First benchmarks OCZ Vertex 3 MAXIOPS 120GB

A dutch user posted these benchmarks of the Vertex 3 MAXIOPS



Seems almost too good to be true.

 

Man I am torn. I ordered the 256GB edition from amazon for $530 for my M18x, but after reading the forums here I'm a little freaked out. People really bad mouth OCZ, but I've had a Vertex 2 for over a year that I love and has worked flawlessly. I'm not sure if I should keep this order or get a 512 Raid of the Samsungs for a special deal I got for $700.

Probably should get the Samsung's.

 

Don't listen to the users on here when it comes to OCZ lmao

 

sort of what I was thinking also, but the $700 for 512GB of space is so tempting. I'm primarily a gamer so I think it might be better for the space.

 

Same guy with his AS SSD benchmark score:

Vertex 3 score from a guy on this forum (same capacity):

 

He said he was running applications at the same time... I've asked him to rerun.

 

Okey, cool. Interesting to see how much better since it scores much better than Vertex 3

 

Newegg.com - OCZ Vertex 3 Series – MAX IOPS Edition VTX3MI-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

3 failures of 5 reviews. Ouch

 

Ouch, OCZ is living up to their reputation

I find it strange that none of these guys are verified owners btw.

 

5 reviews is hardly a decent spread to start saying anything. The fact is more people are probably going to post bad things than good things. When you're happy with your device you're not thinking "let me go write a review" but when you're unhappy you want to warn people.

Let's wait until there are a few more...

 

Yeah and why are they all not verified owners?

Is it easy to post fake reviews on Newegg?

 

Yeah shure i agree we should wait. I just wanted to post what was on there now. There are many people at newegg that post positive experience too. Look at X25-M or C300
Or Intel 320 with 11 reviews. If people visited Newegg to post bad feedbacks you would think it was 11 bad reviews right? Wrong, 2 are 4/5 and 9 are 5/5
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167053&cm_re=intel_320-_-20-167-053-_-Product

 

I believe you only need an account? I've posted a review but I owned it.

I don't think people only post bad feedback... but I think that it's definitely skewed towards negative feedback because of that. Yes there are outliers like the intel, my point is just that you can not use any kind of statistics with 5 values in a case like this. You can't say "oh hey more than half of them don't like it" and expect those results to make any sense whatsoever.

Still, it's good to see it anyway and as more reviews are added we'll see some kind of trend hopefuly.

 

I am guessing many post reviews first and goes through the hassle of registering the product after a while. Not everyone does though, because both Intel 510 and Vertex 3 have many feedbacks from people that are not verified owners. So it is plausable that they could be fake for shure. Or real. There are 4 of them are from yesterday so maybe they haven`t done the verifying thingy yet

@Phil: The last AS SSD from Masterkale, is that without programs running in the background?
Edit: Nevermind. Actually worse than the first

 

It's funny to read what OCZ says about the MAXIOPS version:

Source

It's good to see them being honest I'd like to see it confirmed in a review though.

 

that's actually CUTE. ocz and honesty.. how cute is that?

 

lol nice find Phil

 

So even OCZ says that people won't notice the difference between 20 MB/sec and 38 MB/sec 4K random read during day to day usage.

 

Yeah - they're agreeing with me.


(I said it first).

 

I think I said it earlier

 

There is no doubt that many are way too focused on artificial benchmarks. It reminds me of the horsepower community online. Everyone is into dyno numbers and spends countless $s trying to get the last few HP on their dyno test.

Yet I have a couple of collector cars with the exact same engine builder using the exact same parts and one dynos at 305 rwhp and the other at 420 rwhp. And both will run 108-110 mph trap speeds in the quarter mile. Forget the benchmarks but do make sure the drive is actually performing well.

Perry

 

we all said that even years ago. i said it even in times where a hdd could outperform by numbers an ssd (again, years ago). those where the days. tiller still lives there

 

davepermen,

I still 'live there' because so far SSD's have not proven themselves indispensible for my use - and this is by testing them myself, not believing in any 'numbers' like (lying) benchmarks.

Since I have read all the SSD threads on this forum (yes, all of them) I don't ever recall you stating that 4K R r/w's were not a prime example of SSD's superiority over HDD's - actually, quite the opposite.

You thrive on those numbers because you've never had a high performance HDD to compare them to (your words, in direct response to a question by me - somewhere on this forum).

So, no. You have not 'also' stated this fact. In reality you jumped in to defend SSD's with this small bit of superficial 'superiority' every time I have ever mentioned how slow SSD's were compared to HDD's (again, for my use).

You have to keep your story straight. You can't simply switch to the winning side when/if it pleases you.

And if you won't, I guess I'll have to keep you on the straight and narrow myself.

 

i said that tiny number differences of f.e. 10% do not impact a user experience in a really noticeable way. which is what ocz said here.

and no, you're still wrong with your point. there are ssds out there that have at any usage point lower access times than a hdd (both read and write) and no matter how you read/write to them, have a higher performance in each situation. there is no way, such an ssd can be slower than a hdd, except if there is a bug in any place of the setup.

the superiority they have, and why it's noticeable, is not because they're 10% faster somewhere. but because they have places where they are 100x (that's 10000%) faster. like in random access times. and that's noticeable even for an end user, not just for a benchmark program.

so my point was (years ago): small performance differences don't matter. big ones do. and an ssd has a big impact over a hdd in some places, while a small one in others. the big ones are the ones that matter. same statement of ocz here: there aren't big differences between the two, so the differences are not really noticeable for the end user.

you can use the same argument for gigahertz, ramspeed, car top speeds, etc.


so no, i have not said the vertex 3 maxiops difference to the vertex 3 nonmaxiops is too low to be noticeable. but i said so time and time again that the leaders in the ssd market don't have noticeable differences between them (with similar benchmarked differences as those two drives). you don't notice a difference between a vertex and an intel ssd, for example. some are faster there, some there. but in the end, in a blind test without benchmarktools, you would not notice it on a daily usage basis.