PDA

View Full Version : SSD Intel vs OCZ



bk T
30-10-2012, 09:19 PM
Intel 520 series 120GB or OCZ Vertex4 128GB ?

Intel is slightly more expensive than OCZ, both have a 5 years warranty.

Which is a better buy? Views from both Intel and OCZ users will be appreciated.

Cheers

icow
30-10-2012, 09:47 PM
I can't remember what drive is faster but I would probably just go for the faster one (benchmarks must be somewhere). I recall that OCZ had issues with Vertex 2's and 3's as they were using the cheap sandforce controllers unlike intel who used the better quality marvell ones. I'm 99% sure that OCZ switched to marvell for the Vertex 4s. As long as the vertex is using the marvell controller it should be *fine*.

bk T
30-10-2012, 09:51 PM
Do they come with the bracket adapter?

inphinity
30-10-2012, 10:04 PM
Personally I prefer the Vertex4, as the Everest2 seems to be the best of the current-generation consumer-grade SSD controllers, though the Intel will have slightly better peak write speeds (but average read/write is about the same for both).

Chilling_Silence
30-10-2012, 11:07 PM
Yeah OCZ is cheaper / faster, as icow mentions their controller is cheaper and more prone to failure. Still with a 5 year warranty on it, can't go too wrong, and if I'm going for a solid-state, I'm going for the speed.

dugimodo
30-10-2012, 11:25 PM
I'm the opposite, intel for reliability. the speed difference between SSD's is nothing really in practice - the main thing is ditching a normal hdd for your OS drive. I Went from and intel 320 series to a samsung 830 series - benchmarks show about twice the speed for the samsung but you cant tell the difference using them (except the samsung is also twice the size - the real reason for the change)

A 3rd option would be a samsung 830 series, might be slighty faster than both and has a good reputation so far. Crucial M4 is another one with a good name and price but it's a bit slower.

Toms hardware has a best SSD for the money article I was going to link but it wont load right now for some reason.

Alex B
30-10-2012, 11:39 PM
I have found the 320 series quite unreliable. I have had about 4 of them fail at work in the last 6 months. Usually the drive showing up as only 8mb issue after an unexpected power failure (even with latest firmware) The latest one failed after I unencripted the bitlocker on it, apprently a common issue too. The 330 series they have replaced a couple with have so far been fine.

JJJJJ
31-10-2012, 08:19 AM
I have two OCZ Vertex 4 drives running in Raid 0.
One of the SSD's failed right from the start. It was replaced under warranty immediately.
The only problem I had after this was with raid parting company. After trying everything else I replaced the Intel drivers with Marvel and have had no problems since.
R/W times are in the mid 900's.
I'm Happy.

inphinity
31-10-2012, 09:02 AM
Yeah OCZ is cheaper / faster, as icow mentions their controller is cheaper and more prone to failure. Still with a 5 year warranty on it, can't go too wrong, and if I'm going for a solid-state, I'm going for the speed.

Disagree, the Everest2 controller is in my experience more stable than the Sandforce controller Intel use in the 520 series. Both consistent-performance-wise and failure rate.

Chilling_Silence
31-10-2012, 09:24 AM
The main reason why the OCZ's are cheaper is because they take the fastest and cheapest parts, not the parts known for their reliability.

This is why you see them in gaming rigs, but you'd only ever see the Intels in a server.
I'm not saying that either is immune to failure but upon doing a lot of research prior to buying my first SSD almost a year ago, it was clear (At least back with the Agility 3 / Vertex 3 series) that the OCZs had a higher failure rate than their more expensive Intel counterparts.

I'd still take the OCZ though, and have 3 at home :D

inphinity
31-10-2012, 10:08 AM
The main reason why the OCZ's are cheaper is because they take the fastest and cheapest parts, not the parts known for their reliability.

And yet Intel are the ones who had to offer full refunds on their 520 line (a corporate-grade product no less) when they (and SandForce, who supplied the controller) didn't realise it couldn't actually support AES256 encryption until well after it went retail... failing to test if your product can actually support one of it's listed features seems pretty cost-cutting to me ;)

Yes, OCZs earlier drives were fairly budget. The Agility4 and Vertex4 are a different kettle of fish. They've moved away from the issue-prone Sandforce controllers, and moved away from some of their lower-end flash providers, and I would say that they are better in both performance and reliability than most of Intel's current consumer-grade offerings.

That said, I do believe Samsung 830 series is the overall pick of the bunch atm - they're not the very fastest, but damn they are stable and reliable.

CYaBro
31-10-2012, 10:13 AM
I only use the Intel 520 series and haven't had any issues yet.

Chilling_Silence
31-10-2012, 10:21 AM
Yes, OCZs earlier drives were fairly budget. The Agility4 and Vertex4 are a different kettle of fish. They've moved away from the issue-prone Sandforce controllers, and moved away from some of their lower-end flash providers, and I would say that they are better in both performance and reliability than most of Intel's current consumer-grade offerings.

Ah OK good to know, thanks! I've seen the Agility 4 series being pushed in most PC retailers over the Agility 3 series. I've got a Vertex 3 and 2x Agility 3 drives at home. May be worth picking another one up for my main desktop and putting that into my laptop perhaps :D

...now to just convince SWMBO I need the upgrade :p

Alex B
31-10-2012, 11:01 AM
Pretty sure Intels enterprise line is the 7 series. They do cool things like when they fail, fail in read only mode, not full on dead mode. I see the Intel 335 series was announced yesterday also.

inphinity
31-10-2012, 11:56 AM
Pretty sure Intels enterprise line is the 7 series. They do cool things like when they fail, fail in read only mode, not full on dead mode. I see the Intel 335 series was announced yesterday also.

Yeah, the 710 series are enterprise-grade SSDs and are very good.

8ftmetalhaed
31-10-2012, 12:19 PM
I'm happy with the performance I'm getting with mine. Mum sometimes gets irritated because it's so quick, it'll start and have mozilla open before she gets an connection from my router, and she swears at it for being a piece of ****.
Honestly, the startup and shutdown times are SO much faster than they were. It used to take up to a minute to shut down on the green drive, albeit with a fair bit of stuff being installed/running, but now it's just tick tick tick off.

nmercer
31-10-2012, 01:11 PM
Intel for reliability

wratterus
31-10-2012, 01:27 PM
I would go for the Intel, but just cause I already have one and it's been great - also had some bad experiences with customers OCZ drives, I'm sure the new ones are all good though.

kingdragonfly
31-10-2012, 01:56 PM
Call me old-fashioned, but I like

* Western Digital VelociRaptor WD1000DHTZ: 1000 GB, 10,000 rpm, 64MB Cache, SATA 6 Gb/s

less than $400

* Seagate Momentus XT ST750LX003 Solid State Hybrid, 750GB, 7200rpm, 32MB Cache, SATA 3 Gb/s, 8GB Solid State Storage

about $200

both quiet and pretty fast. The Seagate is very good at "read-mostly" applications

An Intel 320 600 GB drive is in the $1,500 - $2,000 range

Slankydudl
31-10-2012, 02:05 PM
SSD's are a conspiracy, they only sell them so that you get used to paying $300 for 512gb so that when you look at a regular hard drive you are enticed by that fact you can get 1tb for $100.

but in all seriousness I would take the extra 8gb considering the price of SSD's
and kingdragonfly you cannot compare the read/write speeds of a mechanical HD to that of an SSD. SSD's are phenomenally faster and handle multiple thing being accessed at once much better than a mechanical.

Chilling_Silence
31-10-2012, 02:06 PM
Naaaah I like the speed of a real SSD. Can't go back once you've tried it :D
8GB isn't even enough for an OS these days, unless it's Linux :p

dugimodo
31-10-2012, 03:22 PM
Call me old-fashioned, but I like

* Western Digital VelociRaptor WD1000DHTZ: 1000 GB, 10,000 rpm, 64MB Cache, SATA 6 Gb/s

less than $400

* Seagate Momentus XT ST750LX003 Solid State Hybrid, 750GB, 7200rpm, 32MB Cache, SATA 3 Gb/s, 8GB Solid State Storage

about $200

both quiet and pretty fast. The Seagate is very good at "read-mostly" applications

An Intel 320 600 GB drive is in the $1,500 - $2,000 range

Well fair enough if that's what you prefer but you don't need a 600GB SSD. A 120GB SSD + 1TB data drive will blow away the velociraptor and cost less (around $300 all up), a 256GB SSD would allow a bit more room if you struggle with a 120 and still come close to the same price as the velociraptor with a storage drive added (approx $450).

The seagate is a good compromise if you can't afford 2 drives or don't have the space and is great for a laptop where it was intended but otherwise I think the 2 drive approach is much better than any single mechanical or hybrid drive. all it takes is a little file management.

It doesn't take much effort to fit windows 7 on a 120GB SSD, my installation was about 60GB including a couple of my favourite games and all my regular software. All I did was keep my swap file and steam directory elsewhere. Moving to a 256GB drive let me install everything on the C: drive including my Steam directory.

Once you've gotten used to a system running on an SSD all other machines feel sluggish by comparison.

Chilling_Silence
31-10-2012, 04:14 PM
It doesn't take much effort to fit windows 7 on a 120GB SSD, my installation was about 60GB including a couple of my favourite games and all my regular software. All I did was keep my swap file and steam directory elsewhere. Moving to a 256GB drive let me install everything on the C: drive including my Steam directory.

Once you've gotten used to a system running on an SSD all other machines feel sluggish by comparison.

^^ pretty much my sentiments exactly! Except I've got a 120GB SSD.

icow
31-10-2012, 04:35 PM
1 vote for 64gbs of ram with a 60gb ram disk. You cant match the gigabit copy speeds.

Chilling_Silence
31-10-2012, 08:03 PM
...until you lose power ;)

But yeah I get what you mean :p