OCZ Gets Clever: Agility vs. Vertex, Even Cheaper Indilinx SSDs

Samsung makes SSDs for OEMs, Samsung sells pre-made SSDs to companies like OCZ and Corsair and Samsung also makes NAND flash. Samsung actually made all of the flash that was used in the first generation of Indilinx SSDs. Unfortunately, prices went up.

OCZ was quick to adapt and started making Indilinx drives using flash from different manufacturers. This is the OCZ Vertex, we’re all familiar with it:

This is the OCZ Agility. You get the same controller as the Vertex, but with either Intel 50nm or Toshiba 40nm flash:


My Vertex used Samsung flash, like all other Indilinx drives


My Agility used Intel's 50nm flash


Some lucky Agility owners get Toshiba 40nm flash, which is faster.

The performance is a lower since the flash chips themselves are slower. I'm actually comparing the Vertex Turbo here but my Turbo sample actually runs as fast as most stock Indilinx MLC drives so it provides good reference for an Agility vs. a good Vertex drive:

Used Performance OCZ Agility OCZ Vertex Vertex Advantage
4KB Random Write 7.1 MB/s 7.6 MB/s 7%
4KB Random Read 35.9 MB/s 37.4 MB/s 4.2%
2MB Sequential Write 136.3 MB/s 155.8 MB/s 14.3%
2MB Sequential Read 241.3 MB/s 254.2 MB/s 5.3%
PCMark Vantage Overall 14468 14694 1.6%
PCMark Vantage HDD 24293 25309 4.2%

 

The performance ranges from 0 - 5% in the PCMark suite and jumps up to 4 - 14% in the low level tests. The price difference amounts to around 12% for a 128GB drive and 9.5% for a 64GB drive. There's no 256GB Agility.

  OCZ Agility OCZ Vertex Price Difference
64GB $199.00 $219.00 $19
128GB $329.00 $369.00 $40
256GB N/A $725.00 N/A

 

If you want to make the jump to an SSD and are looking to save every last dollar, the Agility is an option.

I think the Agility line is a great idea from OCZ. I’m not sure about you but personally, as long as the flash is reliable, I don’t care who makes it. And I’m willing to give up a little in the way of performance in order to hit more competitive price points.

Early TRIM Support on Indilinx Drives The OCZ Solid 2: More Flash Swappin
Comments Locked

295 Comments

View All Comments

  • nemitech - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    opps - not ebay - it was NEWEGG.
  • Loki726 - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    Thanks a ton for including the pidgin compiler benchmarks. I didn't think that HD performance would make much of a difference (linking large builds might be a different story), but it is great to have numbers to back up that intuition. Keep it up.
  • torsteinowich - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    Hi

    You write that the Indilinx wiper tool collects a free page list from the OS, then wipes the pages. This sounds like a dangerous operation to me since the OS might allocate some of these blocks after the tool collects the list, but before they are wiped.

    Have you received a good explanation for Indilinx about how they ensure file system integrity? As far as i know Windows cannot temporarily switch to read-only mode on an active file system (at least not the system drive). The only way i could see this tool working safely would be by booting off a different media and accessing the file system to be trimmed offline with a tool that correctly identifies the unused pages for the particular file system being used. I could be wrong of course, maybe windows 7 has a system call to temporarily freeze FS writes, but i doubt it.
  • has407 - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    It: (1) creates a large temporary file (wiper.dat) which gobbles up all (or most) of the free space; (2) determines the LBA's occupied by that file; (3) tells the SSD to TRIM those LBA's; and then (4) deletes the temporary file (wiper.date).

    From the OS/filesystem perspective, it's just another app and another file. (A similar technique is used by, e.g., sysinternals Windows SDelete app to zero free space. For Windows you could also probably use the hooks used by defrag utilities to accomplis it, but that would be a lot more work.)
  • cghebert - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    Anand,

    Great article. Once again you have outclassed pretty much every other site out there with the depth of content in this review. You should start marketing t-shirts that say "Everything I learned about SSDs I learned from AnandTech"

    I did have a question about gaming benchmarks, since you made this statement:

    " but as you'll see later on in my gaming tests the benefits of an SSD really vary depending on the game"

    But I never saw any gaming benchmarks. Did I miss something?
  • nafhan - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    Just wanted to say awesome review.
    I've been reading Anandtech since 2000, and while other sites have gone downhill or (apparently) succumbed to pressure from advertisers, you guys have continued to give in depth, critical reviews.
    I also appreciate that you do some real analysis instead of just throwing 10 pages of charts online.
    Thanks, and keep up the good work!
  • zysurge - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    Awesome amazing article. So much information, presented clearly.

    Question, though? I have an Intel G2 160GB drive coming in the next few days for my Dell D830 laptop, which will be running Windows 7 x64.

    Do I set the controller to ATA and use the Intel Matrix driver, or set it to AHCI and use Microsoft's driver? Will either provide an advantage? I realize neither will provide TRIM until Q4, but after the firmware update, both should, right?

    Thanks in advance!
  • ggathagan - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link

    From page 15 (Early Trim support...):
    Under Windows 7 that means you have to use a Microsoft made IDE or AHCI driver (you can't install chipset drivers from anyone else).
  • Mumrik - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    but I can't live with less than 300GB on that drive, and SSDs in usable sizes still cost more than high end video cards :-(

    I really hope I'll be able to pick up a 300GB drive for 100-200 bucks in a year or so, but it is probably a bit too optimistic.
  • Simen1 - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link

    This is simply wrong. Ask anyone over 10 years if they think this mathematical statement is true or false. 80 can never equal 74,5.

    Now, someone claims that 1 GB = 10^9 B and others claim that 1 GB is 2^30 B. Who is really right? What does the G and the B mean? Who defines that?

    The answers is easy to find and document. B means Byte. G stands for Giga ans means 10^6, not 2^30. Giga is defined in the international system of units, SI.

    No standardization organization have _ever_ defined Giga to be 2^30. But IEC, International Electrotechnical Commission, have defined "Gi" to 2^30. This is supposed to be used for digital storage so people wont be confused by all the misunderstandings around this. Misunderstandings that mainly comes from Microsoft and quite a few other big software vendors. Companies that ignore the mathematical errors in their software when they claim that 80GB = 74,5 GB, and ignore both international standards on how to shorten large numbers.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now