OCZ Agility 3 - Buy or Avoid?


Recommended Posts

I've been looking into getting an SSD for a while, now someone I know's offered me a 120GB OCZ Agility 3 for around ?50, so obviously I'm tempted. Is it a good buy though? I've read a few SSD guides online before, and the summary of them was to stick to either the Crucial M4 or the Samsung 830. Would it be best for me to keep waiting and go with either of those instead?

The other concern I have with buying an SSD is cloning my drive over to it. My current system HDD is 1TB, so obviously, I'd have to create a second partition on it, and then go back-and-forth moving files over and decreasing the main partition size until it's small enough to fit on the SSD, but would it be safe if I cloned my system to an SSD? My friend recommended doing a fresh install onto the SSD, but I don't really fancy going through all the hassle of setting everything up and installing everything again unless it's absolutely necessary. Also, I recently did the upgrade from Windows 7 Ultimate to Windows 8 Pro (x64), so I'm not sure if I'd be able to use my serial key again if I had to.

Sorry for all the questions, but thanks in advance to anyone who can answer them.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1117563-ocz-agility-3-buy-or-avoid/
Share on other sites

I own one, and despite what the OCZ haters say it's been a very reliable drive so far. Granted it doesn't have the raw performance of the Vertex 4 or Samsung 8 series but it's still a very good drive for the price. I wouldn't clone from a mechanical drive to an SSD however I would personally advise doing a fresh install as Windows has to configure itself for optimal running on an SSD and I believe it does that upon install.

  • Like 2

More than likely it will be fine, but it is risky since it runs on SandForce. Honestly, you might as well play it safe and buy a brand new Agility 4 or Vertex 4. I don't think it will be too big of a price difference and then you'll get a warranty with it.

Avoid anything OCZ. They just laid of a bunch of people and are going down probably soon. I have a Vertex 3 and it's good---faster than an HDD, and I'm happy with it, but it could be better. Get the Samsung 830. Don't clone the drive!!! Do a fresh install!!!

  • Like 2

Avoid anything OCZ. They just laid of a bunch of people and are going down probably soon.

OCZ isn't going anywhere. Restructuring is a good thing when the market is down. The Vertex is their prized product and is arguably the best SSD on the market, so you can only expect it to get better since they will be focusing more on it.

If you goto OCZ warranty site, there's option asking if this is your "1st RMA, 2nd RMA, 3rd RMA".

I'm on my 2nd RMA after one died after 3 months and another one dead on arrival.

But Agility and Vertex is their flagship line so it has better chance of working well. But the long term reliability, I'm not willing to risk.

In the meantime, I bought a Kingston Hyper X and it was rated 7.2/7.9 on the windows scale. It is working super good right now.

Definitely avoid OCZ - I have personally had a failure 4 months after I purchased my Vertex, and a few other of my friends had their Vertex2/3's fail. For a company that just switched to making just SSD's, they sure suck at it. They also move the largest amount of drives because they're cheap pieces of ****. I would stick with Samsung 830, or Crucial M4 or Intel SSD's.

One other point to note: The Agility 3 doesn't come with a mounting bracket for a 3.5 inch drive slot so you may need to acquire one separately ;)

If you have to ask the question you probably want to avoid them.

I disagree, this thread on it's own seems to show how polarised people are, often it depends on whose opinions you ask. And I find the best opinions come from people to have used the products.

I have a 240GB Agility 3 in my MacBook Pro (dual booting Windows 7 on it too), and it's been very reliable so far. It's faster than anything I've ever owned, so I wouldn't know how much faster other drives would be (or if it's even a noticeable difference), but I believe the newest firmware fixed any reliability issues it may have had.

I have a 240GB Agility 3 in my MacBook Pro (dual booting Windows 7 on it too), and it's been very reliable so far. It's faster than anything I've ever owned, so I wouldn't know how much faster other drives would be (or if it's even a noticeable difference), but I believe the newest firmware fixed any reliability issues it may have had.

This. As long as you have the latest firmware on the 3 Series, you'll be fine. If you get the 4 Series, you won't have to worry about anything since it uses Indilinx, which is super reliable. Plus a 5 year warranty.

Obviously this all depends on who you talk to. I've build about 50 PCs for a client, many of which with an OCZ SSD. Haven't had a single failure yet with those. I've seen one failure, and it was a Kingston, but I wouldn't say Kingston is less reliable than anything else.

I disagree, this thread on it's own seems to show how polarised people are, often it depends on whose opinions you ask. And I find the best opinions come from people to have used the products.

Every product has failures - that's unavoidable. But, OCZ just has high failure rates, and that should be enough as a consumer to sway you away. Why gamble with a product like an SSD? You're storing information, and it's an inconvenience if it fails. In either case, backup your data regardless of the brand. OCZ's tend to be slightly cheaper than the competition, but I would buy Intel, Crucial, Samsung for a few $ more. Having used an OCZ drive, and seeing it fail (amongst my friends') does not put a good reputation of them in my mind.

But, OCZ just has high failure rates, and that should be enough as a consumer to sway you away. Why gamble with a product like an SSD?

Do you have more than anecdotal proof of this? OCZ has been selling cheap SSDs for a long time, I would expect there to be a fair number of failures. But is it really greater than other drive companies by volume sold? It's hard to say.

Unless someone can point to an actual manufacturing flaw, like the IBM Deathstars, it's hard to say they're actually worse.

Every product has failures - that's unavoidable. But, OCZ just has high failure rates, and that should be enough as a consumer to sway you away. Why gamble with a product like an SSD? You're storing information, and it's an inconvenience if it fails. In either case, backup your data regardless of the brand. OCZ's tend to be slightly cheaper than the competition, but I would buy Intel, Crucial, Samsung for a few $ more. Having used an OCZ drive, and seeing it fail (amongst my friends') does not put a good reputation of them in my mind.

I only use my SSD as a boot drive, all my integral data is stored on mechanical drives so I'm covered on that front, but I've simply not seen anything that tells me using an OCZ drive is a risk. The firmware issues that caused the failures have been fixed as articuno1au pointed out, I know signs of disk failures, I update my firmware for products as soon as it's released and I'm careful. I've never seen evidence that owning an OCZ drive is a bigger risk than any other, you'll always get the odd failure, it's just part of the risk of comupting.

I have yet to have an issue with any of the four OCZ drives I have. My Vertex 2 is two years old, Vertex 3 just over a year and two Vertex 4s are a few months old.

OCZ has the highest failure rates, but its negligible (last time I checked they were within half a percent from Intel). The failure rates of mechanical drives are astronomical in comparison.

Every product has failures - that's unavoidable. But, OCZ just has high failure rates, and that should be enough as a consumer to sway you away. Why gamble with a product like an SSD? You're storing information, and it's an inconvenience if it fails. In either case, backup your data regardless of the brand. OCZ's tend to be slightly cheaper than the competition, but I would buy Intel, Crucial, Samsung for a few $ more. Having used an OCZ drive, and seeing it fail (amongst my friends') does not put a good reputation of them in my mind.

As I like to say... If you didn't have a backup then it wasn't important.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!