The NAND Matrix - The OCZ Vertex 3 Review (120GB)

The NAND Matrix - The OCZ Vertex 3 Review (120GB)

August 2024 · 6 minute read

The NAND Matrix

It's not common for SSD manufacturers to give you a full list of all of the different NAND configurations they ship. Regardless how much we appreciate transparency, it's rarely offered in this industry. Manufacturers love to package all information into nice marketable nuggets and the truth doesn't always have the right PR tone to it. Despite what I just said, below is a table of every NAND device OCZ ships in its Vertex 2 and Vertex 3 products:

OCZ Vertex 2 & Vertex 3 NAND Usage
 Process NodeCapacities
Intel L63B34nmUp to 240GB
Micron L63B34nmUp to 480GB
Spectek L63B34nm240GB to 360GB
Hynix32nmUp to 120GB
Micron L73A25nmUp to 120GB
Micron L74A25nm160GB to 480GB
Intel L74A25nm160GB to 480GB

The data came from OCZ and I didn't have to sneak around to get it, it was given to me by Alex Mei, Executive Vice President of OCZ.

You've seen the end result, now let me explain how we got here.

OCZ accidentally sent me a 120GB Vertex 2 built with 32nm Hynix NAND. I say it was an accident because the drive was supposed to be one of the new 25nm Vertex 2s, but there was a screwup in ordering and I ended up with this one. Here's a shot of its internals:

You'll see that there are a ton of NAND devices on the board. Thirty two to be exact. That's four per channel. Do the math and you'll see we've got 32 x 4GB 32nm MLC NAND die on the PCB. This drive has the same number of NAND die per package as the new 25nm 120GB Vertex 2 so in theory performance should be the same. It isn't however:

Vertex 2 NAND Performance Comparison
 AT Storage Bench Heavy 2011AT Storage Bench Light 2011
34nm IMFT120.1 MB/s155.9 MB/s
25nm IMFT110.9 MB/s145.8 MB/s
32nm Hynix92.1 MB/s125.6 MB/s

Performance is measurably worse. You'll notice that I also threw in some 34nm IMFT numbers to show just how far performance has fallen since the old launch NAND.

Why not just keep using 34nm IMFT NAND? Ultimately that product won't be available. It's like asking for 90nm CPUs today, the whole point to Moore's Law is to transition to smaller manufacturing processes as quickly as possible.

Why is the Hynix 32nm NAND so much slower? That part is a little less clear to me. For starters we're only dealing with one die per package, we've established can have a negative performance impact. On top of that, SandForce's firmware may only be optimized for a couple of NAND devices. OCZ admitted that around 90% of all Vertex 2 shipments use Intel or Micron NAND and as a result SandForce's firmware optimization focus is likely targeted at those NAND types first and foremost. There are differences in NAND interfaces as well as signaling speeds which could contribute to performance differences unless a controller takes these things into account.


25nm Micron NAND

The 25nm NAND is slower than the 34nm offerings for a number of reasons. For starters page size increased from 4KB to 8KB with the transition to 25nm. Intel used this transition as a way to extract more performance out of the SSD 320, however that may have actually impeded SF-1200 performance as the firmware architecture wasn't designed around 8KB page sizes. I suspect SandForce just focused on compatibility here and not performance.

Secondly, 25nm NAND is physically slower than 34nm NAND:

NAND Performance Comparison
 Intel 34nm NANDIntel 25nm NAND
Read50 µs50 µs
Program900 µs1200 µs
Block Erase2 µs3 µs

Program and erase latency are both higher, although admittedly you're working with much larger page sizes (it's unclear whether Intel's 1200 µs figure is for a full page program or a partial program).

The bad news is that eventually all of the 34nm IMFT drives will dry up. The worse news is that the 25nm IMFT drives, even with the same number of NAND devices on board, are lower in performance. And the worst news is that the drives that use 32nm Hynix NAND are the slowest of them all.

I have to mention here that this issue isn't exclusive to OCZ. All other SF drive manufacturers are faced with the same potential problem as they too must shop around for NAND and can't guarantee that they will always ship the same NAND in every single drive.

The Problem With Ratings

You'll notice that although the three NAND types I've tested perform differently in our Heavy 2011 workload, a quick run through Iometer reveals that they perform identically:

Vertex 2 NAND Performance Comparison
 AT Storage Bench Heavy 2011Iometer 128KB Sequential Write
34nm IMFT120.1 MB/s214.8 MB/s
25nm IMFT110.9 MB/s221.8 MB/s
32nm Hynix92.1 MB/s221.3 MB/s

SandForce's architecture works by reducing the amount of data that actually has to be written to the NAND. When writing highly compressible data, not all NAND devices are active and we're not bound by the performance of the NAND itself since most of it is actually idle. SandForce is able to hide even significant performance differences between NAND implementations. This is likely why SandForce is more focused on NAND compatibility than performance across devices from all vendors.

Let's see what happens if we write incompressible data to these three drives however:

Vertex 2 NAND Performance Comparison
 Iometer 128KB Sequential Write (Incompressible Data)Iometer 128KB Sequential Write
34nm IMFT136.6 MB/s214.8 MB/s
25nm IMFT118.5 MB/s221.8 MB/s
32nm Hynix95.8 MB/s221.3 MB/s

It's only when you force SandForce's controller to write as much data in parallel as possible that you see the performance differences between NAND vendors. As a result, the label on the back of your Vertex 2 box isn't lying - whether you have 34nm IMFT, 25nm IMFT or 32nm Hynix the drive will actually hit the same peak performance numbers. The problem is that the metrics depicted on the spec sheets aren't adequate to be considered fully honest.

A quick survey of all SF-1200 based drives shows the same problem. Everyone rates according to maximum performance specifications and no one provides any hint of what you're actually getting inside the drive.

SF-1200 Drive Rating Comparison
120GB DriveRated Sequential Read SpeedRated Sequential Write Speed
Corsair Force F120285 MB/s275 MB/s
G.Skill Phoenix Pro285 MB/s275 MB/s
OCZ Vertex 2Up to 280 MB/sUp to 270 MB/s

I should stop right here and mention that specs are rarely all that honest on the back of any box. Whether we're talking about battery life or SSD performance, if specs told the complete truth then I'd probably be out of a job. If one manufacturer is totally honest, its competitors will just capitalize on the aforementioned honesty by advertising better looking specs. And thus all companies are forced to bend the truth because if they don't, someone else will.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7orrAp5utnZOde6S7zGiqoaenZIFzgZVoq6GdXaSwu3nVnqmtnahigG6%2BxK%2Bgnq9dZn9xs8Foag%3D%3D