OCZ’s Vector 150 solid-state drive reviewed

The playbook for SSDs is pretty well established. Controller updates are few and far between, so new drives typically combine existing technology with flash fabbed on a finer manufacturing process. That’s not the most exciting recipe, but it makes sense. These days, most folks want SSDs to be cheaper rather than faster. Transitioning to finer lithography is the best way to lower the all-important cost per gigabyte.

OCZ followed that formula when it released the Vertex 450 earlier this year. That drive paired the Indilinx Barefoot 3 controller from OCZ’s Vector SSD with newer 20-nm NAND. Now, OCZ is back with the Vector 150, which mates the Barefoot chip with the latest 19-nm flash.

Rinse. Repeat.

To be fair, there’s more to the Vector 150 than a NAND upgrade—and more to this story than the drive itself. Now that I’ve teased some intrigue, let’s dive into the details.

OCZ’s own Indilinx Barefoot 3 controller sits inside the Vector 150’s 7-mm case. The chip is the same M00 revision used in the original Vector rather than the slightly down-clocked M10 variant employed by the Vertex 450. Apart from the clocks, the two chips are pretty much identical.

Like most contemporary SSD controllers, the Barefoot 3 has a 6Gbps Serial ATA interface on one end and eight parallel NAND channels on the other. The controller can address up to four individual flash dies per channel, making 32-die configurations ideal for peak performance. It also has an AES encryption engine onboard. That encryption block went untapped in the original Vector, but the new model can scramble bits on the fly using a 256-bit AES algorithm.

After loading its previous Barefoot 3 drives with Intel and Micron flash, OCZ has switched to Toshiba Toggle DDR NAND for the Vector 150. The change is notable because, during last month’s investor conference call, CEO Ralph Schmitt said OCZ was “still struggling to secure flash allocation.” That struggle primarily affected OCZ’s client SSD business, according to Schmitt, who also said the firm had trouble getting NAND at competitive prices. The situation was serious enough that OCZ declined to provide future guidance due to “current uncertainty with credit and supply.”

We asked OCZ how that uncertainty might affect the Vector 150. The firm told us the switch to Toshiba NAND is part of the solution to its supply problems, and that Toshiba has been a “good partner” for its enterprise SSD business. Flash supply shouldn’t be a problem for the Vector 150.

Unfortunately, moving to Toshiba NAND cuts OCZ out of the packaging. In the past, OCZ has purchased flash by the wafer and then handled the cutting and packaging of individual dies internally. That approach can lower costs, facilitating lower drive prices, but the Toshiba NAND comes pre-packaged.

The NAND packages split 128Gb (16GB) between dual 64Gb (8GB) dies. As with the flash in most consumer SSDs, there are two bits per cell—it’s MLC NAND, in other words.

Capacity Die


sequential (MB/s)
Max 4KB random (IOps) Price $/GB
Read Write Read Write
120GB 16 x 64Gb 550 450 80,000 95,000 $130 $1.08
240GB 32 x
550 530 90,000 95,000 $240 $1.00
480GB 64 x
550 530 100,000 95,000 $500 $1.04

Remember what I said about 32-die configurations being ideal given the Barefoot 3’s channel configuration? The Vector 150’s performance ratings largely bear that out. The 120GB model has only 16 dies, and its sequential write speed is 80MB/s slower than that of the 240 and 480GB models. Our 240GB sample has the same write speed rating as the 480GB drive. Oddly, though, its random read rate is slightly lower.

OCZ’s earlier Barefoot 3 SSDs have come in 128, 256, and 512GB flavors, but the Vector 150 is limited to 120, 240, and 480GB. The drives have the same amount of flash as their predecessors; they just devote more of it to so-called spare area accessible only to the controller. OCZ did this in part to improve performance with sustained workloads. Allocating additional spare area provides a larger pool of empty NAND pages for incoming writes.

The spare area was also increased to improve endurance. The larger the overprovisioned area, the more flash reserves are available to replace blocks that have gone bad due to normal wear. According to OCZ’s specifications, the Vector 150 is good for 50GB of writes per day for five years under typical client workloads. The Vertex 450 and the original Vector are rated for only 20GB per day. You can read more about how many writes modern SSDs can actually take in our ongoing endurance experiment.

As the Vector 150’s endurance rating implies, the warranty lasts for five years. OCZ’s reliability reputation is a little tarnished, though. Amazon and Newegg user reviews for the Vertex 450 and the original Vector are peppered with complaints about errors and premature failures. Online reviews should be taken with a sprinkling of salt, of course, but the numbers are worth noting. The table below summarizes the “star” ratings associated with the user reviews of a bunch of modern SSDs.

Drive Amazon Newegg
* ** *** **** ***** Total * ** *** **** ***** Total
Neutron GTX
8% 0% 4% 0% 88% 26 1% 1% 4% 5% 88% 75
335 Series
0% 3% 5% 13% 80% 40 7% 1% 2% 5% 84% 95
520 Series
6% 3% 4% 12% 73% 203 7% 3% 3% 7% 81% 115
840 Series
3% 2% 2% 14% 79% 1221 7% 2% 4% 13% 74% 734
840 Pro
2% 1% 2% 9% 86% 903 5% 2% 3% 8% 82% 865
17% 5% 5% 8% 66% 119 26% 9% 6% 8% 52% 246
Vertex 450
36% 0% 0% 14% 50% 14 38% 13% 6% 0% 44% 16

The OCZ SSDs clearly have more negative reviews than their peers. Just look at all those one- and two-star ratings.

In the past, OCZ has attributed Vector complaints to issues addressed by a firmware update issued in March. However, there are plenty of reports of failed Vector drives from just the past few months. The Vector’s firmware fixes were rolled into the Vertex 450, but that drive also has numerous reports of premature failures. In fact, the percentage of negative Vertex 450 reviews is even higher than for the Vector, albeit with a much smaller sample size.

OCZ says its internal data points to a defect rate of “around 1%,” which sounds a lot better than the figures listed above. If only that claim made me feel more confident. When OCZ introduced the Vector, it said bringing controller and firmware development in house would allow it to avoid the reliability issues that plagued some of its early SandForce-based products. So far, the anecdotal evidence suggests that OCZ SSDs are more problematic than their peers.

Still, OCZ does have a reputation for producing wicked-fast SSDs. Let’s see how this puppy performs…

Performance highlights

Our usual SSD reviews are filled with page after page of graphs that take forever to create. The thing is, with minor updates like the Vector 150, only a handful of the results ever end up being interesting. And most of you skip over the numbers and head straight to the conclusion, anyway. With those factors in mind, it seems like a waste to roll out a full set of results for the Vector 150. We’ve run OCZ’s latest through our full test suite using the same setup as our last SSD review, but instead of giving you the full run-down, we’ll stick to the highlights.

Load times

SSDs are great for speeding up load times, so that’s a good place to start. We measure how long it takes each drive to load Windows 7 and levels from Duke Nukem Forever and Portal 2. We have a lot of historical data for these tests, but perhaps it’s time to update the suite with Win8 and more recent games.

Although the SSDs are much faster than the lone mechanical hard drive in these tests, the differences between them are relatively small. Less than a second separates the Vector 150 from its solid-state peers. In these scenarios, it’s difficult to notice a difference between any of the SSDs.

DriveBench 2.0

This benchmark plays back the I/O associated with nearly two weeks of everyday desktop activity peppered with bouts of disk-intensive multitasking. DriveBench 2.0 is the best tool we have for assessing real-world responsiveness. Here’s how the Vector 150’s mean service times stack up.

Impressive. The latest Barefoot drive tops the standings with writes and is barely out of the lead with reads. Most of the SSDs score pretty well here, but the gaps are definitely wider with writes.

The Vector 150 is a little bit faster than its Barefoot-based predecessors in DriveBench overall. There are no red flags in the results from our other DriveBench metrics or from the test suite as a whole.


FileBench looks at copy speeds using real-world files. Most of the file sets are self-explanatory: movies, RAW images, and MP3s. The TR set includes the image, HTML, and spreadsheet files that make up typical TR content, while the Mozilla set comprises all the files needed to compile the open-source browser. Click on the buttons below the graph to see the results for each set.

The Vector 150 isn’t the fastest SSD in FileBench, but it’s right up there when copying the larger files in the movie, RAW, and MP3 sets. The drive is somewhat less competitive with the smaller files in the TR and Mozilla sets. Those files are more amenable to compression, which is why the SandForce-based drives perform so well in those tests.

Interestingly, the Vector 150 is marginally slower than its predecessor across the board. All the Barefoot-based drives deliver comparable performance, though.


IOMeter highlights performance under a scaling load that increases the number of concurrent I/O requests. Desktop systems rarely deal with more than a few simultaneous requests, but the command queue associated with the Serial ATA spec supports up to 32. Ramping up the number of requests gives us a sense of how the Vector 150 might perform in more demanding enterprise environments.

This time around, the buttons below each graph compare the Vector 150 to other groups of SSDs. The web server access pattern is made up exclusively of read requests, while the file server test mixes reads and writes.

The Vector 150’s performance in the web server benchmark is good but unremarkable. Plenty of other SSDs match or exceed its I/O throughput. In the file server test, however, the Vector 150 outclasses most of its peers. Its transaction rate climbs steeply; by the end of the test, the drive is crunching substantially more I/O than its closest rival.

Power consumption

Now that we’ve seen the performance highlights, let’s take a quick look at power consumption. We measured each drive’s current draw under load with IOMeter’s workstation access pattern chewing through 32 concurrent I/O requests. Idle power consumption was probed one minute after processing Windows 7’s idle tasks on an empty desktop.

Not bad. Although the Vector 150’s idle power draw is nothing to write home about, the drive draws a couple watts less than its Barefoot brothers under load. And it does so while pushing more I/O than any of the other SSDs. The Vector 150’s throughput in the workstation test is just as impressive as it is in the file server benchmark.


We summarize storage performance with a single score derived by comparing each drive’s performance to that of a common baseline: a painfully slow notebook hard drive. This index uses a subset of the performance data from our full test suite. We then mash up that information with each drive’s cost per gigabyte, which is calculated from prevailing Newegg prices and the Vector 150’s official MSRP, to produce our famous value scatter plots. As always, the most desirable products are closer to the upper left corner, which denotes the highest performance and the lowest price.

Our lone mechanical drive makes somewhat of a mess of the scatter plot, so we have a second one with just the SSDs. Click the button below the plot to switch between them. And note that both axes have been trimmed for the SSD-only plot.

The hard drive squishes all the SSDs into the top right quadrant, and the labels are a little hard to read as a result. However, the plot nicely illustrates the wide discrepancies between solid-state and mechanical storage. Even the cheapest and slowest SSDs are a lot faster—and cost a lot more per gigabyte—than our 7,200-RPM desktop drive.

Concentrating on the SSDs brings the Vector 150 into focus. OCZ’s latest is the second-fastest SSD we’ve ever tested. It’s sandwiched between Vertex 450 and the original Vector overall, giving OCZ the top three spots on the podium. That’s an impressive feat considering the competition.

The performance differences between that trio and the next contenders down the line aren’t substantial, though. There are plenty of rivals within striking distance, and many of them are cheaper per gigabyte. The Samsung 840 Pro even matches the Vector’s five-year warranty coverage—but user reviews suggest Samsung has a much better reliability track record.

Therein lies the problem with the Vector 150. After watching negative user reviews stack up for two generations of Barefoot drives, I can’t bring myself to recommend one. The Vector 150’s performance advantage isn’t enough to make up for the apparently higher risk of premature failure. Reliability is of the utmost importance for a device tasked with storing one’s OS, applications, and precious data. Given the alternatives, I see no reason to roll the dice.

To be fair, the Vector 150 could end up with a spotless reliability track record and overwhelmingly positive user reviews. We simply don’t know, and we’ll be keeping tabs on user impressions to see how things shake out.

Comments closed
    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    Strangely I have 3 Vertex 2 drives around and they are still OK. I feel lucky lol. I dunno. It seems like every SSD released has had reliability issues. Even Intel has had problems to an extent. One would think these small, cool-running devices would be more easy to make reliable.

    Though I actually have not had any SSD fail on me and I’ve purchased around 10 of various models. I did have an occasional sleep-related BSOD with a Vertex 2 on a HM55-based notebook but I think firmware fixed that. I have friends who’ve had a M4 and a Vertex 2 (or 3?) die however.

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    Actually it was 5 drives now that I recall.
    1 2.5″ for my home system. died within a month. The replacement died within a week. Got a refund.
    1 2.5″ that never died, or had a single BSOD.

    2 1.8″ with latest firmware that had BSODs fairly infrequently, but were disk related (hibernation or suspend) and after I imaged and replaced with Kingston, they were fine.

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 9 years ago

    That’s another advantage of the typical combined installation.
    $170 for a 0.250 TB SSD for your OS and frequently-accessed programs
    $110 for a 3.0 TB internal hard-drive for storage
    $120 for a 3.0 TB external USB 3.0 hard-drive for back-up

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    It’s companies like OCZ that can’t be bothered to QA their devices that give you that opinion. So while I’m not the one that downvoted you, I get it. Still, it’s time to join the storage tech of the 21st century.

    • odizzido
    • 9 years ago

    Same here. SSDs have been affordable to me for quite some time, but the majority of the time I hear about someone losing a drive it is an SSD. mechanical HDs have been around for a long time, and we are down to just a few companies now so I think they have gotten pretty good at making drives.

    With SSDs, there are a ton of companies giving it a go and all of them are relatively new to it. I know that SSDs SHOULD be more reliable than mechanical drives, and I do think they will be, but I just don’t trust them yet.

    What I find kinda strange though is phones never seem to have trouble with their flash, so what gives?

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    Yeah, the problem with that is that OCZ are picking up a lot of negative reviews even when the reviewers are “verified owners”.

    I always gave OCZ the benefit of the doubt, but the fact remains that their Sandforce drives bought a couple of years ago are still failing [i<]today[/i<] in seemingly greater numbers than other Sandforce vendors. If the controller is the same, it must be something OCZ were/are still doing wrong, either in the NAND packaging or firmware stages.

    • ronch
    • 9 years ago

    Call me conservative, but I haven’t really gotten myself to buy an SSD yet. They’re a lot more affordable these days but perhaps part of me thinks that the technology isn’t fully mature yet, with all the reliability issues I’ve been reading about (I’m sure someone will say these fears are uncalled for) as well as performance degradations. I think the industry is yet to discover the silver bullet to end all these woes.

    • spuppy
    • 9 years ago

    The reason reviews can often be dismissed is because there is a lot of negativity towards the company itself. You can see it here with a lot of comments from non owners shitting on OCZ products because they have been burned in the past. Nothing is said about the current products, aside from a few people.

    People go to great extremes to tarnish the reputation of companies they really hate, and I wouldn’t be surprised one bit to find out that most negative reviews from verified owners are pure BS.

    • tootercomputer
    • 9 years ago

    My first SSD was an OCZ Vector and I got lots of BSODs and finally returned it to Newegg who actually took it back and replaced it with another brand and got a single BSOD and none since (that was two years ago). TR had raved about that OCZ drive I got, even with all the complaints. I’m surprised at Geoff’s comment: “Online reviews should be taken with a sprinkling of salt, of course, but the numbers are worth noting.” That’s kind of contradictory. I do look at on-line reviews and try to weigh them in my purchase decision. Bottom line: I’ll never buy another OCZ.

    • DarkMikaru
    • 9 years ago

    I completely agree! Our first SSD at my previous workplace as an OCZ for a lawyers desktop and it died without warning 2 months later. Then the replacement, 4 months after that. Also, go find the OCZ Synapse & Octane drives on Newegg! Those failure rates are horrendous. Anyway, I’m all for giving companies a second chance, maybe even a third. But OCZ, I just can’t bring myself to give another shot.

    Newegg had a sale recently (regularly actually) for refurbished OCZ Vertex drives. They had the 120GB for 67.99 and I almost bit. Not surprisingly it was sold out. I just can’t risk it.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    Pretty amusing to look at the table on the first page.

    And then you look at the graph on the last page and wonder why anybody OCZs in the first place. Samsung 840EVO has the clear cost/performance crown.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    On another note, if you’re looking for new games to test under load levels. I think LoL, WoW, WoT, and BF4 would cover all the major ones that people encounter and are pretty relevant in gaming today. Load times in LoL for instance happen on a relatively regular basis, the same with WoT as they’re both ‘map based’. BF4 as well if you switch servers often. All of the above are free to play in one way or another (except BF4), which would work for this.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 9 years ago

    Finally, people here are wising up to what was blatantly obvious to anyone who’s watched OCZ for any length of time.

    Friends don’t let friends OCZ.

    • ClickClick5
    • 9 years ago

    And that sandforce controller was garbage. The new Indi controllers are X^N over sandforce.

    • ClickClick5
    • 9 years ago

    My friend has an Agility 4 ssd and he, in short, abuses that drive. Still going strong! He got it about a week after launch. It is his boot/Steam drive.

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    Talking solely about work, the bulk of our machines (homebrew and dell) with SSD’s are Samsung. So far zero failures over 2+ years – though we only have a hundred boxes that fit that category so far.

    Outside of work, I have easily built 50 boxes in the last two years, and the failure rate is much higher.
    I’ve seen a dead Intel, a few dead Kingstons, Corsairs and Patriots.
    ALL of the OCZ’s are dead – every last one of them.

    The thing that really gets me is that I put more care and attention into the boxes I build outside of work – because I’m doing them as a favour, so I find it odd that the reliability is lower in that instance. The only real difference is a greater range of hardware – the 100+ office PC’s can be whittled down to just six distinct motherboards, whilst I imagine that no two boards were the same on the private builds.

    For this reason, I think drive reliability is influenced more by other hardware than anyone is giving it credit for, but at the same time my sample sizes are easily an order of magnitude too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

    • internetsandman
    • 9 years ago

    I was talking about a bad batch of Samsung drives, I’m well aware OCZ is essentially a synonym for impending catastrophic failure

  1. Tnx for making me LOL

    • BenBasson
    • 9 years ago

    I used to think I’d just had bad luck, but my laptop at work has burned through three Vertex 3s and my PC has gone through two Vertex 2s. Every other Vertex 3 at work has died within 18 months, always catastrophically and without any prior warning.

    It’s beyond bad batch, seems to be a bad brand.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    It seems like SSDs seem to have hit a standstill as far as performance goes. We aren’t getting the same bumps in performance we used to. While part of this may be due to SATA3, I think we’d be seeing more consistent results where the interface is completely saturated. The majority of the tests show the drives maxing out well below anywhere close to the SATA 3 maximum.

    I don’t know if maybe Samsung has something up their sleeves or what, but it seems like if they ran into such a thing they’d add more diys on and ‘raid’ them further, unless this is a throughput limitation of the chips and not the diys?

    Either way it still looks like Samsung is the way to go. If I didn’t have such bad experience with them I’d still be recommending them constantly over something like Corsair.

    I do like the addition of the table with review scores. I think that’s quite helpful to people, although it definitely should be taken with a grain of salt… or even a salt lick. People like to grab things and run with them, especially with review scores. For instance, we really don’t have any idea how many of those people who wrote reviews in the last few months updated their SSDs with the newer firmware or how much old stock was shipped with old firmware before new firmware came default on the drives.

    If I were to add my own data points. I have a OCZ Agility 3 in my laptop for the last three years that’s worked perfectly fine. My brother also has a couple OCZ SSDs in various servers that haven’t had issues. The only SSDs I’ve had problems with were the Samsungs and raid, although this seems to be a special case.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 9 years ago

    To be fair, are the BSODs with updated firmware after the initial Sandforce bug was corrected?

    • Airmantharp
    • 9 years ago

    And Kristian mentions in an update that the cause was a failure of the power circuitry during power draw testing. Though I’ve had a Vertex II die myself, the replacement is working great- it currently hosts BF3 and BF4, keeping level load times down :).

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    4/4 Vertex 2 drives of both 2.5″ and 1.8″ have either died, or show BSODs randomly during hibernation/sleep events.

    Never again.

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 9 years ago

    TR should put 10 OCZ Vector SSDs in an endurance race as well.

    • gamoniac
    • 9 years ago

    I have mixed results with my use of OCZ SSDs. The Vertex 2 in the PC I built for a friend failed within a year; the replacement is still running, however. On the other hand, the Agility 4 (256GB) that I got myself two holiday seasons ago has been running in my HyperV box without issue. It is hosting 4-5 light-load VMs (Win server & Win 7) 24×7 with great performance thus far.

    I got my Agility 4 for $90 after rebate at local TigerDirect store. I wish I had gotten two. Now I know better — even budget SSD provides great value and performance.

    • SnowboardingTobi
    • 9 years ago

    ^This. by a lot. It’s getting hard reading those graphs. Please consider another way of highlighting the review product.

    • hiro_pro
    • 9 years ago

    i want to jump on the i hate OCZ bandwagon but when i started upgrading to SSD a few years ago the agility drives were a lot cheaper than anything else. i am still running an agility 2 in my main PC and that sucker hasnt crashed after years of always on. i have an agility 3 in my laptop and an agility 4 in another one. again years of reliable service. maybe i got lucky but i doubt since i cant match a single number on powerball.

    and yes, they left me hanging on memory. on my last build i bought 3 of their sticks and when i could afford 3 more they were gone.

    • Arclight
    • 9 years ago

    Let’s not jump to conclusions, even though there is a history, after all Samsung had a simillar issue with review samples not so long ago.

    • dragosmp
    • 9 years ago

    I see two problems with OCZ now:
    *will they still be here to provide warranty coverage in 5 years? If so, why not buy one of their drives if the 5y warranty is honored
    *they’re expensive compared to the likes of Intel. When they sold Agility drives I recommended them as they were below 1$/GB and all still work today. Now I’d get a 335 as they’re cheaper and very fast.

    So, they have the performance, but a few percent is not that significant. Sata client SSDs are a commodity, performance doesn’t really matter as long as it’s good enough, just look at the Crucial 4-wide PS3105 controller on the V4.

    • BlondIndian
    • 9 years ago

    While I appreciate competition , I don’t see what OCZ brings to the table now.
    They don’t have the advantage with pricing . Reliability is gone . A few percentage points more of speed is inconsequential.
    Samsung is running away with this market . Hope someone steps up for competition’s sake , but OCZ is a goner .

    • dme123
    • 9 years ago

    That interests me enormously, as I have probably 80 or more of those in service. I have not had a single failure so far, and these drives are supplied as OEM in Dell and Apple machines. I’ve probably had drives left off for maybe 2 – 3 weeks at a time with no issue so I’d like to know if you’ve found a repeatable way to make them fail.

    Curiously I’ve also got a 100% failure rate for Crucial M4 drives in Dell Latitude laptops, but they seem flawless everywhere else. Crucial had no interest at all in helping me, and I’ve found nobody else online with the same issues but that does appear to be repeatable and consistent behaviour.

    • BlondIndian
    • 9 years ago

    OCZ strikes again .
    The Review Sample Anandtech got failed already.
    This is getting funnier by the day .

    The only thing suprising to me are the guys who bought the vertex 450 . Buying a budget model from a company known to have botched even high-end SSDs is just ignorant.

    • nico1982
    • 9 years ago

    Please, can you highlight the subject(s) of the review more next time? Using a bold font would suffice. With two dozens of entries, color bars doesn’t cut it anymore 😛

    • Farting Bob
    • 9 years ago

    Still pretty clear from the price/performance graph that the 840 EVO is the only drive to consider barring sales and rebates. Pretty much same overall performance as the best, but considerably cheap than it’s rivals.

    This drive does perform well though, but its still in the same group as a lot of other drives with no great reason to pick it over anything else.

    • internetsandman
    • 9 years ago

    You probably received a bad batch. I bought one and I’ve used it for my OS and steam files no problem, if I owned a laptop I would love to put a 960GB version in it for mass local storage as well as a fast OS and steam drive

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    I’m starting to feel the same way about the Samsung 840 series. Just haven’t had any luck with those. Leave them powered off for a couple of weeks and you can look forward to a reformat to get them usable again.

    • internetsandman
    • 9 years ago

    A reputation is one of the hardest things to kill

    I remember way back when OCZ was in the DRAM business and the amount of one and two star reviews of their products on newegg was similar or even worse than what TR presented here. Now they’re in the SSD business and they’re the only manufacturer who’s product I’ve owned that failed on me at all, and it did it within the first couple months. If you’re gonna buy one to squeeze every last drop of performance from a rig, you had best have a solid backup solution already in place, because it almost feels inevitable that this drive or any other OCZ drive will fail on you

    • dme123
    • 9 years ago

    I can quite honestly say that after the dozens of drive failures and then their RMA replacements dying too I would trust my data on floppy discs before I put it on an OCZ drive. If you were to give me one of these I would throw it in the bin before using it or allowing a friend or colleague to use it.

    Please OCZ, please, just die and spare some poor bastards from picking up your drives as a “deal” and losing their family photos and other precious data. With so many superb competitors making fast, reliable and cheap SSD drives there is no reason in the world to buy an OCZ product. I actually want to laugh out loud when I see them trying to break into the enterprise space with their server products.

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    OCZ’s reliability dug themselves into a deep hole that will take a while to get out of. While I don’t have any reason to believe this drive will have the issues previous models did, I’m not going to gamble my data for such a small performance increase.

    I’m glad OCZ is still in the market fighting though, and I hope they turn the corner, but for now I just can’t bring myself to spend the money on their product.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!