Show us your SSD performance

Hi Mike, don't get all confused by the various test numbers. In real life they really do not mean very much. For the OS (and I assume you want it for that), the only number that really counts is the access time. And most of the recent models run around 0.1ms. The R/W times are relatively unimportant and if any, it is the 4K and 8K timings because those are the blocksizes relevant for the OS.

With this all being said, I would opt for a Vertex2 because a) it is a lot cheaper and b) it does not have any flaws and issues.

WHS

Originally I was planning on one of these but the quality has gone down the toilet.
Newegg.com - OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Click the Feedback tab. 110 of 347 or 32% DOA or DNF < than a month.

We can add 2 of Essenbe's to the list.

$10 more for the Intel 320.

Isn't the Vertex2 last year's model? I thought the new ones were Vertex3's. If that's true, the vertex 2 is $15 less than the Intel 310 and the Vertex3 is about $70 more. Did I get that right, or am I confused about the naming issue?

essenbe said:

Isn't the Vertex2 last year's model? I thought the new ones were Vertex3's. If that's true, the vertex 2 is $15 less than the Intel 310 and the Vertex3 is about $70 more. Did I get that right, or am I confused about the naming issue?

You are right. Vertex3 is Sata3 and the new model...

Also the 2011 second generation Vertex2 has a newer Sandforce controller which evidently is a major mistake.

Newegg Vertex2 with the original controller was running about the same problem rate as Intel on the 2010's.

The last 4-6 months it appears the Sandforce version that 1 out of 3 second gen are bad on initial order and replacements are just as bad.
End up like you need 3 to get one good one.

I've been doing my homework.
Mike

Intel is fine too. I have two Gen1 80GB Intels and three OCZ Vertex2. They all work well and have never given me any problems.

My point was to focus on the access time and NOT on the R/W speeds of big blocks that the OS never uses. Under this aspect any SSD that has 0.1ms access time is good. I would buy the cheapest that meets this criterion and has good reliability records because spending twice as much on some fancy recent technology will probably buy you very, very little (for the OS) in real life. But it may get you good bragging numbers from HD Tune and Atto.

Here is a little story to add to your homework folder. The Vertex2 came out with the 34nm nand and performed very well and earned a great reputation. Somewhere around last November (when I bought mine) they changed to 22nm nand and quality suffered. They just didn't tell anyone they changed and used the same name and model #'s. There was a big blowup on the OCZ forums about it. The thing about it that some might question is--- They buy their nand from none other than Intel.

whs said:

Intel is fine too. I have two Gen1 80GB Intels and three OCZ Vertex2. They all work well and have never given me any problems.

My point was to focus on the access time and NOT on the R/W speeds of big blocks that the OS never uses. Under this aspect any SSD that has 0.1ms access time is good. I would buy the cheapest that meets this criterion and has good reliability records because spending twice as much on some fancy recent technology will probably buy you very, very little (for the OS) in real life. But it may get you good bragging numbers from HD Tune and Atto.

I agree to that. For an OS drive, access time is the most important factor, and the read speeds are more important than write speeds. I've always said that the worst performing SSD is still much faster than the fastest mechanical drive.

whs said:

Intel is fine too. I have two Gen1 80GB Intels and three OCZ Vertex2. They all work well and have never given me any problems.

My point was to focus on the access time and NOT on the R/W speeds of big blocks that the OS never uses. Under this aspect any SSD that has 0.1ms access time is good. I would buy the cheapest that meets this criterion and has good reliability records because spending twice as much on some fancy recent technology will probably buy you very, very little (for the OS) in real life. But it may get you good bragging numbers from HD Tune and Atto.

Isn't that all that matters?

Reliability fits into that equation somewhere.

whs said:

Intel is fine too. I have two Gen1 80GB Intels and three OCZ Vertex2. They all work well and have never given me any problems.

My point was to focus on the access time and NOT on the R/W speeds of big blocks that the OS never uses. Under this aspect any SSD that has 0.1ms access time is good. I would buy the cheapest that meets this criterion and has good reliability records because spending twice as much on some fancy recent technology will probably buy you very, very little (for the OS) in real life. But it may get you good bragging numbers fron HD Tune and Atto.

Thanks WHS.

I appreciate the input.
I was just pointing out the fail rate has seemed to have gone way up with the new Vertex2 controller.

Even though the Agility3 is much faster I would never notice the difference in what I do.
Quality edge seems to go with Intel.
If they were the same quality which we don't know yet on the Agility3 for $10 more I would go with the Agility3.
So all I can do is base it on the Vertex2 and the Vertex3 MAX IOPS which appears mediocre so far.
Mike