At this point we were in two minds about the Torqx as it uses the same hardware as the OCZ Vertex, it costs the same and the performance of the Torqx on firmware 1370 is very similar to the Vertex on firmware 1.10, which is what we used at the time of our original review.
In other words there is no compelling reason to choose the Torqx over the Vertex.
2GB Data Transfer Test Results
Data transfer time in Seconds (s)
Shorter bars are better
As we had updated the Torqx to firmware 1571, it only seemed fair to install the latest firmware, 1.30, on the Vertex. The updating process for the Vertex is considerably simpler than it is for the Torqx. We burned a downloaded .ISO image to CD and booted the PC with the Vertex installed as a secondary drive. There’s no need for a configuration jumper with this process.
The Vertex was updated in a matter of moments, and we were pleased to see that the data wasn't wiped. Unfortunately, that was the end of the good news as the Vertex wouldn’t boot properly and the performance was all over the shop. We bit the bullet, formatted the drive and re-imaged it and... no joy.
HDTach 18.104.22.168 Bandwidth Test Results
Data Transfer Speeds in Megabytes per Second (MB/s)
Longer bars are better
Try as we might the Vertex didn’t want to play ball with firmware 1.30 and we feared that the drive was bricked.
That firmware upgrade process.
I can see a rather large flaw in there.
Say you want to run install one in your shiny new build as the main disk rather than as additional storage. So you just need to boot into Windows and..........ah..........oh dear.
OCZ have the right approach with a bootable CD image, if they could just get it to work. Did you try the jumper trick with the OCZ CD boot? I'm wondering if the problem's a screwup in the instructions....
I second price fixing!!!
@ JC 2:
I second that! This is very similar to most new pieces of technology on the market nowadays - there seems to have been a decision taken by these companies that every new iteration of a certain technology warrants a higher baseline price-point than the previous technology.
This leaves the newer technology at a higher price point to older technology regardless of how long its been on the market, and the end result is more money in their coffers no matter when you buy it. Games consoles are one clear case; flat-panel TVs are another. They just won't go below a certain price point any more and that really is bad for lower-level uptake of these technologies..
Shame that really, as mainstream adopters will hold out or save and not produce the sort of product churn that actually drives sales.
SSDs really should by now have eliminated the need for a mechanical main/system drive in any personal computer needing 120GB or less - leave the mech DDs to work as storage-only or as part of elaborate raid arrays where cost and reliability are still a factor.
Benchmarks Don't Back Conclusion
Besides low latency, the testing showed them performing fairly poorly. The BEST result for the 2GB file transfers, a fairly undemanding linear process, was 30.3 seconds. That's 68MB/s.
Today's 500GB per platter, _5200RPM(even!)_ mechanical HDDs can achieve that (for more than the first 128GB of their outer platter capacity) or come pretty close to this average for the rest of the platter(s), and give it to you at about $90/TB.
As first mentioned, this does not consider latency so it's an apples:oranges comparison but I have to agree with the article that there is little reason to buy this late entry into the SSD market, at least it uses the Indilinx controller but SSD prices should be going down not staying the same with more market competition, let alone the doubling of flash density.
I suspect price fixing in the flash market. We saw DDR2 for under $1 a chip, even practically free when on a finished product with a rebate, when capacity was focused on DDR2 production. Now that more capacity switched to flash production the cost of flash should have similarly decreased.
Couldn't they all be boiled down to the same conclusion?
"X is very similar indeed to ... other SSDs on the market. It performed very well. Shame it couldn’t be just a bit cheaper."