OCZ Core SSD vs WD VelociRaptor: the early performance numbers are in
Filed under: Storage
Relevant Posts
- Western Digital intros 2.5-inch 10,000RPM VelociRaptor HDD (45 days ago - 65 Comments)
- WD's Velociraptor I/O connection issue resolved with design update (23 days ago - 19 Comments)
- OCZ stays on its game with Core Series V2 SSDs (22 days ago - 20 Comments)
- OCZ's Neural Impulse Actuator gets reviewed, mice everywhere safe for now (47 days ago - 37 Comments)
- OCZ debuts Alchemy gaming peripheral line with Elixir keyboard (57 days ago - 26 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
shineliang @ Jul 20th 2008 11:36AM
when will it be available?
Josh Warner @ Jul 20th 2008 1:58PM
Now. Oh, you didn't want to pay $649 for a 64 GB drive?
They'll eventually be available for reasonable (consumer) prices, but that doesn't change the fact that these products are, technically, available.
SNP @ Jul 20th 2008 2:16PM
No, it's less than $300 for the 64GB, mine's on the way. Directron and Tiger sell them.
Tony @ Jul 20th 2008 2:28PM
More like $300 for a 64 GB, actually.
SNP @ Jul 20th 2008 5:43PM
http://www.directron.com/oczssd21c64g.html
$240 after rebate
shineliang @ Jul 20th 2008 11:38AM
and when will they drop the price. all the one that i found on ebay cost 350 bucks for 32gb model. all the other website are back ordered.
lukas88 @ Jul 20th 2008 12:46PM
Hard drives are still the standard. It won't be long before the SSDs break the cost/performance/size ratio, and then you will see the price plummet due to several reasons. For example, more streamlined production, more competition, more money to put back into research once it is a proven standard. I give it two years before you can buy a 256gb for ~100 dollars.
shineliang @ Jul 20th 2008 1:54PM
that's when i am upgrading my x61t.lol.
Ethyriel @ Jul 20th 2008 2:10PM
http://www.google.com/products?q=OCZSSD2-1C64G&btnG=Search+Products&scoring=p
Clinton @ Jul 20th 2008 11:42AM
"while the WD topped out at around 123MB/s read and 129MB/s write times"
yes, that's correct if by 123MB/s read time you mean 138MB/s and 129MB/s write time you mean 134MB/s
martin @ Jul 20th 2008 11:54AM
i hope its just your grammar that means its written like the ssd average speeds and the hdd maximum speeds other wise this isnt exactly comparing oranges to oranges
gotrixzeth @ Jul 20th 2008 11:56AM
I bet in like 2 years we'll all have an SSD drive for our main OS and have regular HDD's for back up storage.
Laughing Man @ Jul 20th 2008 12:06PM
Honestly at this rate, it is more like 1 year. I can see my next upgrade now..... 128 GB SSD primary and 2x 1 TB WD for storage.
Kizorblade @ Jul 20th 2008 12:06PM
I second your opinion
Samboini @ Jul 20th 2008 12:39PM
I'm bored with technology, think i'm going to start writing all my files down in binary on paper. Won't take long.
TonyTiger @ Jul 20th 2008 1:20PM
I have 2x 32gb OCZ cores on order to become my system drive arranged in RAID 0, they only cost £220, less than the cost of a new CPU or gfx card or whatever and once installed, they will have a MASSIVE effect on the speed of my system, much more than a CPU upgrade ever could.
If you're not as impatient as I am for ULTIMATE SPEED, then wait till around November time when the big guns like Samsung come out with their cheap, large capacity SSD drives and we will see a real price war!
the age of SSD is finally upon us :D
iofthestorm @ Jul 20th 2008 2:50PM
@TonyTiger: Are you serious? Almost any CPU or graphics card will cost less than that, and give you much better improvement in most intensive tasks like gaming. And RAID 0ing two SSDs is just asking for trouble... one fails, and there goes your data. This might speed up boot times, but you'd be better off with Velociraptors in most real-world uses. Note that write speeds are still only half as fast as the Velociraptors.
Ethyriel @ Jul 20th 2008 6:07PM
You're not all that likely to have a total drive failure like with traditional HDDs, so as long as the wear leveling is working, he'll be fine.
I think he's referring to the fact that non-volatile storage is currently the biggest bottleneck in systems. Of course, we've designed technology around this fact (we wouldn't need so much system RAM if hard drives had been faster), so until we adapt our software, the effects of faster storage won't be as drastic. That said, it definitely helps the feel of a system with boot times and program loading, and that's coming mostly from the access time. So an SSD should feel faster than a Raptor.
linuxamp @ Jul 20th 2008 8:15PM
Slight modification... SSD in all PCs and massive HDD arrays in NAS home servers.
xValentine @ Jul 20th 2008 12:39PM
Also SSD on iPods, Zunes, Game Consoles.
Jon Doe. @ Jul 20th 2008 1:01PM
Yah and meanwhile those of us who really could use a 200GB hd in our iPod get shafted. Fuck SSD. Drop a 1GB cache in an iPod and who cares that there is a HD in there. The thing may spin up once every few hours.
BigD145 @ Jul 20th 2008 3:11PM
CF has been there and done that.
digitallysick @ Jul 20th 2008 12:53PM
I'm waiting on the price to come down, its still a bit to expensive but its getting there. I remember back when a 200gb hard drive was 250 dollars! , so things change in time
kccboy2004 @ Jul 20th 2008 3:46PM
but back then I could've bought a brand new cavalier for the same price. it is all relative.
loosely_coupled @ Jul 20th 2008 12:57PM
Wow, anything over 100MB read and 75MB write is FLYING! Remember, most computing does NOT involve reading or writing enormous data files, it's much more about random access through small random reads and writes. I guarantee that even with an SSD running at 1/2 the speed of this OCZ, your computer will "feel" much faster in every day use, like launching apps, saving files, etc.
Yuriy @ Jul 20th 2008 6:59PM
i am already feeling that:-)
finally area under my mouse pad is cool not like before. And still fast - specially when i work with PS and Corel.
There is still sometime delays when i work with 2 or more applications at once because SSD can not do packet writing? i don't know
loosely_coupled @ Jul 20th 2008 1:01PM
And BTW, this VelociRaptor drive sits on a 3.5" heatsink and uses a ton of power, which means it would NEVER GO IN A LAPTOP, whereas the SDD is 2.5" and laptop-ready. Desktops will benefit from SSDs, but definitely not as much as space-and power-constrained laptops.
laughing_skullx @ Jul 20th 2008 1:18PM
I'm pretty sure all the VelociRaptors are 2.5in drives enclosed in a 3.5in case.
r3loaded @ Jul 20th 2008 1:29PM
Yes, but the VelociRaptor uses the 3.5" case as its heatsink since it generates so much heat. Besides, its thickness means it won't fit in a (standard) laptop.
Zzephyr @ Jul 20th 2008 1:54PM
The v-raptor definitely generates more heat than a garden variety 2.5" or 3.5" HD, but I am not so sure that the 3.5" frame the v-raptor sits in is necessary.
Laughing Man @ Jul 20th 2008 4:58PM
Go see a V-raptor up close and personal. That is not a 3.5 in casing it is sitting it. It is sitting in a massive heat block. I cannot see this generation of V-raptors making it for longer than a few minutes without that block.
I mean, think about it. If it really is a 2.5 drive formed into a 3.5 case, why not sell it at both sizes? Why not just sell at 2.5 since most desktops can buy a converter for it. It is done the way it is not for a reason is all I am saying.
uberartist @ Jul 20th 2008 10:20PM
Yes, there is a reason, just the one you are guessing is incorrect. If you had read up on the drive more, you would know. It's a 2.5" drive technically, but not so it could ever go in a notebook. Something about the size of the platters they can make it go faster more reliably, to start. Second, it's taller than a normal 2.5" drive, so won't fit in any standard bays. Third, the "heat sink" doesn't do that much, but it looks cool and allows people to mount the drive in their full size PCs without buying an adapter.
TonyTiger @ Jul 20th 2008 1:10PM
Other factors to consider when thinking "HD vs SSD"
1: RAID 0 SCALING. 2x SSD drives in a RAID 0 will give you exactly 2x the overall speed. 2x mechanical hard drives in a RAID 0 will give you approx 1.5x the speed, depending on the drive.
2: No performance loss during multiple operations. EG when you're running windows, it's paging to swap, you're playing an mp3, downloading via bittorrent, unrarring a large file, copying another file to another pc, saving a large attachment from your email, and installing an application all at the same time on a mechanical hard drive or RAID array, you would expect the performance to drop to nearly zero. With a SSD drive or RAID array you can do all of that and expect exactly the same performance as if you were doing just one task.
3: Server application. less important for mainstream users but a large database or file, web or email server with very frequent read / write requests from multiple thousand users would benefit ENOURMOUSLY from being held on a server with SSD drives, as they can cope with near infinite simoultaneous read/write requests with no loss of burst rate or seek time.
deyanimay @ Jul 20th 2008 1:17PM
Please use hdd (hard disc drive) instead of hd (high definition) so everything is less confusing.
Wwhat @ Jul 20th 2008 6:49PM
This simultaneous access dream of yours is merely a dream, theoretically it should go like that, but the fact is that the system isn't designed for it since all of it, including the SATA interface quietly assumes you'd never access 3 things at the same time in reality, so they cut corners and the drivers don't play well with keeping track of various pointers at the same time and such.
What it boils down to is for that too we'll have to wait for things to be mainstream I'm sure. Such is technology.
Cycomachead @ Jul 20th 2008 9:44PM
Also note that you need 5 64GB SSDs to equal 320GB of storage.
Plus HDD are more susceptible to breaking when in rocky environments however- the long term life of SSDs hasn't been tested as much. Though they should be very reliable. (I'm just a bit skeptical about things....)
Ryan @ Jul 20th 2008 1:41PM
I have one of these on order right now. Should be here in the next week or so :)
Thi mam(kris120890) @ Jul 20th 2008 1:53PM
Watch this of XP loading up from 128GB OCZ 128GB SSD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFAP_ioDp30
Crusty Magic @ Jul 20th 2008 2:06PM
Holy crap, is that for real!?
Thi mam(kris120890) @ Jul 20th 2008 2:15PM
I've got no idea but it looked genuine so I decided to post. Looking around youtube most SSD seem to take between 10 and 20 seconds with vista so I call true.
ddub @ Jul 20th 2008 2:42PM
It looked like a fresh install of xp. While it is very fast, as soon as you start installing apps, you'll see it slow down.
Zeth Ethereal @ Jul 20th 2008 2:51PM
omg if that's real...it was orgasmic! lol that was really really fast
thatrotierkid @ Jul 20th 2008 3:36PM
Thats what she said ;-)
BOGRASH @ Jul 21st 2008 8:24AM
ssd from 2008, monitor from 1992
Yuriy @ Jul 20th 2008 6:31PM
I got mine 3 days ago from tigerdirect and i put on my Asus W7J which is only 1.8Ghz but WinXP loads in 25 sec! (fully loaded with 200 fonts, Kaspersky Antivirus, Corel and Adobe.)
Yuriy @ Jul 20th 2008 6:37PM
and Office and more.
Yuriy @ Jul 20th 2008 6:36PM
Buy the way why they compare to the drive that is not designed to use in laptops? The WD VelociRaptor without cooling will fry everything around inside the laptop. But if they have ideas to show that regular HDD is still good why they didn't test with Seagate SAS that spin at 15K? Its much closer to the specs of SSD not SATA (speed not size). I mean somebody do the test do that proper way if its 2.5" laptop SSD drive do comparison to 2.5" regular HDD = they make comparison like Corvete to Prius (same wheels but different engines):-)
notYou @ Jul 20th 2008 10:25PM
two words: robster craw
(couldn't resist).
sam @ Jul 20th 2008 10:59PM
amazing figures, i'm speechless cant believe its faster than the raptor for so many things, cant wait to see several full reviews, if they are that good i might buy the 32GB version.
DssTrainer @ Jul 21st 2008 9:41AM
I don't think I understand:
"The OCZ averaged read speeds of over 140MB/s and was writing at 87MB/s while the WD topped out at around 136MB/s read and 134MB/s write times."
Wouldn't that mean that the ratio of Read-to-Write is still better with the WD VelociRaptor? 4Mb/s extra read time isn't all that impressive when it writes at nearly half the speed of the WD.
Gonna have to say FAIL to the OCZ.