The rapid advancement of technology has lead the way to breakthrough innovations in the design of processors, memory, video cards, and more. Not only are these components now significantly faster and more efficient, but they are easily affordable and becoming mainstream. However, one component still relatively untouched is the hard drive; though different configurations and platter sizes exist and continue to develop, the underlying magnetic recording techniques remain the same. This presents a serious bottleneck in today's systems; with very fast processors and memory, conventional hard drives are limiting data transfers, especially in notebooks. As a result, manufacturers have recently released a new class of drives, known as solid state drives (SSDs).

(more...) (http://blog.slickdeals.net/index.php/2008/08/21/ocz-core-series-64gb-ssd-review/)

$240? really? Something doesn't seem right, it seems too......inexpensive
Say I purchased the Lenovo S10 that hit frontpage, could I take out the HD and upgrade to SSD easily? or how does that work, I dunno

thanks for the review

$240? really? Something doesn't seem right, it seems too......inexpensive
Say I purchased the Lenovo S10 that hit frontpage, could I take out the HD and upgrade to SSD easily? or how does that work, I dunno

thanks for the review
Believe it or not, it's even slightly less at Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227344) now: about $227 shipped. It is definitely quite inexpensive compared to other SSDs, but it is also one of the poor performers. Most likely, it's because it uses MLC (multi-level cell) flash memory, which is cheaper, but slower. The faster and more efficient ones you see likely use SLC (single level cell) flash memory, but are much more expensive. Super Talent has a great article on the differences between the two here (http://www.supertalent.com/datasheets/SLC_vs_MLC%20whitepaper.pdf). Regardless, in most instances, the most important thing is read speeds since you won't be writing much to the SSD with its very limited capacity, and the OCZ really shines there.

About upgradability, most ultra-portables, including the S10, do not use conventional 2.5" SATA hard drives, but rather 1.8" drives so no, this would not work. It is definitely worth it if you need the speed and have a 2.5" SATA compatible notebook though.

Oh wow..you guys are starting to do tech reviews too on your blog?!?! :bounce: Soon enough I won't need engadget anymore :) Looks like a good review :thumbup:

OMG thumbs down. Wait for OCZ v2 when they fix the farkin bugs

Read the support forums for some of the pain associated with the OCZ core:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=88

This post says it right: OCZ core version 1 was a beta test. Version 2 might be the real deal:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41476

Dont touch this CRAP WARE (OCZ CORE Version 1)

I would be very angry if anyone bought a OCZ core version 1 from the OP's review! =( I am very very scared of this product. OCZ support also seems to blame it on the end user not the product!!

woo thanks ive been interested in these guess i will wait a bit

OMG thumbs down. Wait for OCZ v2 when they fix the farkin bugs

Read the support forums for some of the pain associated with the OCZ core:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=88

This post says it right: OCZ core version 1 was a beta test. Version 2 might be the real deal:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41476

Dont touch this CRAP WARE (OCZ CORE Version 1)

I would be very angry if anyone bought a OCZ core version 1 from the OP's review! =( I am very very scared of this product. OCZ support also seems to blame it on the end user not the product!!
I wouldn't call it crapware by any means. Sure it is buggy, but I'm sure other SSDs are as well. They will continue to improve and play better with Vista down the road. It's not the fastest drive on the market, but it should be a heavy upgrade over a large majority of standard 2.5" SATA drives and cost significantly less than other SSDs. I'm sure OCZ is not the only manufacturer with future revisions / versions planned but yes, I would probably wait for it to release before purchasing an SSD.

At IDF, intel announced new SSD's that I'm keeping my eye on. They include both SLC and MLC units. No conclusive benchmarks were shown, but qualitative graphs showed that theirs will be a lot faster than "the competitors" (whomever they happened to be).

What's interesting is that someone took a sample apart and found a 16MB dram chip. I've heard that OCZ SSD's don't have a cache. Assuming the intel unit was using this as cache, that could be a major plus for their unit. A cache should effectively hide the write latencies of these things. So no more stuttering.

http://www.hottestwalls.net/img5.jpg<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://blog.slickdeals.net/index.php/2008/08/21/ocz-core-series-64gb-ssd-review/"><img class="attachment wp-att-410 centered aligncenter" src="http://blog.slickdeals.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/core_ssd_64gb.jpg" alt="" width="430" height="350" /></a></p>
The rapid advancement of technology has lead the way to breakthrough innovations in the design of processors, memory, video cards, and more. Not only are these components now significantly faster and more efficient, but they are easily affordable and becoming mainstream. However, one component still relatively untouched is the hard drive; though different configurations and platter sizes exist and continue to develop, the underlying magnetic recording techniques remain the same. This presents a serious bottleneck in today's systems; with very fast processors and memory, conventional hard drives are limiting data transfers, especially in notebooks. As a result, manufacturers have recently released a new class of drives, known as solid state drives (SSDs).

(more...) (http://blog.slickdeals.net/index.php/2008/08/21/ocz-core-series-64gb-ssd-review/)

thas crazy...240$ is ALOT!!!
anyways i'm happy with my current system..no need for a new one.

At IDF, intel announced new SSD's that I'm keeping my eye on. They include both SLC and MLC units. No conclusive benchmarks were shown, but qualitative graphs showed that theirs will be a lot faster than "the competitors" (whomever they happened to be).

What's interesting is that someone took a sample apart and found a 16MB dram chip. I've heard that OCZ SSD's don't have a cache. Assuming the intel unit was using this as cache, that could be a major plus for their unit. A cache should effectively hide the write latencies of these things. So no more stuttering.

Did they also find a battery in there? What happend when the power goes out and there is still stuff to write in the cache? Or is it for read operations only, but that wouldn't make any sense as SSDs are pretty decent at read as it is.

Pretty good review, although I would have liked to see a comparison with the Velociraptor, since they are in the same price range.

Pretty good review, although I would have liked to see a comparison with the Velociraptor, since they are in the same price range.
Yep, it's unfortunate we could not get our hands on a Velociraptor but if you look around the web, you can find many benchmarks and compare them to that of the SSD.

The drive comes in the standard 2.5″ form factor and has standard SATA connectors. Like standard 2.5″ SATA hard drives, just plug in the SATA power and data connector and it is ready to go. Compared to a standard 2.5″ SATA hard drive, it is a few centimeters thicker, but much lighter and should still fit in any notebook that supports SATA drives without any problems. The same goes for PCs, but as mentioned above, a 2.5″ to 3.5″ bracket is needed, and must be purchased separately.

Who has a notebook that can contain another few centimeter thicker drive?

Who has a notebook that can contain another few centimeter thicker drive?
It fits perfectly fine ... I recently tried it with an XPS M1330. It is a very tiny bit thicker and unnoticeable unless it is finely measured.

I hate to change the subject on this thread, but since the velociraptor is being talked about - I keep seeing 2.5" in a 3.5" mounting frame. Am I able to remove the mounting frame and then install the 2.5" into my notebook?

It fits perfectly fine ... I recently tried it with an XPS M1330. It is a very tiny bit thicker and unnoticeable unless it is finely measured.

I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying.

They said few centimeters... I'm sure its a typo, but its funny. 3 CENTIMETERS!

Ha!

I hate to change the subject on this thread, but since the velociraptor is being talked about - I keep seeing 2.5" in a 3.5" mounting frame. Am I able to remove the mounting frame and then install the 2.5" into my notebook?
From what I understand, removing the IcePack mounting frame is possible but totally pointless. Not only does it void the 5 year warranty, but reports online (such as this (http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/western_digital_velociraptor)) indicate that the power requirements of the Velociraptor prevent it from being functional in notebooks. It is also much thicker than standard 2.5" SATA drives, so it will only fit in very limited notebooks. It's mainly targeted for desktop, workstation, and server use. SSDs are the way to go for notebooks (when prices fall substantially that is).

I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying.

They said few centimeters... I'm sure its a typo, but its funny. 3 CENTIMETERS!

Ha!
A few centimeters is quite meaningless ... it is so small of a difference to be considered anything. From the naked eye, they are identical in size and they virtually are, unless you measure it down to the centimeter like I did. Trust me, there is absolutely no problem using this in any SATA notebook. Honestly, I probably should not have mentioned it at all, since there is so small of a difference.

A few centimeters is quite meaningless ... it is so small of a difference to be considered anything. From the naked eye, they are identical in size and they virtually are, unless you measure it down to the centimeter like I did. Trust me, there is absolutely no problem using this in any SATA notebook. Honestly, I probably should not have mentioned it at all, since there is so small of a difference.

Am I missing something? 2.54 centimeter is 1 inch... How thick is your laptop?

Your testing methodology needs to be improved, and I think that some of your conclusions in the verdict section are flawed (as are some of your follow up comments in this thread), but overall it's not a bad first effort.

I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying.

They said few centimeters... I'm sure its a typo, but its funny. 3 CENTIMETERS!

Ha!
Nice catch. Corrected. :)

Your testing methodology needs to be improved, and I think that some of your conclusions in the verdict section are flawed (as are some of your follow up comments in this thread), but overall it's not a bad first effort.
Mr. SD corrected my centimeter comment ... don't know why I was confusing a millimeter with a centimeter but that's my mistake. Thanks for catching that error guys :) Besides that, where exactly do you see a "flawed" verdict and conclusion? Can you be more specific? I'm not saying it's perfect because it's far from it, but please be more clear on what is inaccurate so I know what to improve next time. For the record, I followed the basic testing methodology of other professional reviews online (Benchmarkreviews, Overclock3d, Guru3d, etc.) while adding some of my own material so I'm not exactly sure how much the content can be changed. Also, I stuck to a main theme that is prevalent throughout the review: that it is definitely a fast drive, but because write performance is very mediocre and SSD technology is still expensive, it is not worth it for most. Anyway, I appreciate the feedback.

The bootup time was not that fast. The vista orb took an awefully long time to pop up. I think mine may boot faster =0, and I'm using a regular SATA Desktop drive.

The bootup time was not that fast. The vista orb took an awefully long time to pop up. I think mine may boot faster =0, and I'm using a regular SATA Desktop drive.
Time it :) Vista bootups are so unpredictable though. I've gotten mixed results with my 2x500GB (7200.10) in RAID0 as well. The thing with hard drives is that even though you may get similar bootups to the SSD from time to time, they will not be consistent (unlike the SSD which maintains a very fast read speed at all times along with instant access times which hard drives will never have). Of course I could be wrong as every system is different, but this has been my experience.

Oh wow..you guys are starting to do tech reviews too on your blog?!?! :bounce: Soon enough I won't need engadget anymore :) Looks like a good review :thumbup:

Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com) FTMFW!!

------------

Nice review, thanks.

One thing to be aware of is that these SSD's have terrible random small write performance. With a 64k block size, they write at less than 5MB/sec. They are good for many things (reads especially) but the write performance is less than a standard hard drive (unless you have large streaming writes).

The bootup time was not that fast. The vista orb took an awefully long time to pop up. I think mine may boot faster =0, and I'm using a regular SATA Desktop drive.
PM your number, I am your friend.

This product it utter junk. For a serious review, checkout Intel X25-M SSD: Intel Delivers One of the World's Fastest Drives (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403)

hi,
The bootup time was not that fast. The vista orb took an awefully long time to pop up. I think mine may boot faster =0, and I'm using a regular SATA Desktop drive.

http://sentersoftech.com/senter/happy.gif

www.sentersoftech.com