OCZ'z Vertex 3 Pro Demo: World's First SandForce SF-2000
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 5, 2011 9:37 PM ESTOCZ Z-Drive R3
OCZ also demonstrated the new Z-Drive R3, a PCIe SSD with four SF-1500 controllers behind a Marvell RAID controller. The end result is the performance of four SandForce SSDs in RAID-0 on a single half-height PCIe card:
OCZ ran a quick run of ATTO on the Z-Drive R3 at the show, showing peak reads/writes of 1GB/s.
New 3.5” Chassis
OCZ also demonstrated a new, slimmer chassis for its 3.5” SSDs like the Vertex 2 and Agility 2:
On the other end of the spectrum, OCZ presented an even bigger (physically) drive: the IBIS XL. Now this isn’t going to be productized, but it’s simply something to test the waters with. The IBIS XL fits into a standard 5.25” drive by and starts at 4TB.
Speaking of IBIS, OCZ plans to bring an optical version of the IBIS’ HSDL interface to the market. OCZ didn’t have a live demo of optical HSDL, but here’s a shot of an optical HSDL card:
Unfortunately OCZ has yet to convince any motherboard makers to implement HSDL ports on boards, so at this point the standard continues to be quite limited.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
evilspoons - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
The Vertex 2 / Agility 2 dissipate like ONE WATT while being tortured (http://www.anandtech.com/show/3681/oczs-vertex-2-s...I hardly think it's a problem.
ppokorny - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
I recently had a chance to use those new 3.5" drives, and they mix plastic and metal mounting holes in a way that makes the mechanical fit not be flush on the sides.That caused problems when I had to mount the drives in a hot-swap drive tray of a server.
marraco - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Of course, the Vertex 3 should saturate SATA 2 on sequential speed, but I wish to know how much slower performs on 4 Kb tests when connected to SATA 2.Marc HFR - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Dear Anand,4K Random read is more than 3 times faster than SF-1200 one.
Are you sure you 8GB LBA space restriction on this test ?
H8ff0000 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
A lot of us want to know this. I know there's probably no info on this, but some sort of ballpark figures would help OCZ's business. If people heard a ballpark figure that didn't scare the piss out of them, they very well might actually wait for this to come to market instead of buying a C400. If I remember correctly, they said somewhere around $200 for a 120GB C400. If this were $250ish ballpark I'd wait.strikeback03 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Problem is that if they threw out a number now for a product they are hoping to launch in 4-5 months, even saying it is "ballpark" people will complain if they don't hit it. Say they said $250 right now, and you wait, and they launch in June at $300 for 120GB. Some users would be extremely upset by the wait and the "price increase".tjoynt - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Why the heck did Intel decide to name their "some % random" IOMeter write strategy "pseudo random"? "pseudo random" already means something and it is not that. :(vol7ron - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Page 1:"I get 518MB/s sequential write speed and nearly 500MB/s for sequential read"
- Are you sure that's accurate, or is it natural to have sequential write faster than sequential read?
Page 2:
'5.25” drive by'
- Probably meant drive bay
glugglug - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
On normally HDDs, random write is almost always faster than random read because the buffer cache used by the controller has a far more significant impact on writes.On an SSD maybe this applies to even sequential I/O as the wear leveling algorithm/ logical-to-physical block mapping may make your sequential operations not really 100% sequential.
FilipK959 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Well, my old Pentium 3 PC the PC 100 sdram had a transfer rate 420Mb per second according to SiSoft Sandra if I remember correctly so this is just amazing that a mass storage device can pull this off. :))