View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)  
Old May 4, 2011, 01:13 AM
Galcobar's Avatar
Galcobar Galcobar is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Posts: 437

My System Specs

Default

Have to point out the 25nm issue was not just a matter of drama, but one of a complete and utter failure by OCZ in the public relations and marketing.

It introduced 25nm into existing drives without telling anyone, in configurations which produced slower and smaller drives, for which people continued to pay full price -- when the trumpeted advantage of 25nm was a sharp price reduction. As a result, if you got a 25nm drive that wasn't labelled as such, you received a weak cousin of the ones based on 34nm NAND. That was the reality, which OCZ did not address.

The effect is that the transition to 25nm NAND wasn't just about durability, but speed and capacity. Hell, even after the configurations were switched back to the same basic design, OCZ staff have acknowledged that drives based on 25nm NAND are 15-30% slower than those based on 34nm NAND.

Side note: page 5, "128GiB (16GB)" chips. I think you mean 128Gbit, not 128 Gibi-Bytes.
Reply With Quote