Under performing OCZ Vertex 2 - What to do?

i made 2 runs,
left with the tweaks performance mod right on with balanced mode.
running :
OCZ vertex 2 120gb 2.5"
win7 ultimate 64x
i7 620m 2.67 GHZ



why is my write speed so freaking low?
and the diffrence is just a small bit.
bought it 2 days ago.


best regards,
nigel

 

You seem to be the proud new owner of a 25nm nand equipped V2.

RMA.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...sds-customers-not-happy-over-lack-change.html

 

nigel, you could try changing your write caching settings, see if that has any effect.

By the way if you change your CDM setting to 50MB you'll still get valid results and you will have less wear on your SSD.

I wonder if your SSD possibly has 25nm Hynix NAND as explained in this article.

 

i dont rlly understand everything, still beginner of ssd's,

tho i can still turn this back to the store for 5 more days if i dont like this product,
thats better?
and what is better to buy then :/
cus i dont want this slow crap as far as i can read this doesnt give me what it specifications are.

best regards,
Nigel

 

What is better to buy?

Anything not OCZ.

 

the back of the box says :
read: 285 mb
write: 275 mb

these where higher then the intel 320, that one has a verry slow write speed
i can choose from 4 brands tho :
OCZ
INTEL
MUSHKIN
CORSAIR

which one would be best?
cus i keep searching and i cant find any decent info which brand is the best,

Corsair gives same performance
and is only 10 euro more.
so is this any better or?

best regards,
nigel

 

Returning it might be a good option but first try some things:

First try changing write caching setting (use Google if you don't know how). Then run Crystal Disk Mark with 50MB. See if that improves things.

Then run ATTO Disk benchmark to see if you get normal performance there.

 

There is nothing that is the best. I you mean performance. OCZ/MUSHKIN/CORSAIR are more or less in the same class as they all use the same Sandforce controller and that can have a huge swing from 'very fast' to 'very slow', depending on usage.

Intel is the most consistent and what you see on the spec is in general what you get for the drive(regardless how you use it, again there are rare exception cases that is too technical to get into detail). Other non-SF drive also matches more closely to their spec.

EDIT:
Phil's suggestion of ATTO is a good one. At least it remove the uncertainty about your driver use etc. ATTO would give you the 'best' number you can get from the drive so you can have a baseline.

 

alright ty for the info,
then il go for a intel which says : 270/130 and lets hope this one does give what it says !

best regards,
nigel

 

Corsair Force is a better option than OCZ because, as far as I know, they guarantee IMFT (Intel) NAND 34nm.

edit: Newegg customer reviews show there is no difference in reliability between Corsair Force and OCZ Vertex 2.

 

but corsair is also on sandforce?
atleast i thought somebody sayd that.

 

Corsair is also Sandforce but uses Intel 34nm NAND. It should be faster than what you have now.

It will beat the Intel SSD whenever the data is compressible. The Intel will be faster with incompressible data.

Can you run ATTO disk benchmark on your current SSD and post the result here?
Download ATTO Disk Benchmark v2.46 | techPowerUp

 

alright,
i did a scan with this,
tho i didnt knew how to set settings.
this is with a clean instal from 2 min ago !!!



i dont get everything 100%,
doe this program say i reach 261 /279 mb/sec max or is in real?

best regards,
Nigel

 

yes. it does.

It shows your setup is perfect, no need to tune. and OCZ would tell you that their drive is functioning close to spec(which I agree too). Going further, it becomes a bit complicated and I don't want to get into it as that has been mentioned thousands of times on this forum.

 

ye i agree,
using the tweeks for pm55 chipset wont get me any faster i guess?

 

I don't think it helps. It is just the nature of the drive. Whether it fits your usage is something only you can tell(as no one knows your usage pattern but you). Personally, I don't want a SF drive(let alone OCZ).

 

but the test i gave on the pic, does this mean it rlly reads 261 mb/sec and writes 279 mb/sec? in real?

if it does its pretty fast, cus that other test program gave pretty low details and this one pretty high.
so its strange,
why u dont like SF drives?

 

SF drive use compression to reduce write to the NAND. In ATTO(which is what OCZ's spec is about), it use nothing but 0 or 1 in its data.

Repeated 0/1 is VERY COMPRESSIBLE. It means if you write 1MB to the drive, may be only 5% lands on the NAND. And writing to the NAND is slow. This effectively boost the 'speed' by 20x. This is a figure choosen to convey the idea, not actual measure.

The other test may use different data pattern(which may be 100% incompressible) so all your speed boost has gone.

In real life, the data is some where in between and my own drive suggested about 20% compressible or 100MB can be compressed down to 80MB. So SF while still would give you a speed boost, it is much less so than their 'spec'.

How compressible is your data, I don't know.

There are other reasons I don't like SF drive but I would be repeating myself and risk the post being deleted.

 

ah that way,

im just using it for specific games and boot windows,
nothing much more tho,
so is it any smart to return it for 320 intel 120gb or not?
because i cant find a propper review about these 2.
and my pm55 intel mainboard doesnt support sata3 so i cant buy the 510 series...

 

Personally, I am not too concern about the compression thing(it should fit your pattern well) but reliability.

My advice to any SF(any brand) potential buyer is to find someone who use the same model(I mean computer) as yours and that they don't have issue with the drive for say 3-6 months. There are known compatbility issues with certain models and it is very frustrated to find that out after buying the drive and used for say a month or so.

Try to go to OCZ's support forum and search your particular motherboard/bios or laptop. If you don't find anything, it is a good sign. Or ask if there are happy users using the same motherboard as yours.

 

perfect, thank you for the info.

 

I have the 60gb version but we are close

 

So you did a clean install, good work. Your ATTO looks pretty good.

How's your Crystal Disk Mark now? Set it at 3x 50MB.

If you still only get 60MB/sec sequential write I would either exchange it with OCZ or get a different brand at the store.

 

alright here is the new CDM,



almost started crying -.-
so i can get a intel 320 120gb
or order corsair 120gb.
because i payd 200$ for this ssd and it sucks atm !

best regards,
nigel

 

4K random performance is actually quite good now.

If you exchange it for Corsair Force you will get ~80 MB/sec incompressible write speed.

Intel is faster with incompressible write but slower with 4K random reads and writes. 4K random performance is more important.

I'd go with Corsair. Intel has higher reliability.

 

i prefer most permormance hehe,
imma ask the store howlong it takes to order a corsair 120gb.
because my laptop is fast now, but it can be faster as far i know !
so 4k random is the most importand?
i can also receive my money back.
but i rlly dont have a clue what ssd i should buy then -.-

 

4K random performance has the bigger impact on real world performance. The sequential write for incompressible data (that's in CDM) is basically only important for file copies of compressed files.

If it was my money I'd probably ask for my money back and get the Crucial C300 128GB.
It's performs very well on SATA II, it's already SATA III capable and as far I know it's very reliable.

Performance: Intel SSD 320 (300GB) Review - A Review of the Intel SSD 320 (300GB)
Prices: Crucial RealSSD C300 2.5" 128GB prijzen | Core | Tweakers.net Pricewatch

 

alright, well my motherboard only uses sata 2 pm55 intel
but if i use it on a sata 3 would also work then.

the max write says : 140mb/sec
and the OCZ says 275 mb/sec.

so the OCZ is just complete ****?
and do i reach the 140mb/sec or near the same speed?

 

Like explained before, Sandforce SSDs (like OCZ and Corsair) can only reach the quoted top speeds (275 MB/sec) with fully compressible data. When the data is not compressible at all, they will perform less. Windows OS and applications are about 50% compressible.

But instead of judging an SSD by the specifications, why not judge it by the real world speeds?

Those reviews I showed you show real world speeds. They are far more important than specifications.

 

alright imma buy that one u suggested

Test Merkproduct Crucial C300 128GB - SSD / 2.5'' / SATA III / MLC| redcoon Nederland

this one right?

 

After doing heavy CDM writes to SF1200 drives, the firmware pulls back write performance to maintain NAND longevity. You could probably get close to double the performance if do a Secure Erase using hdparm to reset the firmware.

Result Mini-review: Direct comparison between 34nm and 25nm drives using 0-fill highly compressible data and 0/1-fill partially compressible data has a good baseline of what to expect from your 120GB SF1200 SSD. A 25nm unit getting results like this:

 

Yes that's the one. I must say though that your Vertex 2 is not performing that bad. The low seq. write score in CDM only reflects incompressible data speeds. Not very important.

That will work for a few hours or days max. After that it will pull back again. A Secure Erase causes unnecessary wear, so I would definitely not recommend it. Tony from OCZ also advices against SE on Sandforce drives.

Ps. Maybe his Vertex 2 uses Hynix NANDs, which could explain the lower write.

 

im using the 25nm vertex 2,
ive searched how i could see the diffrenrce,
its in the part number.
34 nm ends with G.M
25 nm ends with only G
so i got the 25 nm,
im going to the store in 15 min, and check if they got the 34 nm version.
if not imma order that other one c300

 

C300 for TRIM enabled OS. Keep in mind just in case you aren't going to be using Win 7.

 

i always use win7,
maybe using a win xp virtual machine.
does that matter?

 

No it doesn't.

 

There's no doubt that the OP's drive is the slower, recalled version - the 107 GB formatted capacity is a dead giveaway.

 

This reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld.

1. Things you know (My SSD is 25nm for sure and it sucks)
2. Things you know you don't know (My SSD is 34nm. However, it could be a Hynix 32nm version, which is even worse than the 25nm.)
3. Things you don't know you don't know. (Vertex 3 drives)

 

so new ssd came in
c300 crucial 128 gb !

here are the new tests :

all write speeds got pretty high but the 4k write is lower then the vertex?

 

CDM looks good. Write speeds in Atto look a bit weird. Should look something like this:


You might want to try this:
The SSD Optimization Guide | The SSD Review

 

here did your guide,
the CDM looks even better.
but the otto not rlly changed.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. Performance looks fine now. Enjoy your SSD.

 

alright ty everybody for all the info ^^