Review

TechSpot: OCZ Agility EX 60GB SLC SSD Review

OCZ is showing strong commitment to be at the forefront of SSD technology. Over the past year the company has released nearly a dozen different series targeting every possible market, from affordable netbook oriented products to enterprise-grade solid state drives for servers and data warehouses.

They have had a great deal of success with multi-level cell (MLC) drives such as the Vertex we reviewed a few months ago. At the other side of the spectrum, single-level cell (SLC) solid state drives tend to sell for more outrageous prices.

OCZ has been working on making this technology a bit kinder on your bank account. Their latest 2.5" consumer drive is known under the Agility EX moniker, and is touted as the most cost-efficient SSD based on single-level cell memory with a cost per gigabyte at around $6.65 -- or 40% less than the Vertex EX and other similarly equipped SLC solid state drives.

View: OCZ Agility EX 60GB SLC SSD Review

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google potentially releasing Android OS 2.0 shortly

Next Story

Youth "cannot live" without the Internet

14 Comments

Jose_49 said,
It's a step for SSDs. But is still very expensive, and it doesn't have that big size of memory

People need to stop comparing them to conventional hard drives when it comes to size, these things should be used for operating system and programs, then put your libraries onto a second drive.

It will be the best upgrade anybody does to any computer, they make your computer absolutely fly.

The "it's not large enough" comment comes up with every new SSD, but most laptops offer drive bay adapters to add an extra hard drive in place of the optical drive. Some come with 2 hard drives standard. Desktop users don't have to worry about space for drives at all. I don't know about you, but I would be more than wiling to get rid fo my optical drive for an extra hard drive. It's hardly used.

cabron said,
SSD will be hot when the price comes down, right now is a waste of money.

there is nothing on the market though will speed your computer up more than putting an SSD for the operating system, and that is even at these prices.

I see many people spend $200 on getting more RAM, when one of these would be far more beneficial to speed.

They are far from a waste of money. With that said I wouldn't recommend an SLC like above simply because they are overpriced for the home user, these are more ideal for servers that are doing a lot of reading and writing.

S7un7 said,
So increased speed, lower power consuption, no noise, no heat, and increased durability are a waste of money?

I am not saying that the SSD HD have all the great features that you mentioned but from a practice perspective is a waste of money. What is the most important feature of a HD? space right? so do I am willing to pay for a sophisticated HD but only give me 60GB or pay the same amount and buy 1 TB HD? ask that question to anyone who need space and you know already the answer.

cabron said,
I am not saying that the SSD HD have all the great features that you mentioned but from a practice perspective is a waste of money. What is the most important feature of a HD? space right? so do I am willing to pay for a sophisticated HD but only give me 60GB or pay the same amount and buy 1 TB HD? ask that question to anyone who need space and you know already the answer.


Actually, it's what you'd pay for TWO 1 TB drives, but that's beside the point. You're missing what people are saying about the drive- Disk space is NOT the most important thing when you're wanting to speed up disk access for the OS partition. Power users often install their OS and programs on a fast drive and then store everything else on slower, larger drives. For things you access only occasionally, the drive speed is not important.

Skwerl said,
Actually, it's what you'd pay for TWO 1 TB drives, but that's beside the point. You're missing what people are saying about the drive- Disk space is NOT the most important thing when you're wanting to speed up disk access for the OS partition. Power users often install their OS and programs on a fast drive and then store everything else on slower, larger drives. For things you access only occasionally, the drive speed is not important.

Perfect well said, wish people that don't know wouldn't comment.

Skwerl said,
Power users often install their OS and programs on a fast drive and then store everything else on slower, larger drives. For things you access only occasionally, the drive speed is not important.


On my system Windows Vista and my games are installed on a 10k 80GB raptor disk and everything else on a normal 350GB HD.

It's an old computer when i'll upgrade my OS will surely be installed on a SSD.

LaP said,
On my system Windows Vista and my games are installed on a 10k 80GB raptor disk and everything else on a normal 350GB HD.

It's an old computer when i'll upgrade my OS will surely be installed on a SSD.


That's funny, because WD never made a raptor drive in 80GB format...36, 74, and 150, but no 80.

master2k27 said,
How much HDD space does windows 7 take up

About the same as Vista. A x64 install takes up roughly 15 GB.

So in summary they say don't bother with this, buy a fast MLC SSD instead as there's not enough difference in performance to warrant the high price.

Commenting is disabled on this article.