Wednesday, February 16th 2011

OCZ the First SSD Manufacturer to Announce Successful Transition to 2X nm NAND Flash

OCZ Technology Group, Inc., a leading provider of high-performance solid-state drives (SSDs) for computing devices and systems, today announces it is the first SSD manufacturer to successfully complete the transition to 2Xnm NAND flash-based storage solutions with the goal of significantly driving down the cost of client SSDs.

“OCZ is constantly exploring ways to not just advance solid state drive design but also make the technology more affordable, while maintaining high performance and reliability standards” said Ryan Petersen, CEO of OCZ Technology Group. “We are excited to complete the transition to the next generation 2Xnm NAND components which reiterates our strategy of producing high performance SSDs at the most attractive price point available for consumer applications.”

As the industry transitions to a 2Xnm fabrication process, OCZ remains focused on delivering a high-performance solution at a lower price point, continuing to pave the way for SSDs to become more accessible to the complete range of consumers, and to ultimately replace traditional mechanical hard drives over the next few years.

OCZ continues to lead the way by reducing the cost of SSDs by the use of 2Xnm technology, but will continue to offer the older flash technology in select SSD products with a higher price per gigabyte. OCZ’s 2Xnm?based SSDs carry the same warranty as the earlier 3Xnm versions, and it is the Company’s objective is to continue to deliver the very best balance of affordability, performance, and capacity to ensure an optimal computing experience.
Add your own comment

16 Comments on OCZ the First SSD Manufacturer to Announce Successful Transition to 2X nm NAND Flash

#1
DanishDevil
Pair one with a Sandforce 2000 chip and I'm sold.
Posted on Reply
#2
buggalugs
Its successful except for all the people complaining that 25nm nand drives are slower than 34nm nand drives. Lot of drama on the ocz forum about it.
Posted on Reply
#3
Hayder_Master
ok hold a sec. advice im was ready to order revodrive, should i wait
Posted on Reply
#4
buggalugs
by: hayder.master
ok hold a sec. advice im was ready to order revodrive, should i wait
Its not really an issue with the revo its still lightening fast, but the 6GB/s vertex 3's are being released in the next few weeks with similar speeds. If you're keen on a pci-e card ssd i wouldnt worry about the 25nm nand thing.
Posted on Reply
#5
zads
lol @ OCZ marketing BS.
"First to complete transition to 25nm"?
Nope.
Posted on Reply
#6
extrasalty
Decent review here:
http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vertex_2_25nm_review_oczssd22vtxe60g

There has to be reason Intel sat on those chips for a few months. In my opinion, they either had a stockpile of the old chips, or there was a serious manufacturing problem. Most of the speed reduction seems to come from the fact the chips are half the size so for the same size, the previous generation have twice the channels. Knowing the 25 nm has much less write cycles, the speed reduction is just the tip of the iceberg.

As to OCZ's marketing BS, I can't say it better than the conclusion at Storagereview:

"The problem we have with this particular situation is that any choice to make an informed buying decision was taken away when OCZ sold and advertised these models as identical through online retailers. Both list the same 285MB/s read and 275MB/s write speeds, the same three year warranties, and the same retail price. What the average buyer doesn't know is that depending on which model they get, one is up to 49% slower than the other and has only 66% of the rated write-cycles. There are other complaints as well, such as having a 5GB smaller capacity. Considering both models are sold as being 60GB; one being formatted with 55.8GB of space with the other having only 51.2GB is a huge difference. All that said, at least the 25nm version held up well in our real world benchmarks.

Overall there is no question that OCZ messed up with the way they handled the introduction of 25nm flash with their consumer SSD line. Listing these drives as different models, changing the rated speeds, mentioning the lower expected life-span, and even changing the pricing would have let buyers know what they were getting in to. Instead they took the approach that no one would notice... well we did and plenty of their own buyers did too."


So there you go "The first SSD manufacturer to successfully fool the customers about the 2x nm transition"
Posted on Reply
#7
DanishDevil
Well after reading that, I think it's safe to say that I'm staying away from OCZ from now on.
Posted on Reply
#8
Drac
by: extrasalty
Decent review here:
http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vertex_2_25nm_review_oczssd22vtxe60g

There has to be reason Intel sat on those chips for a few months. In my opinion, they either had a stockpile of the old chips, or there was a serious manufacturing problem. Most of the speed reduction seems to come from the fact the chips are half the size so for the same size, the previous generation have twice the channels. Knowing the 25 nm has much less write cycles, the speed reduction is just the tip of the iceberg.

As to OCZ's marketing BS, I can't say it better than the conclusion at Storagereview:

"The problem we have with this particular situation is that any choice to make an informed buying decision was taken away when OCZ sold and advertised these models as identical through online retailers. Both list the same 285MB/s read and 275MB/s write speeds, the same three year warranties, and the same retail price. What the average buyer doesn't know is that depending on which model they get, one is up to 49% slower than the other and has only 66% of the rated write-cycles. There are other complaints as well, such as having a 5GB smaller capacity. Considering both models are sold as being 60GB; one being formatted with 55.8GB of space with the other having only 51.2GB is a huge difference. All that said, at least the 25nm version held up well in our real world benchmarks.

Overall there is no question that OCZ messed up with the way they handled the introduction of 25nm flash with their consumer SSD line. Listing these drives as different models, changing the rated speeds, mentioning the lower expected life-span, and even changing the pricing would have let buyers know what they were getting in to. Instead they took the approach that no one would notice... well we did and plenty of their own buyers did too."


So there you go "The first SSD manufacturer to successfully fool the customers about the 2x nm transition"
Damn, i bought one of these drives two weeks ago and only have 51.2 gb and the speeds are lower than they should be.. pffff very nice OCZ fffuuuu
Posted on Reply
#9
extrasalty
My guess is the smaller space is a result of the new process having less write cycles, so the manufacturer has to provision more spare space. Double FFFUUUU.
Posted on Reply
#10
Rado D
by: extrasalty
Decent review here:
http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_vertex_2_25nm_review_oczssd22vtxe60g

There has to be reason Intel sat on those chips for a few months. In my opinion, they either had a stockpile of the old chips, or there was a serious manufacturing problem. Most of the speed reduction seems to come from the fact the chips are half the size so for the same size, the previous generation have twice the channels. Knowing the 25 nm has much less write cycles, the speed reduction is just the tip of the iceberg.

As to OCZ's marketing BS, I can't say it better than the conclusion at Storagereview:

"The problem we have with this particular situation is that any choice to make an informed buying decision was taken away when OCZ sold and advertised these models as identical through online retailers. Both list the same 285MB/s read and 275MB/s write speeds, the same three year warranties, and the same retail price. What the average buyer doesn't know is that depending on which model they get, one is up to 49% slower than the other and has only 66% of the rated write-cycles. There are other complaints as well, such as having a 5GB smaller capacity. Considering both models are sold as being 60GB; one being formatted with 55.8GB of space with the other having only 51.2GB is a huge difference. All that said, at least the 25nm version held up well in our real world benchmarks.

Overall there is no question that OCZ messed up with the way they handled the introduction of 25nm flash with their consumer SSD line. Listing these drives as different models, changing the rated speeds, mentioning the lower expected life-span, and even changing the pricing would have let buyers know what they were getting in to. Instead they took the approach that no one would notice... well we did and plenty of their own buyers did too."


So there you go "The first SSD manufacturer to successfully fool the customers about the 2x nm transition"
subbed to read this after Im back from work.
Posted on Reply
#11
devguy
At least they realized that they goofed up: Link
Posted on Reply
#12
zads
by: extrasalty
My guess is the smaller space is a result of the new process having less write cycles, so the manufacturer has to provision more spare space. Double FFFUUUU.
Well this isn't the actual reason (the real reason is related to the larger die capacity and fewer dies per drive), but less capacity is less, nonetheless.
Posted on Reply
#13
extrasalty
I forgot that with Sandforce 1 die goes for parity.
Posted on Reply
#14
Undead46
How do I know if my SSD is affected?
It's showing 53.5GB free of 111GB.
I bought mine from Newegg on 12/23/10.
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX120G 3.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Do I RMA?
Posted on Reply
#15
extrasalty
by: Undead46
How do I know if my SSD is affected?
It's showing 53.5GB free of 111GB.
I bought mine from Newegg on 12/23/10.
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX120G 3.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Do I RMA?
No, you got the original 34nm version.
Posted on Reply
#16
Kantastic
by: devguy
At least they realized that they goofed up: Link
Only after being exposed by a tech site with concrete evidence, which is quite pathetic (though not uncommon). They tried to deny the issue and now I'm denying them my money.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment