OCZ Onyx Series SSDs Makes Solid State Storage Affordable

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
OCZ, a worldwide leader in innovative, ultra-high performance and high reliability memory and flash-based storage as an alternative to hard disk drives (HDDs), today unveiled the OCZ Onyx SATA II 2.5" Solid State Drive (SSD) Series, an ultra-affordable MultiLevel Cell (MLC)-based solid state storage solution designed for consumers looking to take advantage of flash-based storage technology. Offering a faster and more durable alternative to traditional hard drives in a cost-efficient SSD, the Onyx delivers reliable performance without the high price normally associated with SSD drives.
 
More info somewhere?
I didn't even find this in the newsroom section of the OCZ website.
 
I demand price points.

"we are making super cheap stuff that everyone can buy but we dont know how much it will be..."

k?
 
To save a click....

* Available in 32GB capacities
* 64MB Onboard Cache
* TRIM Support
* Seek Time: < .1ms
* Slim 2.5" Design
* 99.8 x 69.63 x 9.3mm
* Lightweight: 77g
* Operating Temp: 0-70°C
* Storage Temp: -45°C ~ +85°C
* Power Consumption: Idle: 375mW Active: 1000mW
* Vibration: 20G. Peak, 10 ~ 20KHz
* Shock Resistant up to 1500G
* RAID Support
* MTBF: 1.5 million hours
* 3-Year Warranty

32GB Performance

* Read: Up to 125 MB/s
* Write: Up to 70 MB/s

Part Numbers

* 32GB - OCZSSD2-1ONX32G
Click to expand...
 
I can't wait until this goes on sale!

...


Probably with a MIR that OCZ will never pay out on.
 
My laptop drives were 10 times the capacity for 30% less money (based on the $99.99 mentioned). And the specs posted give me no reason to want one of these. It is nice to see some lower SSD prices though. When a 256GB or larger with faster specs gets to a reasonable price I'll get 1 or 2.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
My laptop drives were 10 times the capacity for 30% less money (based on the $99.99 mentioned). And the specs posted give me no reason to want one of these. It is nice to see some lower SSD prices though. When a 256GB or larger with faster specs gets to a reasonable price I'll get 1 or 2.
Click to expand...

Have you ever waited 5-10 minutes waiting for a laptop to boot? Ok, that might be a bit extreme, but I had a manager who used to come into the office and power-on his laptop and grab a coffee. All that wasted time. My Vertex 60GB boots up in 45s to XP and shuts down in 20s. No more wait, no wasting energy while waiting for something to load or boot, it's no big deal to turn-off the notebook to save battery and I'm back-up and running in seconds. Once you have it you don't want to give it up.

Is it worth $200+ for 60GB? Well I'll leave that up to you, but for me I paid $145 for the Vertex and grab all my media via Wireless N off my home server. If I need more space for work purposes I bring my 500GB usb drive which I paid $50 for.
 
If this an Indilinx design this is good news. I hope it is not the Jmicron used by WD and Sandisk. I'm hoping the street price is significantly lower. We already saw $70 32GB drives after MIR and CB in the last month.

It would be really noteworthy if they had announce a 64GB $100 drive. Ok $150 List Price and $100 Street.

hbidad said:
* Available in 32GB capacities
* 64MB Onboard Cache
* TRIM Support
* Seek Time: < .1ms
* Slim 2.5" Design
* 99.8 x 69.63 x 9.3mm
* Lightweight: 77g
* Operating Temp: 0-70°C
* Storage Temp: -45°C ~ +85°C
* Power Consumption: Idle: 375mW Active: 1000mW
* Vibration: 20G. Peak, 10 ~ 20KHz
* Shock Resistant up to 1500G
* RAID Support
* MTBF: 1.5 million hours
* 3-Year Warranty

32GB Performance

* Read: Up to 125 MB/s
* Write: Up to 70 MB/s

Part Numbers

* 32GB - OCZSSD2-1ONX32G
Click to expand...
 
Indilinx Amigos SSD controller. Supposed to be for mobile and module formfactors. Also targets low cost. Max capacity is 64GB. Maybe a design with less parallel NAND lanes and support for cheaper MLC flash?
 
sfsilicon said:
Have you ever waited 5-10 minutes waiting for a laptop to boot? Ok, that might be a bit extreme, but I had a manager who used to come into the office and power-on his laptop and grab a coffee. All that wasted time. My Vertex 60GB boots up in 45s to XP and shuts down in 20s. No more wait, no wasting energy while waiting for something to load or boot, it's no big deal to turn-off the notebook to save battery and I'm back-up and running in seconds. Once you have it you don't want to give it up.

Is it worth $200+ for 60GB? Well I'll leave that up to you, but for me I paid $145 for the Vertex and grab all my media via Wireless N off my home server. If I need more space for work purposes I bring my 500GB usb drive which I paid $50 for.
Click to expand...

If it's better than what you have it may be well worth it. I'm just not impressed with those specs. 125mb read / 70 write? I have 2 320GB mechanical drives in RAID 0 on my laptop and they bench about 150MB read/write. I love the idea of SSD, really, but this isn't the one that's going to get me to do it. I am suspecting the Vertex 60GB you have is probably much faster than this one.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
If it's better than what you have it may be well worth it. I'm just not impressed with those specs. 125mb read / 70 write? I have 2 320GB mechanical drives in RAID 0 on my laptop and they bench about 150MB read/write. I love the idea of SSD, really, but this isn't the one that's going to get me to do it. I am suspecting the Vertex 60GB you have is probably much faster than this one.
Click to expand...

I need to use a PATA to SATA bridge since my notebook doesn't support SATA natively. So my transfers are capped at 82/63 MB/s.

The interesting thing about SSD drives is that the performance is tied so closely to the controller. The benchmarks between all the Barefoot based drives (e.g. Vertex, Agility, Solid 2) are so close that it hardly makes a difference. If your out for performance get a dual vertex/agility/solid2 for your notebook. The main downside of SSDs is $/GB.
 
These SSD drives are too small to even consider a purchase. I would want at least 120GB space. 30GB is just about enough for the OS drive but the speeds these SSD's have is very slow. I suppoise these SSD's would be fine for a laptop if you do nothing but browse the internet though.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
If it's better than what you have it may be well worth it. I'm just not impressed with those specs. 125mb read / 70 write? I have 2 320GB mechanical drives in RAID 0 on my laptop and they bench about 150MB read/write. I love the idea of SSD, really, but this isn't the one that's going to get me to do it. I am suspecting the Vertex 60GB you have is probably much faster than this one.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you don't really understand the point of SSD's, it's not about throughput, I will take the "slower" SSD with .1ms seek times over the 25MBs throughput of the mechanical drives any day. Max throughput is nice for e-peen and all, but is very seldom useful day to day, other than for large file transfers drive to drive and a few other specific tasks. The lower seek times will show a far lager impact on performance than that 25MBs max read/write.

However this line will need to sell for 90 or less and have a good MIR to have any point to it, since you can pick up the Vertex for 90 after MIR.
 
sfsilicon said:
I need to use a PATA to SATA bridge since my notebook doesn't support SATA natively. So my transfers are capped at 82/63 MB/s.
Click to expand...

If you're capped at that then maybe these are a good match. With drives out there that are 275/215 (or more) these are too slow for me. Hopefully they will bring down the price of the faster ones. Maybe someone will do a review of these soon and we can see some real world performance numbers.

steve30x said:
These SSD drives are too small to even consider a purchase. I would want at least 120GB space. 30GB is just about enough for the OS drive but the speeds these SSD's have is very slow. I suppoise these SSD's would be fine for a laptop if you do nothing but browse the internet though.
Click to expand...

I agree, these are just too small. 30GB is almost full with a Windows 7 install. I really wouldn't be able to do less then a 250GB myself.
 
MLCs are SLOW, i tests MLC nand flash and they max out around 2-4MB/s on random writes with interleave. that number (70MB/s) might actually be sequential write which is obviously much higher.

maybe you can have it just for installed games or for page files?
 
30gb is good enough for Mac OS X (if you install without printer and language support) but not enough for Windows 7 - you need at least 60gb for that.
 
My windows 7 install is under 10gb with photoshop, office and a few other apps... Vlite works wonders still.
 
$100 for 32GB 125MB/s Read 70MB/s up. Really only good for a boot drive. :D Honestly I am surprised that SSD's still cost so much.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
125mb read / 70 write? I have 2 320GB mechanical drives in RAID 0 on my laptop and they bench about 150MB read/write. I love the idea of SSD, really, but this isn't the one that's going to get me to do it. I am suspecting the Vertex 60GB you have is probably much faster than this one.
Click to expand...

On ich10r two vertex drives in raid 0 do 450mb/s.

Worth it? Hell yeah. If my p6t didn't take so long to post there'd be no need for standby.
 
If these are cheap enough ($60) I might go for it. On the other hand, my Steam library is already 50 gigs, so I'd want something that can hold all of that...
 
Hyperian said:
MLCs are SLOW, i tests MLC nand flash and they max out around 2-4MB/s on random writes with interleave. that number (70MB/s) might actually be sequential write which is obviously much higher.

maybe you can have it just for installed games or for page files?
Click to expand...

Not sure what ones you've tested, but the Indilinx MLC drives I have are much faster then 2-4 MB/s in random writes.
 
AVT said:
30gb is good enough for Mac OS X (if you install without printer and language support) but not enough for Windows 7 - you need at least 60gb for that.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because my Windows 7 Professional x64 install is only 13GB. Something must be wrong with mine. :rolleyes:
 
yeah i have 64 gig ssd and windows 7 64 bit took a big chunk. no way i would get any smaller then 64 gig.
 
My Win7 x64 install is a LOT larger than 13GB. My C drive is about 42GB right now, with 7GB going to the two program files folders.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
If you're capped at that then maybe these are a good match. With drives out there that are 275/215 (or more) these are too slow for me. Hopefully they will bring down the price of the faster ones. Maybe someone will do a review of these soon and we can see some real world performance numbers.

I agree, these are just too small. 30GB is almost full with a Windows 7 install. I really wouldn't be able to do less then a 250GB myself.
Click to expand...

Standard Win7 Pro install doesn't even take 15GB... Bone stock w/no tweaking. And what the hell do sequential read/write speeds matter for on a laptop drive? Any data you write to the laptop in sequential fashion will come thru USB 2.0 or Ethernet at best, so it's bottlenecked anyway ('till USB 3.0), it's irrelevant... A SSD's real value (any SSD, even for a desktop OS drive) is their random read/write speed and non-existent seek time. Your HDD might pull thru 3MB/s on a 4K write test whereas a SSD will do 5-15x times that... Guess what comprises most OS ops?

Diarrg said:
If these are cheap enough ($60) I might go for it. On the other hand, my Steam library is already 50 gigs, so I'd want something that can hold all of that...
Click to expand...

Why? Put your Steam directory on a HDD and use symbolic links to split out only whatever game(s) you're playing the most unto the SSD, it works transparently so the install/Steam isn't affected, updates and everything keeps working but it gives you the flexibility of having only certain games on the SSD.
 
I would actually like one even smaller, as I've been on the lookout for a perfect drive for my pfSense box. I'm currently using an old pata laptop drive, but lower power consumption is always good.
 
Sorry, but you couldn't pay me to use an OCZ SSD, let alone have the audacity to ask that I pay for the pleasure.
 
AVT said:
30gb is good enough for Mac OS X (if you install without printer and language support) but not enough for Windows 7 - you need at least 60gb for that.
Click to expand...

If you use a Mac maybe you shouldn't be giving computer related advice... Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top