TechSpot: OCZ Vector 256GB SSD Review

Earlier this year we reviewed OCZ's flagship Vertex 4 SSD which at the time we were lead to believe was based on a second-generation Everest controller developed in-house. Having acquired IP and assets from Solid Data in 2010, followed by the acquisition of Indilinx, maker of the renowned Barefoot SSD controller, OCZ was in a good position to start working on their own controllers.

Eventually it was revealed and later confirmed by OCZ that the Octane and Vertex 4 drives actually used Marvell controllers with firmware developed in-house by the Indillinx team. While we acknowledged that it was very sneaky on OCZ’s behalf, it also didn’t change things much for us. Regardless of who did or didn't make the controller, the Vertex 4 was still one of the best performers and best values in the high-end SSD segment.

So with the controversy of the Vertex 4 almost behind them, it appears that OCZ is finally ready to unveil its first truly in-house SSD controller. It's been three years since Indilinx released a brand new controller and they are doing so today with the Barefoot 3, which is to be featured in OCZ’s latest SSD series known as Vector.

Read: Vector SSD 256GB Review, OCZ's New Flagship Drive

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft supports #GivingTuesday charity event today

Next Story

BundleStars brings you eight games for eight dollars

8 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I hope these are better than the Vertex 3. I bought 3 of them and out of the 3, 2 of them outright failed and had to be RMA'd within 6 months and the 3rd occasionally SMART errors and drops from my raid. Firmware updates haven't solved the fact they are absolutely horrible as far as dependability goes. I paid over 300 bucks for the 1st drive [it was the V3 MaxIO 120 gig], over 200 for the 2nd drive and over 100 for the 3rd. Price is now good on the V3 but I would never buy another OCZ drive

Pretty much a flawed review since they used the 512GB Samsung 840. This OCZ drive would have cleaned house in basically every benchmark if they tested with only 256GB or only 512GB drives across the board. When the price drops a little bit, I'll definitely be picking one of those up.

Why does adding that drive make the review flawed? They couldn't have only tested with 2^n GB drives across the board because there are drives with like 240GB capacity.

What I got from this review is: get a Samsung. They're reliable.

KSib said,
Why does adding that drive make the review flawed? They couldn't have only tested with 2^n GB drives across the board because there are drives with like 240GB capacity.

What I got from this review is: get a Samsung. They're reliable.

Because by nature, a 512GB drive will be faster than a 256GB. So testing a 256GB against a 512GB is a meaningless comparison.
The latest OCZ drives are reliable too, but this review isn't about that. The only thing you can really say is that this new Vector blows away even the 840 most of the time. Thus, get it over the Samsung.

Astra.Xtreme said,

The latest OCZ drives are reliable too

Haha, yeah RIGHT! I've got an OCZ vertex 2 and haven't had problems with it but judging by the number of people that have had problems with OCZ's I think I'll pass.

n_K said,

Haha, yeah RIGHT! I've got an OCZ vertex 2 and haven't had problems with it but judging by the number of people that have had problems with OCZ's I think I'll pass.

It's an overblown "problem". There is one single reliability study out there and it showed that OCZ had a high failure rate (around 5% if I remember), but it was only a couple % higher than even Intel. And that study was done before OCZ fixed their issues via firmware. I've built almost 100 PC's for a client using OCZ and haven't had a single failure. I've used about 10 of their drives on my personal PC's over the years and also not a single failure. OCZ drives are basically the cheapest and fastest SSDs out there, so they more than likely sell a lot more than anybody else. Thus they will obviously have more failures reported. The % is still very very low.