Last month OCZ introduced the Octane, its first SSD based on the now in-house Indilinx Everest controller. The drive did reasonably well in our tests and was priced competitively with similar 6Gbps solutions from Micron and Samsung. The only unknown is reliability at this point but we're taking a wait and see approach to Everest and Octane to answer that point.

While we wait for more user reports of Octane compatibility and reliability, OCZ is releasing its second drive based on the Indilinx Everest controller: the Petrol. Still a 6Gbps SATA drive, Petrol drops IMFT synchronous NAND in favor of cheaper non-IMFT asynchronous NAND (somehwat similar to the Agility 3 vs. Vertex 3, although both of those drives used IMFT NAND). 

The slower NAND drops peak performance a bit but it should also help hit lower price points. OCZ hasn't released much info about the Petrol lineup (including pricing) other than to say that it will be available in the coming weeks. I've compiled a table of what we do know below.

Update: OCZ has given us pricing on the four capacities: $89.99, $149.99, $339.99 and $649.99 for the 64GB, 128GB, 256GB and 512GB Petrol drives. This works out to be a savings of $50, $30 and $240 at 128GB, 256GB and 512GB compared to the Octane.

OCZ Indilinx Everest Lineup
  Petrol Octane 1TB Octane 512GB Octane 256GB Octane 128GB
NAND Type Non-Intel Async MLC 25nm Intel Sync MLC 25nm Intel Sync MLC 25nm Intel Sync MLC 25nm Intel Sync MLC
NAND 64GB - 512GB 1TB 512GB 256GB 128GB
User Capacity - 953GiB 476GiB 238GiB 119GiB
Random Read Performance Up to 35K IOPS Up to 45K IOPS Up to 37K IOPS Up to 37K IOPS Up to 37K IOPS
Random Write Performance ? Up to 19.5K IOPS Up to 16K IOPS Up to 12K IOPS Up to 7.7K IOPS
Sequential Read Performance Up to 400MB/s Up to 560 MB/s Up to 535 MB/s Up to 535 MB/s Up to 535 MB/s
Sequential Write Performance Up to 400MB/s Up to 400 MB/s Up to 400 MB/s Up to 270 MB/s Up to 170 MB/s
MSRP $90 - $650 TBD $879.99 $369.99 $199.99

 

POST A COMMENT

18 Comments

View All Comments

  • Dr0id - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    How well should the OCZ Petrol drive perform against the Apple SSD in the 2011 MBP Pros? Reply
  • euler007 - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    Well, if the MB Pro used the same Apple SSD (Toshiba) as the macbook air, it is way behind even an Intel G2 SSD I would say the OCZ Petrol would fare quite well against it.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-mac...
    Reply
  • ochadd - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    This is a move in the right direction. We need space, lower $/GB, and reliability over performance. I'm already applying updates, installing apps, and loading data in a few seconds with a three year old X25-M. Being able to replace all my spinning platters would be a dream come true. Just five of these would replace the 76 spindles I've got in a small data center. Reply
  • ShieTar - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - link

    So one or two modern mechanical drives would also replace your 76 spindles, right? I think you should do that, the failure rate of 76 very old harddrives must be horribly high. Reply
  • Minion4Hire - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - link

    I don't think he's talking about a bunch of ancient 10GB HDDs. I believe he's referring to performance rather than capacity. Five SSDs could offer equivalent (or better?) performance than 76 hard drives, even if they were newer drives. Their random read/write is pretty sad. Reply
  • ochadd - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - link

    They range from 36-300GB of the 15k rpm variety spread across 5 servers. If you throw HA out the window I could run the whole mess from a Mid-tower ATX case with these drives and have enough performance and space. Reply
  • Taft12 - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    Buddy, he's talking about 10K or 15K SCSI or SAS drives. Smarten up! Reply
  • Beenthere - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    OCZ must be hoping that their shotgun approach to SSDs will net them enough sales to pay for the RMAs. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    It's nice to hear which flash they're using, but other than this - not very exciting. Performance numbers for all capacities would have been very interesting.

    And for anyone complaining about SSDs still being too small & expensive: take a look here!
    http://www.traynier.com/software/steammover

    MrS
    Reply
  • seamonkey79 - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    While I use that tool to move things around, it doesn't magically make SSDs any larger and it certainly doesn't make the files I moved to my large spinner load any faster just because the computer 'thinks' those files are located on my SSD... therefore... SSDs need to become larger and cheaper. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now