I mentioned in our Mid-Range SSD Roundup that most SSD vendors like sampling the best balance of capacity/performance when it comes to SSD review samples. For the SandForce SF-2281 with 25nm NAND that just happens to be 240GB. Unfortunately there's a pretty big fall off in performance when going from 240GB to 120GB due to the decrease in total number of NAND die (8GB per die x 32 die vs. 16 die). I've explained this all before here.

Enter OCZ's MAX IOPS drive. Using 32nm Toshiba Toggle NAND instead of 25nm IMFT ONFI 2.x NAND the die capacity drops to 4GB, which means you get twice as many die per NAND device. The end result? 240GB Vertex 3 performance for slightly more than 120GB Vertex 3 pricing.


I ordered the 120GB MAX IOPS drive at the beginning of the week and just got it in yesterday so I've only had a small amount of time to test with it thus far. Check out the 120GB MAX IOPS drive vs. the Intel SSD 510 in Bench using our 2011 storage test suite. Expect the full review in the coming days.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • JWatson - Wednesday, June 15, 2011 - link

    Did OCZ by chance fix the firmware issues with this drive as well as increase the speed? There are still countless posts of BSOD and crashing related to the Vertex 3.

  • kensiko - Thursday, June 16, 2011 - link

    FW 2.08 was posted yesterday. It did help a few people but there is still some persons with problems.

    Last night, SandForce was able for the first time to reproduce the BSOD issue. Expect a new firmware once it's validated.

    It seems they are working day and night.
  • 7Enigma - Thursday, June 16, 2011 - link

    They might be working day and night, but I would be hard-pressed to purchase or recommend any Sandforce-based drive until this is all sorted out (both Vertex 2 and Vertex 3 issues).

    I really liked Sandforce and OCZ when they debuted the Vertex 2, but they have seriously damaged their reputation between SSD's and their PSU's.

    I just hope Anandtech takes a harsher stance on them in the coming reviews as recently it appears more of an afterthought in passing comments than a real criticism.
  • noeldillabough - Thursday, June 16, 2011 - link

    I'm sure glad I went with the Intel 510, sure its not as fast as the Vertex but I have had NO problems whatsoever with the drive since it was launched. (using it in a P170 Clevo notebook)
  • semo - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    I agree. Review sites in general are being very nice to OCZ. Even Storage Review have backed off the 25nm transition fiasco (even though there has been no official recall issued by OCZ).

    What is being discussed in forums is not reflected by review sites at all. Everyone is bashing OCZ, while the company's products are being awarded left, right and center. This is becoming very much like politics unfortunately. The people we look up to are doing things that seem irrational to us because they have vested interests and fear "burning bridges".
  • L. - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    I believe its more of a misunderstanding :

    OCZ Vertex 3 has wonderful specs, and provided it doesn't BSOD on the reviewer, has all the reasons to rank very high.

    On the other hand, quite a few people seem to have reliability issues, but how do you expect that to impact a review ?

    Important fact too, the message conveyed here on Anandtech is that Intel drives are more reliable - it may very well represent the Intel vs OCZ comparison taking into account your comment as an unhappy OCZ customer.
  • semo - Friday, June 17, 2011 - link

    In the original article, Anand is only praising the Vertex 3 MAX IOPS. He already knows about the BSOD issues so why not include that in there as well as a disclaimer (this drive could be great, but be cautious , etc...).

    I also think that reviews should be updated if the reviewed product is no longer relevant. The original Vertex 2 was great but if you decide to buy one from ebay, you have no chance of knowing what crap you might get because the model name is worthless for describing the drive. Even the spec sheets for the Vertex 2 can not be trusted at all.

    Do you see Intel changing the hardware inside their chips without changing the model numbers and deceiving customers? Have you ever bought a hard drive from WD only to find that the capacity is different to what is written on the box/spec sheet/review? This sort of stuff is scandalous but OCZ has walked away from it all unscathed.
  • Tros - Sunday, June 19, 2011 - link

    "Do you see Intel changing the hardware inside their chips without changing the model numbers and deceiving customers?"
    I recall an issue where customers would buy quadcores that advertised VT-x, but found it was an utter-mix-up in terms of which processor batch (indistinguishable on purchase) you got as to VT-x or not.

    "Have you ever bought a hard drive from WD only to find that the capacity is different to what is written on the box/spec sheet/review?"
    There's the whole 1024 versus 1000 thing. I'm not sure if you're being ironic or ignorant.

    "This sort of stuff is scandalous but OCZ has walked away from it all unscathed."

    No, their reputation is still questionable by the comments, and even by the writing on Anandtech. But the case in the world is that a few people get lemons, and have the need to drown out everybody else who did just fine. No lemons here, and it's been nearly a year and a half with my vertex 2.
  • semo - Sunday, June 19, 2011 - link

    Link to the VT-x issue?

    There is no issue about binary k and decimal k. Both are valid. If you buy a 1TB Hitachi and WD, they will both be the same in capacity (or very close to). If you buy a 1TB Hitachi again 6 months down the line, then it will be the same capacity as the first one. Sounds logical but that's not how it works with a "60GB" Vertex 2.

    I don't think you know the details of the 25nm transition fiasco. A year ago OCZ drives were great but they started changing the specs dramatically around December 2010 in the retail channel
  • Tros - Tuesday, June 21, 2011 - link

    I am not familiar with that issue, and am looking it up right now. I did just get a 120 GB drive, since my 60 GB one is wonderful.


    ^ Not what I thought it was. Same ballpark, but remedied by looking up data sheets on the processor you want at the time.

    *: I looked up the issue, but after skipping a 1TB drive (because it'd never display 1TB under Windows formatting), I'm really okay with this.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now