OCZ Vertex 2 Pro SSD previewed: awesome, and could do with some 6Gbps SATA love
By Richard Lai 
posted January 1st 2010 7:05AM
posted January 1st 2010 7:05AM
posted January 1st 2010 7:05AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Go Sandforce! Its really remarkable that a startup produced a better (mostly) controller than the giant that is Intel.
you guys are idiots.
OCZ could have never out performed Intel..
It's a Rebadged Samsung, in Which Samsung should sell the product directly to consumers to make it MORE cheaper and erase the middle man which is OCZ
@FlasH Not all OCZ drives use Samsung controllers / chips.
@Richard Lai
This one definately is a Samsung....
and you are lying by the way. Samsung is the cheapest producer of SSDs.
In the SSD world, it's an either a Samsung or Intel.
End of story.
@FlasH What am I lying about? And what do you mean by "definately is a Samsung"? The chips? The controller?
The chips..
OCZ buys the foudation which is the Samsung 6GB flash SSD. OCZ then modifies the product..
Kind of like what Apple does. Look where selling technology to Apple has fared for Samsung. Samsung phones are almost laughed at though the iphone is a samsung phone basically.
NEVER sell to you competitors.
@FlasH That's just silly. You might as well say all the makers of capacitors and resistors should make their own computers. It doesn't work like that.
64 GB
Based on the collection of benchmark performance tests we've conducted, the OCZ Vertex EX offers performance that reaches the advertised maximum speeds. EVEREST's linear full-sector bandwidth performance was a steady 246 MBps, and write-to performance for this SLC SSD peaked at 187 MBps. The single-layer Samsung flash modules paired to a 166MHz 64MB cache buffer on this 120GB Vertex EX SSD help yield a 0.08 ms response time. ATTO Disk Benchmark tool reported an impressive 262 MBps maximum read bandwidth in our tests, and an equally impressive 192 MBps maximum write. HD Tach recorded additional high-performance results, with approximate bandwidth speeds reaching 232 MBps read and 220 MBps write.
Right there. a Samsung SSD as a foundry. rebadged as a OCZ vertex
@FlasH What I said.
Point being Lai,
is that prices would be cheaper if consumers knew that Samsung is one of the most unified producers of SSD out in market today.
Samsung prices would be at least 20% cheaper than OCZ, Seagate, or Corsair because of the fact that Samsung relies mainly on their OWN technology for SSD drives. Seagate OCZ and Corsair buy Samsung SSDs and resell the product at a higher markup, Hoping to find out that consumers don't find out what their SSD product really is.. WHich is a Samsung.
@FlasH Not true. Sometimes it's more profitable to sell in-house components to other manufacturers. You're forgetting the cost of R&D and factories. Look at LG: they're selling their IPS panels to Apple at silly price so that they get a nice bulk deal.
yeah, because consumers won't buy LG products because Apple has the halo around their brand name...
SO LG follows along because Samsung could easily step in and sell the monitor at a slightly higher price. Either way, Apple wins because of dumb retarded Apple fans.
@FlasH Well, that'd be me being a "dumb retarded" Apple user. Thanks.
You're steering away from the discussion anyway. Just think about what I said.
Lai, you make no sense whatsoever
Samsung DOES in fact sell their RAM, SSD and monitors at cheaper prices than APPLE, HP, Gateway....
That is because Samsung is the source of the component.
Only if Samsung started to created dealer networks for the Samsung
products, they would start to sell like crazy because of the price differential between 20 to 30%.
The difference why Apple does well is name brand in America(like Abercrombie and Fitch) and media monopoly/propaganda to make sure that no one knows that their are Monitors, Computers, Cellphones that are just as good if not better than Apple's products but at much cheaper prices.
have fun being screwed by Apple. Having an empty wallet after you spend thousands for an average device must be fun. Or you could look at Apple as a Donation to the Shareholders and employees of the APPLE.INC.
@FlasH Look, this was your argument:
"It's a Rebadged Samsung, in Which Samsung should sell the product directly to consumers to make it MORE cheaper and erase the middle man which is OCZ"
What I'm saying is:
a) It's not necessarily cheaper for Samsung that way (which I've explained already);
b) Well, Samsung does indeed sell their own SSD anyway;
c) It's not cheaper than the other brands right now. Look around.
d) "Only if Samsung started to created dealer networks..." Yet they're not doing it?
Your theory doesn't apply to all product categories, even if it seems to make sense at skin level. This is why Samsung hasn't hired you.
@Richard Lai
1.. Impossible response from you.. OF COURSE it would be cheaper because there would be no middle man involved in rebadging and marking up the price higher. I told you that. The prices on EBAY prove my point EXACTLY.
2. YES, I know, but idiots in America hardly know of that
3. YES IT IS per GB Samsung is the cheapest. Intel came in first with SSD. The prices were absolutely absurd. Someone with the size and resources like INtel stepped up to the plate and sold an SSD at 50% the price of INTEL. That changed the game completely.
Now the vultures who don't have the manufactoring capability of Intel or Samsung want to buy from Samsung and rebadge it.
4. Not as far I know.
@FlasH You're only assuming that the cost of middleman is much greater than the R&D and manufacturing costs.
There's not much point with comparing with Intel's initiation costs -- you should focus on the current market.
Also, you should look beyond eBay for prices. I've looked around already with Google Shopping.
@Richard Lai
I come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about.
1. of course the lack of middle man will LOWER the price of a computer component like SSD. IF samsung starts selling their own Components then, they will boost capacity and again, lower the price of the SSD further.
2. Point being is that Intel was the first one on board. and Samsung called Intel's bluff.
3. Ebay is a good source for prices by the way. Usually OCZ and Corsair are MORE expensive than SAMSUNG SSD's. Which are the mirror likes of one another.
@FlasH Well, you're still ignoring my points so I see no point in continuing this conversation. Good day!
For those who are reading, here is an interesting story.
I
have an Chinese friend name Nina who with her BF loved Apple just like all the other Apple fans on Engadget. They wanted to buy a APPLE PC or I-MAC. The price for an Apple PC was TOO high I told them. Apple wanted over 2000 for a PC and 1400 for the I-MAC.
Instead, I built them a computer myself with Windows 7 installed. Here is what the components were.
1. (24 inch)2419SW Samsung LCD monitor DVI or VGA out 1900x1240
2. 2.5 GHZ dual-core(Overclocked to 3.5 GHZ) 2MB Cache Intel LGA 775 Wolfman CPU 45 Nanometer
3. 2X2GB Samsung 800 MHZ (overclocked) PC-5200 RAM
4. Samsung Spinpoint Sata HDD 500 GM 3.0 GB/S
5. Lite-ON 4X Blu-Ray 24X DVD 16X CD
6. ATX Gigabyte Motherboard FSB 1333(OC) and 1066 RAM(OC) with BIOS and software overclocking. 8GM RAM MAX.
7. ANTEC 300 Tower ATX with 150mm fan 120 mm fan
8. PSU 550Watt Sunbeam with 24 pin and 4 pin mother board connector
9. 3 LED Rosewill 120 Mm fans
10. CPU fan Masscool for the overclocked wolfman CPU
11. WIndows 7 (Free)
12. ATI 4800 (512 MB) Crossfire (1900X1200)
(1.)$180+(2.)$50+(3.)$70+(4.)$65+(5.)$50+(6.)$50(7.)$65+(8.)$15+(9.)$10
(10.)$13.+(11.)$30
Evaluation New
3.5 GHZ dualcore4GB 1066 RAM, Blu-ray, 24 inch Monitor, Windows 7, 7 fans cooling the system...
Price: 598 Dollars. Beats a 2000 Dollar Apple Any day.The Chinese friends were really happy and they are going to use it a long time thanks to my time building for them. And, they saved over 1400 dollars for a inferior built system.
just one point.... Lai..
how can you argue that SSD prices would NOT be reduced if the middle man was cut? That makes no sense. And don't give me this skin deep phony non-sense. Secondly, It is you who began to call me names, where in arguments sake ad-hominem attacks loses the argument immediately. I am merely pointing out for the people to see that Samsung is a great manufaturer of SSD in today's market.
If I said that Samsung invented the SSD and should be bowed downto, then that is an completely incorrect interpretation of my beliefs about Samsung Corporation. I think that SSD's were developed in the 60's perhaps even earlier. Lot's of tech comes from Western powers. It is of because of Western interest/generosity that Asia obtained some of the technology and improved upon out-moded design.
Regarding business or economics 101, obviously you would not pass.
a lack of middle man would lower the price of product regardless of the R&D costs and supply inventory(logical fallacy/untruth). That is if the manufacturer was able to create dealerships to sell their wares in a store or online market.
It costs Samsung 300 dollar for the chips of Samsung 256 GB SSD( 80% developed and produced by Samsung, directly. 20% of the money goes to royalties to whomever owns the SSD license, Capacitors, and others. ) the supply will be 100,000 thousand widgets
Samsung is smart and sells their 100,000 SSDs to dealers or online markets to about 340 or 350 based on bulk purchasing. The dealer then sells the Samsung 256GB SSD for 380 dollars. Samsung makes 50 million dollars. 50 X100,000 = 50 million profit. The dealers across america and world make 30 million dollars.
Here is plan B
It costs Samsung 300 dollars to create 1 SSD 256 GB at 100,000 SSD production. Samsung Sells the product to OCZ, Kingston, Seagate for 350 dollars. OCZ sells their product to online dealers for 380 dollars. Then Online dealers sell the product for about 410 dollars.
Consumers end up paying 30 dollars extra for SSD because OCZ sold a Samsung product under their name. Seconldy, because of the invisible rules of Supply and demand, less SSD's were purchased and only 700,000 widgets were sold.
That results in 35 Million profit, externally to Samsung. 21 Million to OCZ. and 21 Million to dealers across the world.
End Result. Samsung loses 15 Million dollars on 100,000 gadgets produced and Consumers pay 10% more for an SSD device.
@FlasH Come on, at no point did I call you names. You even accused me of lying in your first reply but you never explained what that was about.
I think the issue with the conversation is that you and I are talking about different middle men.
"a lack of middle man would lower the price of product regardless of the R&D costs and supply inventory"
I don't believe that because the middle man I'm thinking of does the R&D for its SSD while picking flash chips (not SSDs) from Samsung. All your numbers above seem to assume the final SSD vendors make zero technological contribution to the product.
Taking this middle man out means Samsung would need to pay for its own SSD R&D and manufacturing etc.
Then there's the issue with aggressively competing with Samsung's own clients. There are two ways of looking at this: one is that Samsung would lose its flash chip clients (as a retaliation) hence less stable income; the other is that Samsung would be taking bigger risks by competing using more SSDs and fewer flash chips, since SSDs' sales figures have a greater impact due to the costs involved.
@Richard Lai
I don't believe that because the middle man I'm thinking of does the R&D for its SSD while picking flash chips (not SSDs) from Samsung. All your numbers above seem to assume the final SSD vendors make zero technological contribution to the product."
I don 't know what delusional world you live in. But if A company makes a product and then sells it to a middle man and rebadged the product as another brand name, that is essentially using a middle man to sell a product. Most people with some kind of sense know that Samsung, LG products are being rebadged, especially Samsung. LG and Philips have had a partnerships for several decades now. Really the interest with Royal Philips was to obtain LG technology put it into the Dutch electronics maker and regadget the Televisions as a dutch product and charge a premium over LG own TV's. The profit will go to the Royal family in the Netherlands.
Anyway, the SSD's are essentially the same from Samsung and OCZ. That is because the product was a Samsung SSD first. OCZ may have made MINOR modifications to the SSD but the majority structure of SSD technology is soley by Samsung and their liceners
Richard Lai
Richard Lai Posted Jan 1st 2010 9:47PM
Neutral
@FlasH Come on, at no point did I call you names. You even accused me of lying in your first reply but you never explained what that was about.
I think the issue with the conversation is that you and I are talking about different middle men.
"a lack of middle man would lower the price of product regardless of the R&D costs and supply inventory"
I don't believe that because the middle man I'm thinking of does the R&D for its SSD while picking flash chips (not SSDs) from Samsung. All your numbers above seem to assume the final SSD vendors make zero technological contribution to the product.
"Taking this middle man out means Samsung would need to pay for its own SSD R&D and manufacturing etc."
This makes no sense whatsoever. Samsung already funds their multi-billion research and development around the world. The basis or green-lighting of research and development projects does not depend on a small little company like OCZ or Kingston. As I said once again, use your logic, OCZ does not dictate Samsung's development structure.
"Then there's the issue with aggressively competing with Samsung's own clients. There are two ways of looking at this: one is that Samsung would lose its flash chip clients (as a retaliation) hence less stable income; the other is that Samsung would be taking bigger risks by competing using more SSDs and fewer flash chips, since SSDs' sales figures have a greater impact due to the costs involved."
You keep on thinking Samsung should be a supplier not a retailer to consumers. Samsung has the brute force to market their products directly to its consumers. Why does Samung need 'CLIENTS' like OCZ and be careful to tread 3rd party middleman of infringing on OCZ's sales? IF Samsung starts selling their products directly and infringes upon OCZ sales, that would benefit the consumer because prices for SSD would drop, since OCZ sells the same Samsung product, at a mark-up.
Overall, your logic is failing. I don't understand where you think Samsung needs to bow down to these 3rd party middlemen who sells Samsung's own SSD at a higher price than Samsung would have sold it for to its consumers.
@FlasH
WHAT UR SAYING IS U SHOULD RUN SAMSUNG CAUSE THEY R DUMB?
DURRRRR
Without a 6Gbps model, I don't care. This is just a minor upgrade to the Intel 160 GB SSD which already has a ton of market competition at the 3Gbps range.
If people want to make news, they need to start pushing out drives that significantly increase the overall bandwidth and throughput.
That guy looks like he has no knees.
Why does it have to be photoshopped? It could be a latex suit.
Anyway, is it just me or does anyone else suspect the guys at engadget saw that pic and had to create an article as an excuse just to display it on the site. :D