Updated: OCZ's Petrol SSD: More Affordable Indilinx Everestby Anand Lal Shimpi on December 13, 2011 12:32 PM EST
Last month OCZ introduced the Octane, its first SSD based on the now in-house Indilinx Everest controller. The drive did reasonably well in our tests and was priced competitively with similar 6Gbps solutions from Micron and Samsung. The only unknown is reliability at this point but we're taking a wait and see approach to Everest and Octane to answer that point.
While we wait for more user reports of Octane compatibility and reliability, OCZ is releasing its second drive based on the Indilinx Everest controller: the Petrol. Still a 6Gbps SATA drive, Petrol drops IMFT synchronous NAND in favor of cheaper non-IMFT asynchronous NAND (somehwat similar to the Agility 3 vs. Vertex 3, although both of those drives used IMFT NAND).
The slower NAND drops peak performance a bit but it should also help hit lower price points. OCZ hasn't released much info about the Petrol lineup (including pricing) other than to say that it will be available in the coming weeks. I've compiled a table of what we do know below.
Update: OCZ has given us pricing on the four capacities: $89.99, $149.99, $339.99 and $649.99 for the 64GB, 128GB, 256GB and 512GB Petrol drives. This works out to be a savings of $50, $30 and $240 at 128GB, 256GB and 512GB compared to the Octane.
|OCZ Indilinx Everest Lineup|
|Petrol||Octane 1TB||Octane 512GB||Octane 256GB||Octane 128GB|
|NAND Type||Non-Intel Async MLC||25nm Intel Sync MLC||25nm Intel Sync MLC||25nm Intel Sync MLC||25nm Intel Sync MLC|
|NAND||64GB - 512GB||1TB||512GB||256GB||128GB|
|Random Read Performance||Up to 35K IOPS||Up to 45K IOPS||Up to 37K IOPS||Up to 37K IOPS||Up to 37K IOPS|
|Random Write Performance||?||Up to 19.5K IOPS||Up to 16K IOPS||Up to 12K IOPS||Up to 7.7K IOPS|
|Sequential Read Performance||Up to 400MB/s||Up to 560 MB/s||Up to 535 MB/s||Up to 535 MB/s||Up to 535 MB/s|
|Sequential Write Performance||Up to 400MB/s||Up to 400 MB/s||Up to 400 MB/s||Up to 270 MB/s||Up to 170 MB/s|
|MSRP||$90 - $650||TBD||$879.99||$369.99||$199.99|
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
Dr0id - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - linkHow well should the OCZ Petrol drive perform against the Apple SSD in the 2011 MBP Pros?
euler007 - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - linkWell, if the MB Pro used the same Apple SSD (Toshiba) as the macbook air, it is way behind even an Intel G2 SSD I would say the OCZ Petrol would fare quite well against it.
ochadd - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - linkThis is a move in the right direction. We need space, lower $/GB, and reliability over performance. I'm already applying updates, installing apps, and loading data in a few seconds with a three year old X25-M. Being able to replace all my spinning platters would be a dream come true. Just five of these would replace the 76 spindles I've got in a small data center.
ShieTar - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - linkSo one or two modern mechanical drives would also replace your 76 spindles, right? I think you should do that, the failure rate of 76 very old harddrives must be horribly high.
Minion4Hire - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - linkI don't think he's talking about a bunch of ancient 10GB HDDs. I believe he's referring to performance rather than capacity. Five SSDs could offer equivalent (or better?) performance than 76 hard drives, even if they were newer drives. Their random read/write is pretty sad.
ochadd - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - linkThey range from 36-300GB of the 15k rpm variety spread across 5 servers. If you throw HA out the window I could run the whole mess from a Mid-tower ATX case with these drives and have enough performance and space.
Taft12 - Thursday, February 2, 2012 - linkBuddy, he's talking about 10K or 15K SCSI or SAS drives. Smarten up!
Beenthere - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - linkOCZ must be hoping that their shotgun approach to SSDs will net them enough sales to pay for the RMAs.
MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - linkIt's nice to hear which flash they're using, but other than this - not very exciting. Performance numbers for all capacities would have been very interesting.
And for anyone complaining about SSDs still being too small & expensive: take a look here!
seamonkey79 - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - linkWhile I use that tool to move things around, it doesn't magically make SSDs any larger and it certainly doesn't make the files I moved to my large spinner load any faster just because the computer 'thinks' those files are located on my SSD... therefore... SSDs need to become larger and cheaper.