Reviews and Problems with OCZ Vertex 4 Series (VTX4-25SAT3)
Showing 1-10 of 56
Hard reset after two years
Diego D. Zaks B "diegozaks", Amazon
23 October 2014
Summary: Very fast, very pretty but died after two years in my macbook. Update: after using OCZ toolkit I was able to format the drive and fix the problem. Still testing to see if it'll last but the drive seems to be functioning.
Summary: I bought the 256gb in 2012 for $159. I thought I might get a few more today, but the price is ridiculous at $473. There must be a limited quantity. If I wanted to spend that on one SSD I'd buy a 1TB 840 evo for less! ...hey wait, is this reverse psychology?
Summary: Not sure why the price is so much atm, maybe because it's older technology now. I would defentily purchase a newer model for cheaper price. So far this drive has been quick enough for me and works efficiently enough for me to not need another one for now. Wanted to buy another for RAID 0, but with the price I will probably just buy 2 newer ones later down the line.
Pros: Runs fast and works very well. I only use it for my windows install and also a few games I want to run fast. SO far so good. 4 months off from 2 years and still running strong. I have formatted it maybe 6 times total. I heard that if you secure erase that sometimes it brings some more life back into it. But I am not 100 percent sure on that. The size is nice and small and it's quiet.
Cons: I had a few problems with scandisk errors on it constantly although health is at 98 percent on hard disk sentinel. And says nothing bad was found. Over 1000 days left. Could be software or older sata ports I was using. On my new mainboard, I don't' seem to have this problem.
Summary: Drive died after a year of ownership. OCZ replaced it after a little back and forth. Had to rma it twice as my drive wasn't completely dead but was on the way out (bsod once a day) and ocz didn't experience it.
Pros: Drive is insanely fast - up there with what is advertised - 550mb/s for big block sizes and sequential reads.
Blazing Fast Solid State Drive, But Better Value to Be Found Elsewhere
22 June 2013
Summary: I wanted to wait for a while after I had received my SSD before I reviewed it, as I believe a long-term ownership review can be just as, if not more, helpful than an instantaneous review. I received this SSD around Christmas, back when the 128GB version was only $95 (what a steal!) It is now late June, and I wanted to chime in with my thoughts on this drive. Let's start off with the positives; this drive is fast. Reeaallly fast.
Make sure there are no issues for how you want to use it.
20 April 2013
Summary: I was starting off with a clean slate. New Mac Mini. Nothing to to worry about losing, restoring, nothing. I've read reviews that some folks with some Mac setups (as I recall, mostly Mac books) had issues with OCZ SSD's operating properly. Do your research to make sure this SSD is right for your application. I would like to say my SSD cut my start-up time in half and all my bench marks that apply to the SSD are so much better than what they were before. I can't say that.
Pros: Very fast, can load up my system and boot anything I want in lightning speeds
Cons: Seems to have some issues booting properly, I will boot up my system but it will not load it up properly on first boot up. Have to boot up and then reboot, which turns a 10- sec bootup into a 20 sec, a slight annoyance at most but workable
Summary: A very nice SSD for the money. If you have multiple random I/O threads running against the SSD, you'll plateau performance pretty quickly, for those of you expecting to get 8000 random IOPs at this drive. Stop. Now. Wake up to reality: you'll need multiple SSDs in a RAID configuration to get thousands of random IOPs. Looking at forums posts over the years, people don't seem to grasp that.
Pros: Cleanly detected in Windows. Nice performance for sequential and reasonable amounts of random I/O. Considerably better performance than an HDD. TRIM performance seems to indicate good write lifespan for this drive.
Cons: Purely-random I/O tests under IOmeter are really poor with multiple worker threads, but that's to be expected.