Thursday, March 13th 2008

OCZ Introduces 32GB and 64GB High-Speed SATAII Solid State Drives

OCZ Technology today unveiled ultra-fast OCZ SATA II 2.5” Solid State Drives, a lightweight and efficient alternative to conventional hard disc drives. The OCZ SATA II drive is designed to stay abreast of the performance features of high-end notebooks, and is ideal for energy-efficient mobile computing. With blazing access times combined with excellent reliability, the OCZ SATA II 2.5” SSD is the answer for enthusiasts demanding the most advanced storage for their notebooks and systems.


“There are many benefits of solid state drive technology over traditional disk drives including superior speed, reliability, and power savings,” commented Alex Mei, Executive VP and CMO, OCZ Technology Group. “Our newest SATA II drives are designed to further extend the advantages of this technology offering enhanced performance for high-end mobile solutions.”

As enthusiasts seek out a more efficient and reliable forms of mass storage, OCZ SATA II SSDs are the ideal upgrade for energy efficiency, performance, and durability. High-speed and low power consuming NAND flash technology provides the necessary performance and battery life boosts generated by the proliferation of mobile gaming and new ultra-thin laptops.

At incredible capacities of 32GB and 64GB and premier speeds of 120MB/s read and 100MB/s write, OCZ SATA II SSDs enable enhanced productivity in your everyday computing and intensive multi-tasking applications. Featuring durable yet lightweight brushed alloy housing, OCZ SATA II 2.5” SSDs have no moving parts that are prone to damage from common mishandling. Designed for ultimate reliability, these SSDs have an excellent two million hour mean time before failure (MTBF) ensuring peace of mind over the long term.

For more information on the OCZ SATA II 2.5 SSD, please click here.Source: OCZ Technology
Add your own comment

28 Comments on OCZ Introduces 32GB and 64GB High-Speed SATAII Solid State Drives

#1
DanishDevil
Sweet! Now to wait until they're the price of a 74G Raptor... :cry:
Posted on Reply
#2
infrared
a couple of those in Raid 0 would be sweet!
Posted on Reply
#3
tkpenalty
I want. Since its so thin i could probably install this hdd under my motherboard :laugh: (i got tall risers btw)
Posted on Reply
#4
mandelore
aww.. man.. I would setup a large raid 0 then have a seperate non raided drive specifically for my pagefile.

I so very much want :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#5
Mussels
Moderprator
by: tkpenalty
I want. Since its so thin i could probably install this hdd under my motherboard :laugh: (i got tall risers btw)
this would pair up nicely with a raptor i recently acquired...
Posted on Reply
#6
sinner33
Wondering if 1 of these SSD drives would be quicker than 2 sata2 harddrives in raid 0? Mind my ignorance.
Posted on Reply
#7
Mussels
Moderprator
by: sinner33
Wondering if 1 of these SSD drives would be quicker than 2 sata2 harddrives in raid 0? Mind my ignorance.
access times dont get faster in raid. they DO get faster on SSD drives (nanoseconds vs milliseconds)

SSD's are different technology, they dont compare directly.
Posted on Reply
#8
3870x2
SSD only does 120MB/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive), the only thing you are gaining is a good seek speed. A single Raptor in sata is faster than an SSD: 1.6Gb/s /8 = .2GB/s, or 200MB/s, almost 2 times faster(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_drive). At this point, you can add in access speeds, and fragmentation that happens in a hard drive, something that the performance of an SSD is barely affected by.
So, small files here and there, an SSD drive would be better, loading a game or operating system, a good defragged hard drive would be faster.
Also, not all hard drives have the capability of going 1.6Gb/s, any run of the mill 7200RPM HDD non raid will go 1.0-1.2 GB/s.
Posted on Reply
#9
candle_86
120mb/s now, it wont take long i promise you, thats nothing to do wtih the drive and more to do with the firmware
Posted on Reply
#10
jothy
you're right, manufacturers seem very confident there is more headroom with the controller and firmware
Posted on Reply
#11
Wile E
Power User
by: 3870x2
SSD only does 120MB/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive), the only thing you are gaining is a good seek speed. A single Raptor in sata is faster than an SSD: 1.6Gb/s /8 = .2GB/s, or 200MB/s, almost 2 times faster(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_drive). At this point, you can add in access speeds, and fragmentation that happens in a hard drive, something that the performance of an SSD is barely affected by.
So, small files here and there, an SSD drive would be better, loading a game or operating system, a good defragged hard drive would be faster.
Also, not all hard drives have the capability of going 1.6Gb/s, any run of the mill 7200RPM HDD non raid will go 1.0-1.2 GB/s.
A single Raptor is most certainly NOT faster than an SSD. They get no where near 200MB/s. They average about 75-80MB/s read and write, across the whole drive.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx=33&model1=280&model2=580&chart=34
Posted on Reply
#12
Mussels
Moderprator
by: 3870x2
SSD only does 120MB/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive), the only thing you are gaining is a good seek speed. A single Raptor in sata is faster than an SSD: 1.6Gb/s /8 = .2GB/s, or 200MB/s, almost 2 times faster(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_drive). At this point, you can add in access speeds, and fragmentation that happens in a hard drive, something that the performance of an SSD is barely affected by.
So, small files here and there, an SSD drive would be better, loading a game or operating system, a good defragged hard drive would be faster.
Also, not all hard drives have the capability of going 1.6Gb/s, any run of the mill 7200RPM HDD non raid will go 1.0-1.2 GB/s.
i'm sorry.. quoting figures doesnt make you right.

as an owner of a raptor, i would love to point out a few things: raptors only sustain 70-80MB/s at best, and excel at seek speed. SSD drives rape the seek speed down to the ground, and manage 120MB/s read sustained.
You have a LOT of your facts wrong, and you conclusions are screwed up because of it. SSD's are faster for EVERYTHING.
Posted on Reply
#13
3870x2
Im sorry, not quoting figures does not make you right...
I quote figures so to flame, you actually have to counteract with factual quotes of your own, which you havent done...
anyway, its not whether im wrong or right, if you want to argue, go to wikipedia.com and contact the users that created that particular article, not me, I couldnt care less, the worst thing I could be accused of here is citing a wrongful source.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/13/flash_based_hard_drives_cometh/page8.html

As you can se here, even a raid-0 64gb flash barely writes better than a 7200 rpm non raid drive, and even in raid doesnt do a while lot better than your average run-of-the-mill hdd. 2 10k raptor in SATA2 RAID-0 would not only cost enormously less than the 64gb, have more storage, and yet still perform just as well on read, and stomp it completely out on write.
On boot, its pretty good though because of the seek speeds. I think that within the next year or so, we should really see some goodness in SSD.
It shows here that even in raid, it only gets 120MB/s, where did you get 120 per 1 ssd from? anyway, you are right, it is pretty well sustained, having a very good high and low, pretty much staying at the same through the entire process.

you can see right here as a FACT that it does not write better than an average hard drive.
Posted on Reply
#14
Mussels
Moderprator
by: 3870x2
Im sorry, not quoting figures does not make you right...
I quote figures so to flame, you actually have to counteract with factual quotes of your own, which you havent done...
anyway, its not whether im wrong or right, if you want to argue, go to wikipedia.com and contact the users that created that particular article, not me, I couldnt care less, the worst thing I could be accused of here is citing a wrongful source.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/13/flash_based_hard_drives_cometh/page8.html

As you can se here, even a raid-0 64gb flash barely writes better than a 7200 rpm non raid drive, and even in raid doesnt do a while lot better than your average run-of-the-mill hdd. 2 10k raptor in SATA2 RAID-0 would not only cost enormously less than the 64gb, have more storage, and yet still perform just as well on read, and stomp it completely out on write.
On boot, its pretty good though because of the seek speeds. I think that within the next year or so, we should really see some goodness in SSD.
It shows here that even in raid, it only gets 120MB/s, where did you get 120 per 1 ssd from? anyway, you are right, it is pretty well sustained, having a very good high and low, pretty much staying at the same through the entire process.

you can see right here as a FACT that it does not write better than an average hard drive.
i'm sorry.. did they review the OCZ one? or did they review an OLDER flash drive. Compare a raptor to a regular drive, you might as well. 120 per SSD? the first post in this thread, perhaps? "At incredible capacities of 32GB and 64GB and premier speeds of 120MB/s read and 100MB/s write, "

QUOTING someone else doesnt mean much, and no one said wiki is always accurate. magnetic hard drives are stuck at about 60-80MB/s on the best drives, whereas SSD's can do 120 each with a LOT (we're talking hundreds of times faster) access time.

you started bringing up really weird numbers which were inaccurate, since i OWN a raptor and i HAVE benchmarked it (i can even take pics if you want) i have my own comparisons to make. You cant rely on tomshardware and wiki for a new product THAT ISNT EVEN OUT YET.
My info comes from having and using a raptor, the information in the first post of this thread, and from contacts/friends at OCZ, sorry if that isnt enough for you.
Posted on Reply
#15
3870x2
understood, and you probably have me on this one, but dont get your hopes up, take what a company boasts their product can do, then multiply it by anywhere from .7 to .9 lol. By OCZ standards, I would say probably .85. Still doesnt yet justify the price, I cant wait until either I get rich, or the price comes down. I think that after a while, these drives will obsolete the HDDs we have today, in speed, price, and space.
Posted on Reply
#16
Mussels
Moderprator
by: 3870x2
understood, and you probably have me on this one, but dont get your hopes up, take what a company boasts their product can do, then multiply it by anywhere from .7 to .9 lol. By OCZ standards, I would say probably .85. Still doesnt yet justify the price, I cant wait until either I get rich, or the price comes down. I think that after a while, these drives will obsolete the HDDs we have today, in speed, price, and space.
if thye say 120MB/s read... it has to do that. 120MB/s read and 100MB/s write. If it cant do that its false advertising, and it wouldnt be legal. Yes that may be 'peak' results, but you cant claim SSD's are crap on bandwidth, its the ACESS times (not really benchmarkable) that matter. Go check youtube for people booting windows XP off a gigabyte i-ram, its the same thing.


say what you want about hte price... its not like raptors are cheap either. these are fast drives, not storage drives. Totally different market. Edit: its like comparing onboard video to an 8800ultra and saying "why bother, its only helps games - my movies and browser look exactly the same"
Posted on Reply
#17
3870x2
lol, calm down and take a breath, no one is attacking you! I never said derogatory statements about your family or anything. LOL im done on this thread for a bit, forget that its not a chat room -_-!
Posted on Reply
#18
Mussels
Moderprator
by: 3870x2
lol, calm down and take a breath, no one is attacking you! I never said derogatory statements about your family or anything.
my mother was an SSD drive!

i just have a problem with inaccurate info. even if it wasnt intentional (or the person was mistake, and this includes myself) there is a risk some poor nub will go and do something stupid based on that advice, then come back here hating us for it later. that happens quite a lot in regards to cooling, for example.
Posted on Reply
#19
3870x2
Thats good, btw nice SiG, I would make a sig with the items I have in my computer, but im in IRAQ, so its kinda hard.
Posted on Reply
#20
Yin
I wonder how much these things are gonna go for? and would it be possible to raid them? Would that make it even faster?
Posted on Reply
#21
phanbuey
by: 3870x2
Thats good, btw nice SiG, I would make a sig with the items I have in my computer, but im in IRAQ, so its kinda hard.
must not have google in Iraq.
Posted on Reply
#22
Mussels
Moderprator
by: Yin
I wonder how much these things are gonna go for? and would it be possible to raid them? Would that make it even faster?
quite linear, being SSD's.

if 1 drive is 120MB/s, 2 will be 240 - unlike mechanical drives which have to keep up with each other, SSD's have a lot faster access time (i'm sick of saying that) so the performance increase will be 90% or better. (1x = 120, 2x = 200-240. and so on)
Posted on Reply
#23
Wile E
Power User
by: Mussels
quite linear, being SSD's.

if 1 drive is 120MB/s, 2 will be 240 - unlike mechanical drives which have to keep up with each other, SSD's have a lot faster access time (i'm sick of saying that) so the performance increase will be 90% or better. (1x = 120, 2x = 200-240. and so on)
While the drives themselves are capable of that kind of scaling, the controllers actually can become a bottleneck with them. There was somebody in one of the HD Tach threads that had SSDs. Once past 2 drives, the scaling dropped off rapidly when using on-board, and even 2 drives didn't scale linearly. Even his first dedicated controller card (with dedicated ram and cpu) stopped scaling well beyond 2 or 3 drives. It was only after he upgraded to a more powerful controller card that he saw them scale properly.

I do realize that 3+ drive SSD arrays are beyond the scope of most people, but it's just some food for thought.
Posted on Reply
#24
Mussels
Moderprator
by: Wile E
While the drives themselves are capable of that kind of scaling, the controllers actually can become a bottleneck with them. There was somebody in one of the HD Tach threads that had SSDs. Once past 2 drives, the scaling dropped off rapidly when using on-board, and even 2 drives didn't scale linearly. Even his first dedicated controller card (with dedicated ram and cpu) stopped scaling well beyond 2 or 3 drives. It was only after he upgraded to a more powerful controller card that he saw them scale properly.

I do realize that 3+ drive SSD arrays are beyond the scope of most people, but it's just some food for thought.
worthy addition, that info.
Posted on Reply
#25
3870x2
its not that 3 ssd drives are beyond the scope of me, its just that IM beyond the scope of 3 ssd drives. You can call me UDDR4 - Ultra Duper Data Rate 4!!! :P
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment