OCZ's Vertex 2 Pro Preview: The Fastest MLC SSD We've Ever Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 31, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Inside the Vertex 2 Pro
This time there were no stickers telling me that I’d love this SSD, just a brown ESD bag and a plain looking SSD inside.
Pop the top off and you are greeted with a 90mF capacitor. Its duty is to deliver enough power to the controller to commit any buffered data to flash if there’s ever a sudden loss of power.
I asked SandForce why they needed such a large capacitor as Intel can get away with much smaller caps. It actually has to do with the amount of data buffered. Intel’s X25-M buffers somewhere in the low hundreds of KB of data (with a 512KB L2 cache I’m guessing it’s somewhere below that). The SF controllers buffer a couple of megabytes of data, hence the much larger capacitor.
SandForce did point out that the capacitor is a feature of the SF-1500 design, despite OCZ’s use of it on the Vertex 2 Pro.
That brings us to the controller used in the Vertex 2 Pro. Ultimately SandForce is going to have two controllers - the SF-1200 and the SF-1500. Currently the two controllers have a unified firmware and feature set, which is why both OCZ and SF refer to the Vertex 2 Pro as being somewhere in between a 1200 and a 1500. It’s a SF-1200 controller with the firmware of the SF-1500 as far as I can tell. The final shipping version with be a full fledged SF-1500.
The cost of the Vertex 2 Pro is going to be high. Higher than Intel’s X25-M and any other consumer level SSD on the market today. OCZ is targeting it at the very high end desktop/workstation user or perhaps even entry level enterprise customer.
We won’t see the Vertex 2 Pro available in the channel until March. But this isn’t the only SandForced based SSD we’ll get from OCZ though. At some point in the future we’ll have an SF-1200 based SSD that’s priced around the same level as the top-bin Indilinx based Vertex drives. It’s too early to talk about timing on that one though.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
100 Comments
View All Comments
Holly - Friday, January 1, 2010 - link
Well, you can patent implementation and technology, but not the idea itself. (At least that's what my boss was trying to explain me). So, in case this idea seems worthy enough other manufacturers will come with their own MySuperStoringTechnology (c).Personaly I think any improvement (even if it comes out to be dead end) is worth it in global scale and this tech seems very interesting to me.
I only have some worries about using cheaper NAND chips... Taking cheap USB flash they tend to go nuts in about 6-12 months of usage (well, I am stressing them quite a bit...) Putting them together with the best controller seems to me a bit like disbalancing things. Definitely not for servers/enthusiasts (who want the best quality for good reasons) and still too expensive for pple earning their paychecks
Holly - Friday, January 1, 2010 - link
P.S. Happy New Yearyacoub - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
I don't know that I want lower-quality Flash memory in my SSDs. I think I'd rather have both a better chip and high quality memory. But you know corners will be cut somewhere to keep the prices affordable.frontliner - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
Page 10 talks about Random Write in MB/s and you're talking IOPS:At 11K IOPS in my desktop 4KB random write test, the Vertex 2 Pro is 20% faster than Intel’s X25-M G2. Looking at it another way, the Vertex 2 Pro has 2.3x the 4KB random write performance of today’s OCZ Vertex Turbo.
&
Random read performance is quite good at 13K IOPS, but a little lower than Intel’s X25-M G2.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
woops! you're right, I decided to go with the MB/s graphs at the last minute but wrote the text based on the IOPS results. Fixed! :)Take care,
Anand
Makaveli - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
My guess is intel will release another firmware to increase the write speed on the G2 drives. As Q4 2010 is quite a long wait for a refresh. So new firmware with increase write speed and a price drop should still keep them in the driving seat.Kudos to OCZ for the constant shove in the back to intel tho.
mikesown - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
Hi Anand,Great article! Along the subject of Intel's monopoly bullying, I was curious if you had any information about Micron manufacturing their own C300 SSDs with (very nice, it seems) Marvell controllers(see http://www.micronblogs.com/category/ssd-concepts/)">http://www.micronblogs.com/category/ssd-concepts/). I know Micron and Intel manufactured NAND jointly through their IM Flash Technologies venture, so it seems a little bit strange that Micron would manufacture competing SSDs while in a partnership with Intel. Did Intel and Micron part ways for good?
Thanks,
Mike
efficientD - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
As an employee of Micron, I can say that Intel and Micron have not parted ways, but rather only had the agreement for the actual flash memory and not all of the other parts of an SSD (controller, dtc.) We are still very much in cooperation on what was agreed upon in the first place. You will notice that the OCZ in this article is Micron, and not from IM flash (the Intel/Micron joint venture). If you crack open an Intel drive, however, you will nearly exclusively find IM Flash chips along with Micron DRAM, the first gen didn't even have Micron DRAM. Hope this clarifies some things.Doormat - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
I'm disappointed in the lack of SATA 6Gb/s support, but a lot of that is product timing (its only now showing up in add-on chips, and controllers in late 2010/early 2011). You really wonder what the speeds are on an unbridled SF-based drive.Jenoin - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
"SandForce states that a full install of Windows 7 + Office 2007 results in 25GB of writes to the host, yet only 11GB of writes are passed on to the drive. In other words, 25GBs of files are written and available on the SSD, but only 11GB of flash is actually occupied. Clearly it’s not bit-for-bit data storage.""What SF appears to be doing is some form of real-time compression on data sent to the drive."
Based on what they said (and what they didn't say) I have to disagree. It appears to me that they are comparing the write that is requested with the data already on the SSD and only writing to the bits that need changed thereby write amplification ~0.5. This would explain the high number of IOPS during your compressed file write test perhaps. That test would then be a mixed test of sequential and random writes giving you performance numbers in between the two other tests. Could you verify the actual disk usage with windows 7 and Office installed? If it indicates 11gb used then it is using some kind of compression but if it indicates the full size on the disk then it is using something similar to what I detailed. I just thought it interesting that Sandforce never said things would take up less space, (which would be a large selling point) they only said it would have to write about half as much supporting my theory.