• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

[O/C] OCZ's 25nm Vertex 2 Performance Issues

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Overclockers.com

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
There has been a recent uproar in the tech community regarding OCZ's new 25nm Vertex 2 SSD drives. Usually we're quite excited to see newer fabrication technology reach the shelves, as this usually results in a superior product. Sadly, this wasn't the case with OCZ's latest iteration of their Vertex 2 SSD offering.
vertex-2-versus.jpg
image courtesy storagereview.com​

... Return to article to continue reading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard the Agility 2 were also touched by the issue.

I wish OCZ will fix this issue soon :-/ Not cool for all customers who bought these SSD not knowing they would never get the listed performance!
 
We've contacted OCZ for comment. Has anyone seen them make any official statements as far as the company's awareness or stance on the issue?
 
I'm currently in contact with Newegg over any necessary changes to their advertising to reflect the issues with performance - some people will be sorely disappointed.
 
We've contacted OCZ for comment. Has anyone seen them make any official statements as far as the company's awareness or stance on the issue?

There's a sticky on their forums by moderators who I believe are employees. They downplay the issue with a mix of arrogance and dismissiveness.
 
It relates to their RAISE implementation and overprovisioning to allow for wear leveling. There are also two versions one using 64Gb and one using 32Gb NAND ICs in 25nm drives. The old version, 34nm, uses only 32Gb NAND chips. The new versions could show either size based on the chips used. The 64Gb chips overprovision based on 8GB of OP space and the 32Gb OP based on 4GB of space.

OCZ will be releasing a tool to determine density and which die size is used on the chips, if what I have understood from the thread in their forums is correct. Though it could also be read as simply which die size is used.
 
Excellent coverage. Was reading up on this when I found it here.

Getting OCZ rep to comment would be great, I am sure they are a little frazzled right now though considering the backlash they went through on their own forums though

Yeah this is a result of moving to 8GB chips (missing partition size) and half the number of chips (RAISE reduction)
 
Last edited:
To me, it sounds like they're saying the over-provisioning is causing the performance to decrease, but the over-provisioning is worth it...:shrug:
 
If it addressed the performance question, it certainly wasn't very clear. I feel that question is what is generating most of the attention and if the source of the performance issue can be explained directly then a lot of the community ruckus would die down.

Clarification has been requested.
 
The performance is down because they're using half as many flash chips with twice the capacity. Less chips equals less channels to write to at once equals slower performance.

The overprovisioning thing just relates to the smaller capacity of the drives compared to the older. The scheme they use calls for a whole plane of the flash to be dedicated to overprovisioning. In this case, I believe each chip has 8 planes, so you should see a loss of 8 gigs (64/8) on a 64 gig drive compared to a loss of 4 gigs (64/16) on an older model. This is just speculation/guessing really, because I don't know which flash they're actually using. I'm basing my numbers on stuff I remember from a few years back, so if someone know more current info about flash on the market today, feel free to correct me.

They really should have released the gimped drives as another model name, and now that they're caught, they darn well better charge less for the "E" drives.
 
Last edited:
Oh bother... I'm one of those that purchased one of the drives listed by OCZ that is affected.

Tiger at the OCZ forumns state that a tool will be available to see which NAND your drive has. I think I'll wait on it before asking for a replacement.

Source: http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?84821-New-update-on-the-25nm-OCZ-SSD-drives

I read somewhere that the firmware installed on your drive out of the box could indicate you if you got the damned version.
 
Wow... I just checked my box from my Vertex 2 60GB I bought before Christmas:

OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G

I am going to see if I can figure out which one this is since the "E" can actually be either 34nm or 24nm versions. The best way to tell is by the format space. 34nm verions are 56GB and 24nm are 51GB.

Edit: well good news is that the 24nm versions shipped with at earliest 1.27 fw verions (most come with 1.28, source: OCZ admin). Mine currently has 1.25 so I am running a 34nm version.

Also, OCZ announced that upgrading to the x16 24nm versions are now free.
 
Last edited:
Latest update made to the article - OCZ will cover shipping costs both ways for anyone unhappy with one of these particular drives in question, and they will not charge anything for pricing differences. Read the end of the article for the latest word direct from OCZ. They also directly address the performance question.

I still don't care much for sticking with the same product name in light of the nature of these differences, but that is common practice in this industry unfortunately. Most importantly to me, OCZ is doing what it takes to make this right for anyone with the product, who is aware of the issue... That means our audience is taken care of, and I'm happy with that. :thup:

Wow... I just checked my box from my Vertex 2 60GB I bought before Christmas:

OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G

I am going to see if I can figure out which one this is since the "E" can actually be either 32nm or 24nm versions. The best way to tell is by the format space. 32nm verions are 56GB and 24nm are 51GB.

Edit: well good news is that the 24nm versions shipped with at earliest 1.27 fw verions (most come with 1.28, source: OCZ admin). Mine currently has 1.25 so I am running a 32nm version.

Also, OCZ announced that upgrading to the x16 24nm versions are now free.

Check your numbers. Using the wrong ones gets confusing. ;) Its 25nm and 34nm I believe.
 
Last edited:
Latest update made to the article - OCZ will cover shipping costs both ways for anyone unhappy with one of these particular drives in question, and they will not charge anything for pricing differences. Read the end of the article for the latest word direct from OCZ.



Check your numbers. Using the wrong ones gets confusing. ;) Its 25nm and 34nm I believe.

Oh thanks for catching that! I think I said "35nm" in a different thread... let me go change that.
 
I'm not sure actually how many different versions they have, but I haven't looked closer into it. Reading this storagereview thread it mentions 25nm and 34nm, but reading the actual review written by the same person, it mentions 25nm and 32nm. :shrug:

http://forums.storagereview.com/ind...s-shifting-to-25nm-nand-what-you-need-to-know
http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vertex_2_25nm_review_oczssd22vtxe60g

I would expect OCZ has exact info listed on their site for anyone interested in confirming themselves.
 
Back