OCZ Occupies Sub-$100 SSD Space with New Onyx Series - HotHardware
OCZ Occupies Sub-$100 SSD Space with New Onyx Series

OCZ Occupies Sub-$100 SSD Space with New Onyx Series

Never has the phrase "you have to pay to play" been more applicable than it is to the SSD market. Solid state drives trump their mechanical brethren in just about every way, including speed, power consumption, and durability, but one area where HDDs still hold an advantage is in price.

It should come as great news, then, that OCZ has broken the sub-$100 price barrier with the introduction of its new Onyx Series SSDs.



"As new technologies become available, OCZ continues to expand both our enterprise and consumer SSD lines, and one of our goals is to make SSDs more affordable to end-users. Our new Onyx series SSD does exactly that and is a perfect solution for netbooks, laptops, or home desktops PCs," commented Ryan Petersen, CEO of the OCZ Technology Group. "Designed to offer the best of both worlds, the new OCZ Onyx SSD delivers the speed and reliability of solid state storage to mainstream consumers at an aggressive price point that makes the technology more accessible to customers who want to take advantage of all the benefits of the SSDs without incurring the high cost normally associated with the solution."

As you might expect, a few concessions have to be made in order to jump below the $100 price point. The Onyx only offers 32GB of storage -- still enough for a boot drive -- and performance has been tempered next to the ultra high-end SSDs we've seen of late. Read and write speeds check in at up to 125MB/s and 70MB/s, respectively, though the Onyx does come with an ample 64MB of onboard cache.



Not quite earth shattering, but certainly affordable, and not many SSDs can claim that.
0
+ -

Cool!

0
+ -

That is pretty neat, even if it's only 32GB it's alright for only the os and a game or two???

0
+ -

Not bad at all for the price, might be a tight fit for a 64 OS though.

0
+ -

This is great I was wondering when one of the big players would start doing this. In SSD's OCZ seem's to be one of the largest so it is fitting. Inspector I totally agree with you on that point to. This will also bring down the market price wise more I would imagine, and is the reason I was waiting on this. One thing to remember on a gaming platform especially is gaming on a PC the OS is always running underneath your game window and doing a large part of the work to present the game. So even if the OS is on the SSD and the game is not it will still end up giving you better game/system wide performance.

0
+ -

I wouldn't jump on this, the prices on SSDs have been dropping quite a bit of late. Newegg has OCZ Solid 2 Series 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC SSD for $130. For about $30 more you can almost double the storage, not to mention the Solid 2 Series is superior to this.

0
+ -

I am happy to see SSDs going sub $100. 30GBs is just to small for me. I really want one that can I can put my OS and my 100GB Steam folder on.

gibbersome:
Newegg has OCZ Solid 2 Series 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC SSD for $130.

This sounds tempting actually. I still wanna wait a while longer to jump on the SSD bandwagon. I have my tax money on the way. I usually do my big PC upgrades every year with that. An SSD is still not super high on my list though.

0
+ -

Now we'll see if all those people who said they'd get a SSD "when the price comes down" put their money where their mouths are.

Mine (an Agility series) is humming along, but it seems slower than it should be-- I ran a benchmark on it (PassMark) and got 88.8 MB/sec, which I guess is good, but the specs brag of 230 MB/sec read speed. (The WD Caviar Green array logged 30.3.) Fast, yes, but blazingly fast-- no. It's kind of disappointing.

 

The question arose, though: Is 30 GB enough? I'd say yes. (I'd petitioned them not to ignore the lower storage needs in favor of exclusively focussing on larger SSDs.) I have Windows 7 Home Premium installed on the SSD, and that takes up 12.4 GB. My Users folder takes up another 1 GB, but of course I have the large files-- music, videos, pictures-- on the mechanical drive. Another 17.6 GB is devoted to the sundry Program Files folders. All told, that's just over 30 GB-- but I have a lot of programs installed (iTunes, Firefox, various utilities) that just don't need to be on an SSD. And of course I have World of Warcraft there, taking up 16GB all by itself.

(Let's not forget the noise factor, too; Captain Clunker's 5400 RPM mechanical drive provided some annoyingly audible percussion whenever it decided to go into one of those seek loops that Windows is known for. The WD drives are very quiet for mechanicals, but the SSD makes not a peep.)

For speeding up OS performance, a smaller SSD-- with just the operating system and a few selected programs installed--  may be just the thing.

0
+ -

So if I hold out about another 6 months SSDs will be pretty affordable across the board it seems..

0
+ -

Yeah Kasel that's exactly what I am saying. Most retailers are already over stocked on SSD's from several manufacturers bottom to top end. When a big producer like OCZ starts popping out equipment like this the rest will start. Then the existing to of the line will be 4 times the price of new drives. Then someone has to start the price war. Can you say current top of the line 256 GB ssd for half price, I know I can. Yes the top of the line at that time will be larger and faster, but for the price I can grab two of the last generation at the time ssd's and throw them in raid 0 for less than the current one will be. I'm sure a raid 0 set will outperform even top of the line single drives even with ssd's, maybe even more so.

0
+ -

You got that right Rapid1. My to Vortex SSD's are smoking fast in RAID 0.

Clem: Does Passmark show random reads or sequentual? Random is always a lot lower.

0
+ -

I have been waiting, and will continue to do so. They haven't entered MY realm of possibility yet, and they're not within sight either. I am storage hog. I like to have a lot of it. A 30GB drive for ANY price is not gonna do it for me.

This has shown that they will come down in time, and time is certainly on our side.

0
+ -

@infinityzeN: It does both (results in MB/sec):

Disk - Sequential Read

This Computer 86.5

Disk - Sequential Write

This Computer 137.9

Disk - Random Seek + RW

This Computer 50.0

PassMark has some odd shortcomings; if there's a way to save test results I haven't found it, so the tests have to be performed every time someone wants to know. These were done with all default settings, but I did the "very long" test to even out variations.

0
+ -

"Solid state drives trump their mechanical brethren in just about every way, including speed, power consumption, and durability, but one area where HDDs still hold an advantage is in price."

Durability? Really? Show me ANY SSD that has lived in a hot dusty server in a non AC closet for 15 years. Right didnt think so since SSD's have barely been around for 3 years. Dont start quoting *** that you cant back up.

SSD's are fast, but their reliability and durability have yet to be confirmed.

0
+ -

SSDs are flashed-based technology with no moving parts. It's pretty silly to argue that flash storage is less durable than a mechanical hard drive with moving parts, anecdotal example of one stationary HDD notwithstanding.

-Paul Lilly

0
+ -

@drago:

you're right. reliability and durability have yet to be confirmed...because you haven't seen this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7W9zeZyhxw

0
+ -

OCZ Vertex SSD's can be had for a few dollars more than this one with double the performance. I'm reliably seeing Max reads of 225 and Min reads of 150 or so. Thats a single Vertex 30GB drive used for boot and frequently used apps.

0
+ -

In case you missed it Paul i was talking about data durability. Any mechanical device will at some point fail, just as will flash based media as it has a FINITE number of write cycles. Just as CDRW's could be written to and erased a few times, eventually it wouldnt work. Flash is the same way. I have killed several flash drives just by using them so much for copying files. Sure a ssd can be hit by a bat and still work vs a mechanical drive, but at least if a mechanical drive fails, you can get the data off by taking it to a data recovery place. As long as the platters are not broken, or severely scratched, data can be read off of them, where as you cant do that with an SSD. Just wait till these first few gen of SSD's start to fail and people whine about loosing all their data with no way what so ever to recover it.

0
+ -

It doesn't matter if you roll with a HDD or SSD, "data durability" is only as good as the backup solution(s).

-Paul Lilly

0
+ -

Drago, SSDs don't fail like that. Even when they can no longer have a charge written to them, they can be read.

When a SSD fails, it becomes read only. There's an "interview with a SSD engineer" on hardocp if you want more details.

0
+ -

sp12:

Drago, SSDs don't fail like that. Even when they can no longer have a charge written to them, they can be read.

When a SSD fails, it becomes read only. There's an "interview with a SSD engineer" on hardocp if you want more details.

Even if that is the case, it sounds like it would cost a pretty penny regardless.

0
+ -

My Uncle has this series

0
+ -

You should have a backup strategy anyway, I know I do, and have for quite some time. The three years does seem a little low to me for a HD lasting, but data should not be lost. There are free and cheap backup utilities, I have Acronis Disk Director and True image which I bought for 40-45 dollars including shipping, they can also be downloaded with the same support. So a SSD failure taking out my computer would not happen anyway. Not to mention I have several old drives around here as I am sure many do, format one make an Image load it on the drive and label it if you don't wanna grab an external enclosure.

Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: