OCZ Nocti thoughts?

I'm wondering if these are any good, I know there's a lot of OCZ haters but seeing that 'CherryVille' from Intel is going to be using the same SandForce controller except SATA-3 version (SF-2281 > SF-2181); I think these drives may have a lot potential with future Intel Rapid Storage Updates and firmware updates to make the drive as it was intended on Intel chipsets.

I've pretty much decided to get the Intel 310 80GB or OCZ Nocti 60GB for $60 less. I can't wait around for 'Hawley Creek' anymore, looks those won't show up till early 2012.

Question:

Does 60GB on SandForce drives mean their 60GB even after format? I heard somewhere SandForce drives are actually bigger but uses some of it's NAND for provisioning?

 

say no to sandforce drives... it's dreadful and OCZ is a company that deserved to die

 

Nemixx77,

Do you have a link confirming Intel will be using SF controllers?

Can't recommend any SSD less than 160GB (or bigger) - too many performance issues in my experience. Still, of the ones you list, I would still be willing to spend the extra $$ to get the Intel (although the performance won't compare... - to even HDD 'specs' over time).

A 60GB SF SSD will net you ~55.88GB of useable capacity after format (same as with any other storage medium, btw... Capacity X 1,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = true capacity available).

The 80GB Intel drive will be considerably larger/more useable at ~74.5GB capacity.

The provisioning is something that is hidden from users (and therefore not accessible to us anyways) to provide a certain amount of reliability and sustained performance for SSD's. In my experience though, anything over 50% used nand becomes a performance liability in my usage scenarios.

Again; OCZ + SF = trouble (more likely than with other SSD's). Not so much a 'hater', but a realist: if you can afford (time-wise) to fool/play around with your equipment - give OCZ/SF a try. If you'd rather just get work done (without the customer service/RMA/ship to/ship back shuffle...) then seriously consider spending more and getting much better.

No matter which way you go - make sure you have a current backup (or two, three or more..) at all times of your important/working/irreplaceable files - always.

Good luck.

 

I'd like to see a source to confirm Intel using SF controllers, i'm more inclined to think they'll make their own controllers as they did before.

For the drives themselves, i'd go for either Intel or Crucial's M4. As tiller said, regardless of over provisioning, you'll see performance degradation start to get noticeable at around 50% capacity. I disagree with his statement about 160GB drives, then again, i mostly use the SSD in my desktop for a few programs and the OS so the disk usage sits at 20-25GB in worst cases. For the rest, i use regular HDDs. I'm going to slap a 120GB M4 into my G73 soon, but that's because i have a second drive to hold large amounts of data (7K750).

If you don't have a second drive to go with the SSD, i wouldn't go under 160GB as tiller said. It is also true that as the capacity goes up, the performance increases (to an extent) since there are more NAND chips to write data to simultaneously.

Of the two you listed, i'd get the Intel.

 

I don't have a link. But there's a high chance Intel is going to use SandForce controllers in their 52x series. Then again, I could be wrong and things could change.

I'm open to be corrected but if Intel does indeed use SandForce controllers in their 52x lineup I'll just be laughing in silence with my Intel SSD.

I really want to wait for Hawley Creek mSATA 80/120GB but I don't know, Intel has a history of delaying things far beyond their roadmap, which makes wonder if Hawley Creek is even going to be released before the end of the year.

 

I've said this before: if Intel uses the SF controller, I might consider it if Intel is handling the firmware version 100% internally. Otherwise, I will be lol...

 

Well, here's a link to speculation that Intel will use SF controllers: The SSD Review. This was written in march however and with the SF issues that crept up through the year, it's still too soon to say.

If they go for a SF drive, i sure hope they handle the firmware in house, otherwise, unless SF fixes the issues present in their current controllers, i'll add Intel drives to my avoid list. I don't mind a little less speed for reliability.

EDIT: Didn't mention it before, but Intel also uses Marvell controllers with custom firmware. So far my M4 in the desktop has been working quite happily with said Marvell controller. It might a bit slower, but at least i didn't run the chance of getting periodic BSODs.

 

that was not a very reliable source unfortunately. Seeing him making some bold claims about SF as well when was still on this forum.

 

I've already said I'm open to be corrected. Anyhow, joke will be on you if Intel does indeed release a SSD using the SandForce controller.

You'll forever be remember as the fo@l in this forum and I'm taking this quote to make sure of it.

 

You ? Did I say anything about you ?

I comment on what happened, not what WILL happen. There was a bold prediction that Intel was going to release a SF based line, where is it ?

There was also some implicit hinting about SF is going to be the darling of the whole industry ? What happens now ? Other than the usual suspect + Kingston, I am not seeing it happening.

I see no in road of SF based product into enterprise space, nor OEM like HP/Dell/IBM/Apple.

So I think it is a reasonable assessment to the claims and the source.

Though that is not directed at your post, I am a bit confused.

 

LMAO.... I do apologize in the case.

BTW, I'm fixed on the Intel 80GB mSATA but waiting for the refresh series has turn me into looking elsewhere do to boredom.

No hard feelings?

 

don't worry. Misunderstanding happens all the time.

I was trying to save some quote to the post right above mine, will not do it in the future.

 

I though the underlined speculation made it clear the source wasn't reliable, just that it did creep up somewhere on the net. I'm the first to doubt it, simply pointing out that there was someone out there speculating on that.

 

ah, I was not saying you don't know about that but just confirm your 'underline' that it was not a reliable source and he was on here and which didn't end very well.

sorry for the confusion.

 

now now people, don`t be hatin on Nemix.

There are some rumours out there that the next SSDs (Cherryville) from Intel will truly be SandForce...
Of course this is all rumours and guessing. There have been discussions of this for quite some time so who knows, there *might* be some truth to it

SandForce Driven Intel SSD Gets Closer To Reality - The SSD Review
http://www.fudzilla.com/memory/item/24102-intel-ssds-to-get-sandforce

 

No problem, no feathers ruffled either . I simply thought you meant i wasn't clear that the source wasn't to be trusted...

I can also see why Intel could be interested in SF due to the speeds, however with the BSOD issues that crept up, i could see them forgetting SF if they can't make it to work reliably 100% of the time since Intel is counting on it's reputation on reliability and that's something you can easily destroy, but that's hard to get back once gone. My speculation is either an Intel designed controller or another Marvell with custom firmware.

 

Or a thoroughly Intel tested Sandforce SSD with Intel`s own firmware

 

That's if they can insure no BSODs, but i could see that working as well.

 

Real Quick...

The Series 520 is releasing Nov 5 and has the exact capacity that ONLY SandForce SSDs provide and, as well, happen to have the EXACT speed representations of over 500MB/s read and write. In order to obtain equal performance as such, the ONLY way it can be done is through a sub 1/1 read write ratio which is ONLY accomplished through compression in storage.

To date, ONLY one company has this capability.

As for SF entering enterprise space, have you seen the reviews of the new Z-Drive today? It cuts the Fusion IO price from $15/GB to 7/GB and doubles the performance in most areas.

Just a thought ...

 

Intel would truly have to be crazy to use a Sandforce controller in their SSDs - totally destroying their built-up brand credibility, and helping their competitors' sales (by lending more value to the Sandforce name), in one fell swoop!

 

For enterprise space, price is important but reliability is WAY MORE important. We can be talking dollar in the hundreds of Ks when a server goes down.

I would only see real players that use OCZ in enterprise then I say, ok they pass the test. The current fact is, they can't even get into OEM desktop/laptop space.

 

If Intel will really use a Sandforce controller, which remains to be seen, I'm sure they will not release it before it works reliably.

 

Maybe, perhaps it has to do with the Intel Rapid Storage driver?

Not saying but that would be a way for Intel to keep users off SandForce's without the Intel label...

 

The OCZ solution uses 24nm flash so it MAY be substantially slower than the Renice and Runcore and marginally slower than the MyDigitalSSD 32nm solutions that we have seen bench marks for.

 

just to clarify, so this 24nm version will save a little bit of power as the "eco" tag implies, but since it's 24nm it won't perform as good as the 32nm vairant?

 

Eco = Economic in this instance. I don't think it will save any power. The SF-12xx controller will definitely suck some juice. If you want something that is low power consumption I can say that the other OCZ version will give you that. It appears to be based off the old Indilinx Amigo's platform. I think they just changed the name or something. The Amigo's is good but I would not personally recommend it for anything more than a $200 netbook or droid tablet. Reason being they are very slow as far as SSD goes. Probably 2-3x faster than and HDD where as most other SSD's are 10-40X faster than an HDD.

MyDigitalSSD

 

The peeks of the new Intel drives do hint at Sandforce speeds, but I cannot believe Intel to be stupid enough to do it. Intel made a big concession for them by using the Marvell controller in the 510 series, and that was already a proven good controller, whereas Sandforce has proven to be anything but.

I'll stick with Crucial right now, thanks. Especially if Intel goes Sandforce (which I doubt).

 

I have an OCZ Nocti 120GB running as the primary drive in my Lenovo T420s. It benchmarks identically to the Vertex3 drive that I replaced, which is expected as the Nocti is just a physical shrink of the Vertex3.