The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
OCZ Gets Clever: Agility vs. Vertex, Even Cheaper Indilinx SSDs
Samsung makes SSDs for OEMs, Samsung sells pre-made SSDs to companies like OCZ and Corsair and Samsung also makes NAND flash. Samsung actually made all of the flash that was used in the first generation of Indilinx SSDs. Unfortunately, prices went up.
OCZ was quick to adapt and started making Indilinx drives using flash from different manufacturers. This is the OCZ Vertex, we’re all familiar with it:
This is the OCZ Agility. You get the same controller as the Vertex, but with either Intel 50nm or Toshiba 40nm flash:
My Vertex used Samsung flash, like all other Indilinx drives
My Agility used Intel's 50nm flash
Some lucky Agility owners get Toshiba 40nm flash, which is faster.
The performance is a lower since the flash chips themselves are slower. I'm actually comparing the Vertex Turbo here but my Turbo sample actually runs as fast as most stock Indilinx MLC drives so it provides good reference for an Agility vs. a good Vertex drive:
| Used Performance | OCZ Agility | OCZ Vertex | Vertex Advantage |
| 4KB Random Write | 7.1 MB/s | 7.6 MB/s | 7% |
| 4KB Random Read | 35.9 MB/s | 37.4 MB/s | 4.2% |
| 2MB Sequential Write | 136.3 MB/s | 155.8 MB/s | 14.3% |
| 2MB Sequential Read | 241.3 MB/s | 254.2 MB/s | 5.3% |
| PCMark Vantage Overall | 14468 | 14694 | 1.6% |
| PCMark Vantage HDD | 24293 | 25309 | 4.2% |
The performance ranges from 0 - 5% in the PCMark suite and jumps up to 4 - 14% in the low level tests. The price difference amounts to around 12% for a 128GB drive and 9.5% for a 64GB drive. There's no 256GB Agility.
| OCZ Agility | OCZ Vertex | Price Difference | |
| 64GB | $199.00 | $219.00 | $19 |
| 128GB | $329.00 | $369.00 | $40 |
| 256GB | N/A | $725.00 | N/A |
If you want to make the jump to an SSD and are looking to save every last dollar, the Agility is an option.
I think the Agility line is a great idea from OCZ. I’m not sure about you but personally, as long as the flash is reliable, I don’t care who makes it. And I’m willing to give up a little in the way of performance in order to hit more competitive price points.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
295 Comments
View All Comments
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
The tables the drive needs to operate are also stored in a small amount of flash on the drive. The start of the circular logic happens in firmware which points to the initial flash locations, which then tells the controller how to map LBAs to flash pages.Take care,
Anand
Bakkone - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Any gossip about the new SATA?Zaitsev - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Thanks for the great article, Anand! It's been quite entertaining thus far.cosmotic - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
The page about sizes (GB, GiB, spare areas, etc) is very confusing. It sounds very much like you are confusing the 'missing' space when converting from GB to GiB with the space the drive is using for its spare area.Is it the case that the drive has 80GiB internally, uses 5.5GiB for spare, and reports it's size as 80GB to the OS leaving the OS to say 74.5GiB as usable?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
I tried to keep it simply by not introducing the Gibibyte but I see that I failed there :)You are correct, the drive has 80GiB internally, uses 5.5GiB for spare and reports that it has 156,301,488 sectors (or 74.5GiB) of user addressable space.
Take care,
Anand
sprockkets - Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - link
Weird. So what you are saying is, the drive has 80Gib capacity, but then reports it has 80GB to the OS, advertised as having an 80GB capacity, which the OS then says the capacity is 74.5GiB?sprockkets - Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - link
As a quick followup, this whole SI vs binary thing needs to be clarified using the proper terms, as people like Microsoft and others have been saying GB when it really is GiB (or was the GiB term invented later?)For those who want a quick way to convert:
http://converter.50webs.com">http://converter.50webs.com
ilkhan - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
so they are artifically bringing the capacity down, because the drive has the full advertised capacity and is getting the "normal" real capacity. :argh:Vozer - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
I tried looking for the answer, but haven't found it anywhere so here it is: There are 10 flash memory blocks on both Intel 160GB and 80GB X25-M G2, right? (and 20 blocks with the G1).So, is the 80GB version actually a 160GB with some bad blocks or do they actually produce two different kind of flash memory block to use on their drives?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
While I haven't cracked open the 80GB G2 I have here, I don't believe the drives are binned for capacity. The 80GB model should have 10 x 8GB NAND flash devices on it, while the 160GB model should have 10 x 16GB NAND flash devices.Take care,
Ananad