OCZ Vector 150 (120GB & 240GB) Review

by Kristian Vättö on November 7, 2013 9:00 AM EST

The shopping season is getting busier and busier as we get closer to the holidays. This is a season that no manufacturer wants to miss because statistically speaking the holiday season accounts for about one fifth of all the retail sales in the US. It's no coincidence that we also see a ton of product releases before the holiday shopping season or right at the beginning of it. For manufacturers it's crucial to have a competitive and up-to-date lineup because no company wants to miss the chance of generating potentially over 20% of their annual revenue.

The SSD market is no exception to the rule. While an SSD may not be the first gift idea to come to your mind, the shipments increase temporarily in Q4 where the holiday shopping season falls. There's even some actual data from a research firm IHS.

Worldwide SSD Shipments
	Q1'12	Q2'12	Q3'12	Q4'12	Q1'13
Units (in Millions)	6.0	7.3	9.3	12.1	11.5

Part of the reason for the increase is of course the increased sales of PCs, of which some come with a pre-installed SSD. However, the increase is not limited to PC sales as the holiday season is also a busy time for new builds and upgrading existing computers, both of which impact the retail SSD market.

OCZ's answer to the holiday demand is the Vector 150. Like the original Vector and Vertex 450, the Vector 150 is based on OCZ's first fully in-house designed Barefoot 3 controller. OCZ hasn't given out much specifics about the controller other than it's an 8-channel design with two cores (one unnamed ARM Cortex core and OCZ Aragon co-processor). The only change in hardware this round is the switch from 25nm IMFT MLC NAND to Toshiba's 19nm MLC NAND. Toshiba announced the production of second generation 19nm NAND in May but the Vector 150 is using the first generation 19nm NAND. I will however save the details of the differences between Toshiba's first and second generation NAND for a review where we have a drive with the second generation NAND.

The change in NAND makes perfect sense because 25nm NAND hasn't been cost effective for a long time and the 19nm/20nm processes have matured enough to meet the criteria for a high-end SSDs. I believe OCZ went with Toshiba's NAND for performance reasons because generally Toshiba's NAND has been a bit faster than IMFT's. Back when OCZ released the Vertex 450, I asked them why didn't they just release an updated Vector with 20nm IMFT NAND. OCZ told me that the 20nm NAND didn't meet their performance standards for a high-end SSD and hence they released the mainstream orientated Vertex 450 and kept using IMFT's 25nm NAND in the Vector. (In case you didn't already know, Vector is OCZ's enthusiast orientated brand, whereas the Vertex is more mainstream focused.) I put down a quick table comparing the differences between the three Barefoot 3 based SSDs that OCZ has in their product portfolio.

Comparison of OCZ's Barefoot 3 Based SSDs
	Vector 150	Vector	Vertex 450
Controller	Indilinx Barefoot 3
NAND	19nm Toshiba	25nm IMFT	20nm IMFT
Encryption	AES-256	N/A	AES-256
Endurance	50GB/day for 5 years	20GB/day for 5 years	20GB/day for 3 years
Warranty	5 years	5 years	3 years

There are obviously some performance differences too but since those vary depending on the capacity, I decided to leave them out to keep the table readable. The Vector 150 has two major upgrades over the original Vector: Hardware encryption support and higher endurance. Unlike the original Vector, the Vector 150 (as well as the Vertex 450) supports AES-256 hardware encryption. Unfortunately OCZ's implementation does not support TCG Opal 2.0 and IEEE-1667 specs, so it's not compatible with Windows 8's hardware accelerated BitLocker. The lack of TCG Opal 2.0 support also means that there is no support for encryption software such as Wave and WinMagic, which support hardware accelerated encryption similar to Windows 8's BitLocker. I think more manufacturers should implement these specifications as it makes encrypting a drive much easier with no impact on performance that comes from software implemented encryption. Encryption via ATA password is way more complicated for the end-user and it's also more vulnerable. 

The 2.5x increase in endurance is pretty impressive especially when taking into account that we're dealing with smaller lithography NAND with lower endurance. OCZ has achieved the higher endurance with a combination of three things: Advanced flash management and more validation and over-provisioning. OCZ didn't want to go into details about their flash management technologies, which isn't surprising as those technologies tend to be proprietary. However, I would expect at least some sort of adaptive DSP to extend the life of the NAND. Increasing the amount of over-provisioning will lower the write amplification, which in turn will reduce NAND writes and allow for more host writes. As you can see in the table below, OCZ has switched to ~12% stock over-provisioning similar to Corsair's Neutron and SandForce drives.

The final part in the endurance equation is validation. In a perfect world you would just multiply the NAND's P/E cycles with the NAND's capacity to get endurance but unfortunately it's not that simple. You do get the NAND endurance with that equation but there are other parts that need to be taken into account. Validation has to take all potential causes of failure (such as voltage regulators) into account, so the endurance number is a result of the manufacturer's internal validation process. It's an expensive and time consuming process because what you are basically doing is taking hundreds or even thousands of drives and testing them in various environments by writing to them until they die.

It's good to keep in mind that the endurance rating is usually based on a 4KB random write workload, so your NAND writes may end up being way more than 50GB a day. One of the biggest reasons why manufacturers have to limit the warranty with an endurance rating is because otherwise enterprises could use much cheaper consumer SSDs and use the warranty as a basis of getting the drive replaced once they've worn it out. The manufacturers want the enterprise customers to pay the premium for their enterprise SSDs since they've invested on the extra validation required by the enterprise market and it's a market that tends to have higher profits as well.

I do have some unfortunate news when it comes to reliability, though. The 240GB sample OCZ sent us died during our testing. This isn't the first (and I doubt it will be the last) SSD to unexpectedly die during our tests but a failure always raises concern about overall reliability. The drive still drew power (I checked with a multimeter) but it wouldn't show up in the BIOS or Windows. To me this sounds like the inherent power loss issue that nearly all SSDs have.

The problem with SSDs is that once the you lose power, everything in the DRAM cache will be lost. Fortunately manufacturers don't usually store any user data in the DRAM but what they do store is the NAND mapping table for faster access. The NAND mapping table is of course stored in the NAND too but in case there has been changes to the mapping table before the controller has had time to back it up to the NAND, it may corrupt the whole table. A corrupted mapping table means that the controller can't match LBAs to physical NAND locations, so the controller has no idea where your data is. The way SSDs handle this is to go into debug mode, which for some means they won't be recognizable at all or for others they show up as very small volumes (remember the Intel SSD 320 8MB bug?). We don't know yet if this is really the cause of the failure but I did send the drive back to OCZ for failure analysis already and I'll be updating the article as soon as I hear back from them.

OCZ Vector 150 Specifications
	120GB	240GB	480GB
Controller	Indilinx Barefoot 3
NAND	19nm Toshiba MLC
DRAM Cache	512MB	512MB	1GB
Sequential Read	550MB/s	550MB/s	550MB/s
Sequential Write	450MB/s	530MB/s	530MB/s
4KB Random Read	80K IOPS	90K IOPS	100K IOPS
4KB Random Write	95K IOPS	95K IOPS	95K IOPS
Steady-state 4KB Random Write	12K IOPS	21K IOPS	26K IOPS
Power Consumption	0.55W Idle / 2.5W Active
Warranty	5 years or 91TB of writes

The Vector 150 doesn't support Windows 8's DevSleep functionality, hence the idle power consumption is fairly high. In my opinion it's a bit of let down because most of the high-end SSDs are able to get into very low power states while idle, which results in longer battery life for portable computers. For comparison Samsung's SSD 840 Pro draws only 36.6 milliwatts while idle with HIPM and DIPM enabled, so the difference is over tenfold.  

It's also good to see OCZ reporting steady-state random write numbers. The peak numbers are only meaningful if you're dealing with an empty drive and hence it's good that manufacturers are being more open about the performance when dealing with a heavily used drive. I hope more manufacturers will follow suit and start including steady-state numbers as a part of the product specifcations.

As I described above, the 5-year warranty has an endurance condition. The warranty is 5 years or 91TB of writes, whatever comes first. The 91TB figure is derived from 50GB of writes per day (50GB x 365 x 5) and it's the same for all capacities. OCZ did tell me that they're willing to look into individual cases in case the drive dies after 95TB of writes for example but users who will be writing more than 50GB a day should still look into enterprise solutions.

With the original Vector OCZ bought NAND in wafers from Micron and did their own validation and packaging. With the Vector 150 (and Vertex 450) that has changed and OCZ uses pre-packaged NAND from Toshiba. I believe NAND OEMs aren't very willing to sell their latest generation NAND in wafers because they know the profit margins are much better with pre-packaged NAND and with limited supply the clients don't have very many options. There's a total of 16 NAND packages (2x8GB each), eight on each side of the PCB. There are also two Micron 256MB DDR3-1600 chips working as a cache.

Test System

CPU	Intel Core i5-2500K running at 3.3GHz (Turbo and EIST enabled)
Motherboard	AsRock Z68 Pro3
Chipset	Intel Z68
Chipset Drivers	Intel 9.1.1.1015 + Intel RST 10.2
Memory	G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-1600 4 x 8GB (9-9-9-24)
Video Card	XFX AMD Radeon HD 6850 XXX (800MHz core clock; 4.2GHz GDDR5 effective)
Video Drivers	AMD Catalyst 10.1
Desktop Resolution	1920 x 1080
OS	Windows 7 x64

Thanks to G.Skill for the RipjawsX 32GB DDR3 DRAM kit 
Source:AnandTech.


AnandTech Storage Bench 2013-Here-

The AMD Radeon R9 290X Review

by Ryan Smith on October 24, 2013 12:01 AM EST

To say it’s been a busy month for AMD is probably something of an understatement. After hosting a public GPU showcase in Hawaii just under a month ago, the company has already launched the first 5 cards in the Radeon 200 series – the 280X, 270X, 260X, 250, and 240 – and AMD isn’t done yet. Riding a wave of anticipation and saving the best for last, today AMD is finally launching the Big Kahuna: the Radeon R9 290X.

The 290X is not only the fastest card in AMD’s 200 series lineup, but the 290 series in particular also contains the only new GPU in AMD’s latest generation of video cards. Dubbed Hawaii, with the 290 series AMD is looking to have their second wind between manufacturing node launches. By taking what they learned from Tahiti and building a refined GPU against a much more mature 28nm process – something that also opens the door to a less conservative design – AMD has been able to build a bigger, better Tahiti that continues down the path laid out by their Graphics Core Next architecture while bringing some new features to the family.

Bigger and better isn’t just a figure of speech, either. The GPU really is bigger, and the performance is unquestionably better. After vying with NVIDIA for the GPU performance crown for the better part of a year, AMD fell out of the running for it earlier this year after the release of NVIDIA’s GK110 powered GTX Titan, and now AMD wants that crown back.

AMD GPU Specification Comparison
	AMD Radeon R9 290X	AMD Radeon R9 280X	AMD Radeon HD 7970	AMD Radeon HD 6970
Stream Processors	2816	2048	2048	1536
Texture Units	176	128	128	96
ROPs	64	32	32	32
Core Clock	727MHz?	850MHz	925MHz	880MHz
Boost Clock	1000MHz	1000MHz	N/A	N/A
Memory Clock	5GHz GDDR5	6GHz GDDR5	5.5GHz GDDR5	5.5GHz GDDR5
Memory Bus Width	512-bit	384-bit	384-bit	256-bit
VRAM	4GB	3GB	3GB	2GB
FP64	1/8	1/4	1/4	1/4
TrueAudio	Y	N	N	N
Transistor Count	6.2B	4.31B	4.31B	2.64B
Typical Board Power	~300W (Unofficial)	250W	250W	250W
Manufacturing Process	TSMC 28nm	TSMC 28nm	TSMC 28nm	TSMC 40nm
Architecture	GCN 1.1	GCN 1.0	GCN 1.0	VLIW4
GPU	Hawaii	Tahiti	Tahiti	Cayman
Launch Date	10/24/13	10/11/13	12/28/11	12/15/10
Launch Price	$549	$299	$549	$369

We’ll dive into the full architectural details of Hawaii a bit later, but as usual let’s open up with a quick look at the specs of today’s card. Hawaii is a GCN 1.1 part – the second such part from AMD – and because of that comparisons with older GCN parts are very straightforward. For gaming workloads in particular we’re looking at a GCN GPU with even more functional blocks than Tahiti and even more memory bandwidth to feed it, and 290X performs accordingly.

Compared to Tahiti, AMD has significantly bulked up both the front end and the back end of the GPU, doubling each of them. The front end now contains 4 geometry processor and rasterizer pairs, up from 2 geometry processors tied to 4 rasterizers on Tahiti, while on the back end we’re now looking at 64 ROPs versus Tahiti’s 32. Meanwhile in the computational core AMD has gone from 32 CUs to 44, increasing the amount of shading/texturing hardware by 38%.

On the other hand GPU clockspeeds on 290X are being held consistent versus the recently released 280X, with AMD shipping the card with a maximum boost clock of 1GHz (they’re unfortunately still not telling us the base GPU clockspeed), which means any significant performance gains will come from the larger number of functional units. With that in mind we’re looking at a video card that has 200% of 280X’s geometry/ROP performance and 138% of its shader/texturing performance. In the real world performance will trend closer to the increased shader/texturing performance – ROP/geometry bottlenecks don’t easily scale out like shading bottlenecks – so for most scenarios the upper bound for performance increases is that 38%.

Meanwhile the job of feeding Hawaii comes down to AMD’s fastest memory bus to date. With 280X and other Tahiti cards already shipping with a 384-bit memory bus running at 6GHz – and consuming quite a bit of die space to get there – to increase their available memory bandwidth AMD has opted to rebalance their memory configuration in favor of a wider, lower clockspeed memory bus. For Hawaii we’re looking at a 512-bit memory bus paired up with 5GHz GDDR5, which brings the total amount of memory bandwidth to 320GB/sec. The reduced clockspeed means that AMD’s total memory bandwidth gains aren’t quite as large as the increase in the memory bus size itself, but compared to the 288GB/sec on 280X this is still an 11% increase in memory bandwidth and a move very much needed to feed the larger number of ROPs that come with Hawaii. More interesting however is that in spite of the larger memory bus the total size of AMD’s memory interface has gone down compared to Tahiti, and we’ll see why in a bit.

At the same time because AMD’s memory interface is so compact they’ve been able to move to a 512-bit memory bus without requiring too large a GPU. At 438mm2 and composed of 6.2B transistors Hawaii is still the largest GPU ever produced by AMD – 18mm2 bigger than R600 (HD 2900) – but compared to the 365mm2, 4.31B transistor Tahiti AMD has been able to pack in a larger memory bus and a much larger number of functional units into the GPU for only a 73mm2 (20%) increase in die size. The end result being that AMD is able to once again significantly improve their efficiency on a die size basis while remaining on the same process node. AMD is no stranger to producing these highly optimized second wind designs, having done something similar for the 40nm era with Cayman (HD 6900), and as with Cayman the payoff is the ability to increase performance an efficiency between new manufacturing nodes, something that will become increasingly important for GPU manufacturers as the rate of fab improvements continues to slow.

Moving on, let’s quickly talk about power consumption. With Hawaii AMD has made a number of smaller changes both to the power consumption of the silicon itself, and how it is defined. On the tech side of matters AMD has been able to reduce transistor leakage compared to Tahiti, directly reducing power consumption of the GPU as a result, and this is being paired with changes to certain aspects of their power management system, with implementing advanced power/performance management abilities that vastly improve the granularity of their power states (more on this later).

However at the same time how power consumption is being defined is getting far murkier: AMD doesn’t list the power consumption of the 290X in any of their documentation or specifications, and after asking them directly we’re only being told that the “average gaming scenario power” is 250W. We’ll dive into this more when we do a breakdown of the changes to PowerTune on 290X, but in short AMD is likely underreporting the 290X’s power consumption. Based on our test results we’re seeing 290X draw more power than any other “250W” card in our collection, and in reality the TDP of the card is almost certainly closer to 300W. There are limits to how long the card can sustain that level of power draw due to cooling requirements, but given sufficient cooling the power limit of the card appears to be around 300W, and for the moment we’re labeling it as such.

Left To Right: 6970, 7970, 290X

Finally, let’s talk about pricing, availability, and product positioning. As AMD already launched the rest of the 200 series 2 weeks ago, the launch of the 290X is primarily filling out the opening at the top of AMD’s product lineup that the rest of the 200 series created. The 7000 series is in the middle of its phase out – and the 7990 can’t be too much farther behind – so the 290X is quickly going to become AMD’s de-facto top tier card.

The price AMD will be charging for this top tier is $549, which happens to be the same price as the 7970 when it launched in 2012. This is about $100-$150 more expensive than the outgoing 7970GE and $250 more expensive than 280X, with the 290X offering an average performance increase over 280X of 30%. Meanwhile when placed against NVIDIA’s lineup the primary competition for 290X will be the $650 GeForce GTX 780, a card that the 290X can consistently beat, making AMD the immediate value proposition at the high-end. At the same time however NVIDIA will have their 3 game Holiday GeForce Bundle starting on the 28th, making this an interesting inversion of earlier this year where it was AMD offering large game bundles to improve the competitive positioning of their products versus NVIDIA’s. As always, the value of bundles are ultimately up to the buyer, especially in this case since we’re looking at a rather significant $100 price gap between the 290X and the GTX 780.

Finally, unlike the 280X this is going to be a very hard launch. As part of their promotional activities for the 290X retailers have already been listing the cards while other retailers have been taking pre-orders, and cards will officially go on sale tomorrow. Note that this is a full reference launch, so everyone will be shipping identical reference cards for the time being. Customized cards, including the inevitable open air cooled ones, will come later.

Fall 2013 GPU Pricing Comparison
AMD	Price	NVIDIA
	$650	GeForce GTX 780
Radeon R9 290X	$550
	$400	GeForce GTX 770
Radeon R9 280X	$300
	$250	GeForce GTX 760
Radeon R9 270X	$200
	$180	GeForce GTX 660
	$150	GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost
Radeon R7 260X	$140

 Source:AnandTech.

A Bit More On Graphics Core Next 1.1