Home » News » Peripheral News » OCZ Turbo Boosts Vertex SSDs

OCZ Turbo Boosts Vertex SSDs

Gordon Kelly by

OCZ Turbo Boosts Vertex SSDs

The OCZ Vertex SSD is already ballistically fast, so the company has had an idea: let's make it faster!

Today OCZ has announced the 'Vertex Turbo Edition', which increases both the host clock-speed and the SDR DRAM cache to 180MHz versus 166MHz on the original series. The result is a small increase in read speeds from 260MBps to 270MBps and a huge jump in write performance from 160MBps up to 210MBps all packaged around the tried and trusted Indilinx Barefoot controller.

"OCZ is constantly looking for ways to advance our solutions, and based on feedback from our enthusiast consumers and top system integrators we looked for ways to further push the performance envelope in our popular Vertex Series of SSD's," said OCZ product management director Ryan Edwards. "The new Vertex Turbo makes use of the fastest SDR DRAM cache available and a proprietary FTL level firmware that provides an even faster solid state drive for enthusiasts looking for the ultimate desktop or laptop storage upgrade."

The Vertex Turbo will come in 30GB (32), 60GB (64), 120GB (128), and 250GB (256) capacities (the brackets show the full size of the drive but some space is reserved for formatting and redundancy for wear leveling).

As for pricing, no official RRPs have been released but a quick conversation with OCZ has revealed the Vertex Turbo line will launch imminently with a 10 per cent premium compared to their equivalent Vertex models. The series will also come with three year warranties which should provide peace of mind for those still skeptical about long term reliability.

Update: OCZ is also extending the warranty on all its Vertex and Summit SSDs to three years. Yes, the technology is starting to mature people.


OCZ Vertex Turbo Series Product Page

Go to comments


July 8, 2009, 11:27 pm

Ooh, I'm so tempted by SSD's right now. The one I have my eye on, an OCZ 60GB Vertex, is about £200 on Scan right now. Just a bit cheaper (>£150) and I think I might buy one, simply because I'm fed up with Window's slow boot times.


July 9, 2009, 1:42 am

@Pbryanw: The 300GB Western Digital Velociraptor in my PC cold boots Vista in just less than 1min 30s (granted it used to be one minute flat back when I first installed Vista) That's to idle desktop not to taskbar just visible.


July 9, 2009, 1:57 am

Am I the only one who thinks SSD makers should focus on making them cheaper rather than faster faster?

Once there selling in bulk they have more cash for R&D!

Alex 11

July 9, 2009, 1:59 am

I am a tad confused by the value that is indicated in brackets for the 250GB drive. Up to the 120GB drive the amount of space reserved for formatting and level wearing redundancy increases proportionately as the drive capacity increases, with 2GB, 4GB and 8GB reserved space for the 30GB, 60GB, 120GB respectively. If the values in the article are accurate, the amount of space reserved in the 250GB(6GB) drive is less than what is reserved for the 120GB(8GB) drive!


July 9, 2009, 2:08 am

@Alex - I'll check with OCZ, they are the figures announced to us and you will also find them on the product page itself.


July 9, 2009, 2:56 am

@Alex - that should read 16GB redundancy space for 250GB.


July 9, 2009, 3:42 am

@Pbryanw: An SSD may not help if you're on a desktop, some tests aren't showing any difference in boot times, especially compared to spending another £30 on a second hard drive and using RAID. Unfortunately, most reliable tests are made with fresh installs of Windows so it's hard to know whether the performance is the same on a used install.


July 9, 2009, 4:39 am

@ChaosDefinesOrder & Xiphias - Thanks for the information. In that case I might just save for a newer, conventional (1TB) hard-drive, which should be an improvement over my current old Samsung 500GB one. As for RAID, unfortunately my computer's (Dell XPS 420) built in RAID is a bit unreliable, plus my knowledge of it is a bit lacking.

Tony Walker

July 9, 2009, 7:52 am

Hmm, my Windows 7 install on 4 Samsung SLC SSDs in a RAID 0 config seem to fairly zip along. And yes, they were on special offer. And my important data is on a RAID 1 NAS.

Alex 11

July 9, 2009, 4:39 pm

@Xiphias - I think a 250GB SSD should have 16.667GB (3 d.p.) of reserved space whilst a 240GB SSD should have 16GB of reserved space if the ratio of 15:1 between the available space and the reserved space that is found in the rest of the drive line-up is to be maintained.


July 20, 2009, 6:17 pm

I was under the impression that FTL = Faster Than Light.

Big words...?

comments powered by Disqus