RAID 2 drives together then theres issues, model/part numbers should of been changed...
    I was about to order a new drive but not so sure now...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,570
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked
    309 times in 247 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Quote Originally Posted by nibbler View Post
    My vertex 2e 120gb shows as 111gb, I'm pretty sure this happens with many drives, no problem for me, I knew it before hand and it's still a great drive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phage View Post
    Same here. I believe that those blocks are set aside as vacant space to kep performance up.
    I think you've both missed the point:
    The old 34nm drives Show an unformatted capacity of 120GB
    The new 25nm drives show an unformatted capacity of 115GB
    The old 34nm drives Show a windows formatted capacity of 111 GiB
    The new 25nm drives show a windows formatted capacity 107GiB

    They are still advertised as Vertex 2 120GB despite only having 115GB and different performance.
    Both drives actually have 128GB of NAND. The problem is that they use half as many NAND chips.
    RAISE needs 1 NAND chip for redundant data, regardless of capacity, like RAID-5

    Regardless of how you look at this, calling a drive with 115GB unformatted capacity a 120GB drive is simply a lie.
    To avoid lying, they can simple call the 25nm drive a Vertex 2 115GB. They refuse to do this.

    If you bought a car that advertised a 60 liter fuel tank and only got a 55 liter fuel tank in yours and it turns out that the manufacturer continued to advertise a 60 Liter fuel tank, you'd probably be unhappy.
    If you were then told it's OK because very few people actually let the needle go into the red so they are not lying you'd probably be even more annoyed after running out of fuel.

    TBH, this won't put me off buying one - however I'm not paying current prices for one. £110+VAT for 115GB sounds more like it.
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  6. Received thanks from:

    GaryRW (15-02-2011),nibbler (15-02-2011),Phage (15-02-2011)

  7. #6
    Butter king GheeTsar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The shire of berks
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked
    260 times in 163 posts
    • GheeTsar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 2500k
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung EVO 850 1 TB + 2 x 1TB Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS Radeon R9 280X
      • PSU:
      • Tagan TG600-U33 600W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer 24" 120Hz GD245HQ
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100mb

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    I have a tiny bit of sympathy for OCZ - they claim they can only buy 25nm chips now (and that most SSD manufacturers are in the same boat) and as they are not as robust as the 32nm chips they have to increase the reserved space to ensure the drives wear at the same rate as before.

    In theory the new chips should facilitate a price drop too, which would be a good thing. I've not seen this materialise though.

    However it does seem below board that the new drives are not as good as the previous versions and yet there is no way to tell which you are buying short of opening the SSD and voiding the warranty in the process.

    I'd personally steer clear of OCZ as a result - but then again; who's to say the other manufacturers aren't doing the same too?

  8. #7
    Pre-Cambrian nibbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    913
    Thanked
    266 times in 216 posts
    • nibbler's system
      • CPU:
      • i5-2410m
      • Memory:
      • 6GB ddr3 1333mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Plextor M5S SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 1GB 6650M
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 64 bit

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    OK, it was slightly unclear from the OP. I see your point then, but mine is 111gb formatted so I'm on an old 34nm drive then?
    Join the HEXUS Folding@home Team!!


  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    423
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked
    18 times in 17 posts
    • GaryRW's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte P35C DS3R
      • CPU:
      • Q6600 @ 3ghz
      • Memory:
      • DDR2 4gb
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800GT
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520w
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 2032BW

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Quote Originally Posted by nibbler View Post
    OK, it was slightly unclear from the OP. I see your point then, but mine is 111gb formatted so I'm on an old 34nm drive then?
    Yeah, badass explained it better than me....

    (tbh, I've never been 100% sure about the whole Gib vs GB thing when it comes to SSD's - until this came up, I thought it wasn't an issue as flash storage was binary in nature, but obviously I was wrong)

    Anyway, from what you've said - yes, you've probably got a 34nm drive. What struck me as I was reading through the OCZ forum threads though was that even the OCZ staff couldn't tell people what drive they had easily. I did kind of feel sorry for the staff as they clearly had a lot of unhappy people, and obviously they can't just just say "yes, our company screwed up". Having said that, most of the people complaining were being fairly reasonable in what they were saying, and making it clear that whether or not this is a huge issue, the fact is the product changed but OCZ didn't tell anyone and some of the replies from staff were a bit arsey or condescending.

    Gheetsar - OCZ say other drive makers are doing the same thing, and (so OCZ said...), other manufacturer forums are also full of complaints. Can't say I've looked though. Just thought I'd mention it here as it's something I'd have wanted to read if I was buying at the moment, and I hadn't seen it on Hexus, Anandtech or the other sites I usually read. It was actually just a small post on SPCR that I saw it on.

    my own 2p for what it's worth is that they clearly should have just called them Vertex 2.5's or something and (ideally) passed on the cost savings. I've not been keeping that close an eye on prices, but I can't see that they've dropped much

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,570
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked
    309 times in 247 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Quote Originally Posted by nibbler View Post
    OK, it was slightly unclear from the OP. I see your point then, but mine is 111gb formatted so I'm on an old 34nm drive then?
    Based on what OCZ have said, yours is one of the 34nm drives.
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,570
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked
    309 times in 247 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Quote Originally Posted by GheeTsar View Post
    I have a tiny bit of sympathy for OCZ - they claim they can only buy 25nm chips now (and that most SSD manufacturers are in the same boat) and as they are not as robust as the 32nm chips they have to increase the reserved space to ensure the drives wear at the same rate as before.
    The decrease in capacity is because they have no choice, rather than them choosing to use more over provisioning. It's like having a RAID-5 array of 10x1TB drives as opposed to 5x2TB drives. Without redundancy, you have 10TB in both cases. With the necessary 1 disk capacity lost for parity, in one case you have 9TB usable and the other you have 8TB usable. You can't increase this by using only 1/2 disk for parity.
    Based on their marketing bumph, RAISE is like RAID4 or RAID5.
    Imagine the 2 RAID arrays I mentioned before:
    Both arrays have an imaginary 4k stripe size and you write your data in 32k blocks.
    In array 1 (the 10x1TB array), you actually write 36k. 4k to eight of the ten drives and another 4k to the parity drive. One drive has nothing written to it. Total: 4k to 8 of the drives and 4k to the smaller parity drive.
    In array 2 (the 5x2TB array), you actually write 40k. You write 4k to the first 4 drives and 4k to the parity drive, then another 4k to each drive and the parity drive. Total 8k to the 4 drives and 8k to the parity drive.
    Allthough you have twice as much spare area, you have to write twice as much parity data to it.
    Either OCZ are lying about drive longevity being unaffected or RAISE doesn't work as advertised.
    I suspect it's somewhere between the two. RAISE is probably far more complex than it's worth them explaining to the general or even enthusiast public but it's a catchy marketing term.

    One more thing:
    The 100GB Vertex 2 also has 128GB NAND. The 120GB Vertex 2e is the same except it has less spare area.
    Perhaps they should be calling them all Vertex 2e 100GB drives since they have the same amound of NAND.
    Last edited by badass; 15-02-2011 at 11:05 PM.
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  12. #11
    Butter king GheeTsar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The shire of berks
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked
    260 times in 163 posts
    • GheeTsar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 2500k
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung EVO 850 1 TB + 2 x 1TB Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS Radeon R9 280X
      • PSU:
      • Tagan TG600-U33 600W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer 24" 120Hz GD245HQ
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100mb

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Quote Originally Posted by badass View Post
    The decrease in capacity is because they have no choice, rather than them choosing to use more over provisioning. It's like having a RAID-5 array of 10x1TB drives as opposed to 5x2TB drives. Without redundancy, you have 10TB in both cases. With the necessary 1 disk capacity lost for parity, in one case you have 9TB usable and the other you have 8TB usable. You can't increase this by using only 1/2 disk for parity.
    Based on their marketing bumph, RAISE is like RAID4 or RAID5.
    Imagine the 2 RAID arrays I mentioned before:
    Both arrays have an imaginary 4k stripe size and you write your data in 32k blocks.
    In array 1 (the 10x1TB array), you actually write 36k. 4k to eight of the ten drives and another 4k to the parity drive. One drive has nothing written to it. Total: 4k to 8 of the drives and 4k to the smaller parity drive.
    In array 2 (the 5x2TB array), you actually write 40k. You write 4k to the first 4 drives and 4k to the parity drive, then another 4k to each drive and the parity drive. Total 8k to the 4 drives and 8k to the parity drive.
    Allthough you have twice as much spare area, you have to write twice as much parity data to it.
    Either OCZ are lying about drive longevity being unaffected or RAISE doesn't work as advertised.
    I suspect it's somewhere between the two. RAISE is probably far more complex than it's worth them explaining to the general or even enthusiast public but it's a catchy marketing term.

    One more thing:
    The 100GB Vertex 2 also has 128GB NAND. The 120GB Vertex 2e is the same except it has less spare area.
    Perhaps they should be calling them all Vertex 2e 100GB drives since they have the same amound of NAND.


    Perhaps I'm being thick - but how does the die shrinking of the chips relate to how they are organised and their arrays within the SSD?

  13. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,308
    Thanks
    599
    Thanked
    289 times in 201 posts

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Read
    http://www.storagereview.com/ssds_sh..._you_need_know
    and
    http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_ver...czssd22vtxe60g

    As i understand it the newer drives have larger "blocks", they still use 1 "block" for whatever it is but because the blocks are bigger on the newer drives you loose more space than you would on an older drive.
    They work out slower because there are less physical chips that the controller is talking to, imagine a RAID array with less physical disks, performance would tail off..

    Thats how I see it, might be a bit wrong but its close enough for my head to work around lol

  14. Received thanks from:

    badass (16-02-2011),GheeTsar (16-02-2011)

  15. #13
    Butter king GheeTsar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The shire of berks
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked
    260 times in 163 posts
    • GheeTsar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 2500k
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung EVO 850 1 TB + 2 x 1TB Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS Radeon R9 280X
      • PSU:
      • Tagan TG600-U33 600W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer 24" 120Hz GD245HQ
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100mb

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Thanks for the link - this is the key bit that explains it:

    Quote Originally Posted by OCZ Forum
    The 60GB 32Gbit drives feature 16x32Gbit (4GB) Nand IC with 7% OP
    The 60GB (55GB formatted) drive features 8x64Gbit Nand IC with 7% OP

  16. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,570
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked
    309 times in 247 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Quote Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig View Post
    Read
    http://www.storagereview.com/ssds_sh..._you_need_know
    and
    http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_ver...czssd22vtxe60g

    As i understand it the newer drives have larger "blocks", they still use 1 "block" for whatever it is but because the blocks are bigger on the newer drives you loose more space than you would on an older drive.
    They work out slower because there are less physical chips that the controller is talking to, imagine a RAID array with less physical disks, performance would tail off..

    Thats how I see it, might be a bit wrong but its close enough for my head to work around lol
    A far less verbose explanation than mine
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  17. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked
    7 times in 6 posts
    • miXer's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Sony Corporation VAIO mainboard
      • CPU:
      • Intel® Core™2 Duo CPU T9400 @ 2.53GHz
      • Memory:
      • 4GB
      • Storage:
      • 600GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT (512MB)
      • Case:
      • Sony Vaio Laptop
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro 32bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 1920x1080x32 @ 59Hz
      • Internet:
      • 20MB

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Which SSD is better out the following 2?

    OCZ Vertex 2
    http://www.scan.co.uk/products/80gb-...rce-controller

    Corsair Force
    http://www.scan.co.uk/products/90gb-...-write-275mb-s
    "Famous like a drug that I've taken too much of. But I never ever trip, just peace, happiness, and love."

  18. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,308
    Thanks
    599
    Thanked
    289 times in 201 posts

    Re: OCZ SSD's - now slower and reduced (usable) capacity???

    Quote Originally Posted by badass View Post
    A far less verbose explanation than mine
    Thats how I read it anyways, probably wrong didnt read the articles just kinda skimmed them..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •