OWC Mercury Electra 3G MAX 960GB Review: 1TB of NAND in 2.5" Form Factor
by Kristian Vättö on October 18, 2012 1:00 AM ESTFinal Words
The 960GB Mercury Electra is definitely a niche product and I can only see one scenario where it can easily be justified: you have a laptop or other computer with very limited storage capabilities and you want an SSD with as much capacity as possible. In any other case, it will be cheaper and more sensible to use hard drives or multiple SSDs. Desktop users should have absolutely no need for 1TB SATA SSDs because all of Intel's and AMD's recent desktop chipsets (except Intel H61) come with six native SATA ports. Even if one of the ports is used up by the optical drive, there are five left, which gives you 2.5TB of SSD space if you put a 512GB SSD in every port. If that's not enough, $30 will buy you a PCIe SATA card with two ports and give you 1TB more SSD storage. Depending on your motherboard, you may be able to add several PCIe cards, so only the sky is the limit here.
Laptops usually have only one 2.5" hard drive bay (though it may be possible to add another one by removing the optical drive), which significantly limits the storage options. Externally you can add terabytes of storage but if your usage requires mobility, you will want to avoid carrying any extra devices as much as possible. When you're limited to having only one 2.5" drive, making the decision between an SSD and a hard drive can be difficult if you need a lot of storage. With SSDs, you get speed but pay a premium and are limited to 512GB with a few exceptions. Hard drives are slow but cheap and available in bigger capacities. Where the 960GB Electra makes sense is if you need more than 512GB of space and SSD-level IO performance.
However, the need for speed is a must. A 1TB 2.5" hard drive costs around $100, which is over $1000 less than what the 960GB Mercury Electra currently costs. You must really be able to benefit from the increased IO performance to justify spending that much on a drive. Normally I don't find comparing hard drives and SSDs to be very reasonable but the Mercury Electra is not the fastest SSD. Random IO performance is obviously better, but not as much as it could be since that is the biggest weakness of the Mercury Electra. Sequential throughput can be over twice as fast compared to a similar size 2.5" hard drive but that is only a twofold increase, whereas the increase in price is over tenfold.
Another important aspect to remember is power consumption and battery life: the 960GB Mercury likes electrons, a lot. At idle it draws around as much power as most SSDs draw under full load, and power consumption under load is among the highest as well. It's likely that the 960GB Mercury will shorten your battery life compared to a hard drive or other SSDs, which should be kept in mind if the drive is put into a laptop.
While the 960GB Mercury Electra is not a revolutionary product, it's great to see OWC putting out yet another unique product. Most SandForce SSD OEMs are way too similar: all have two or three SSDs with different NAND and form factor. There is no real differentiation. OWC is at least trying to be different and catering markets that others aren't (for example replacement SSDs for MacBook Airs), and the 960GB Mercury Electra is yet another fruit of that.
The only things I would want from the 960GB Mercury Electra are SATA 6Gbps support and higher random read/write performance. At over $1000, there is a significant premium in terms of price per GB compared to 512GB SSDs and you're only getting SATA 3Gbps—and not even good SATA 3Gbps performance, really. Then again, we are talking about a niche product with no real competitors, so the people who want such a product should be ready to pay the premium.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
dishayu - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
I see 2x Crucial m4 in the charts? Is it the same drive running sata 2 and sata 6gbps?JarredWalton - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
Correct. The one line says "Crucial m4 256GB (6Gbps)" and the other is "Crucial m4 256GB"; there are a couple other drives tested on both 6Gbps and 3Gbps (Vertex 3 and Agility 3).jigglywiggly - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
yeah this is junk.just get a 500gb vertex 4
Argyris - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
I think there's one consideration that wasn't mentioned, and that's durability. I can't of course speak for this specific model (maybe the more complex internals could impact long-term durability, but most likely not), but for SSDs in general this is a major plus. I've been rather unlucky with HDDs and have lost two of them to physical impact damage. One of the main reasons I bought a SSD for my main laptop was so I don't have to worry about this happening again.If you're dependent on your laptop for your work and you need a lot of storage space (more than 512GB), the peace of mind of knowing that your whole livelihood's worth of data is safer than if it were on a spinning disc has got to be worth a few bucks.
Still, though, you have to wonder how many of these people couldn't get by for the time being with a 512GB drive (or the 768GB one offered by Apple).
Denithor - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
Well, first, if your data is so critical it should be backed up routinely on a very regular schedule. Offsite. Like every night, uploaded to a cloud drive somewhere.Which would effectively address the need for more than 512GB/768GB of "hands-on" high-speed storage - as everything not needed routinely could be kept on external drive and/or cloud storage.
Wolfpup - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
I'd generally trust a mechanical hard drive more than an SSD for reliability. The ONLY brands I'd trust for SSDs are Micron/Crucial and Intel...no way in heck I'd get a sandforce drive from someone else, and even then they haven't been 100% perfect.ArKritz - Saturday, October 20, 2012 - link
Great, more Samsung for the rest of us...yankeeDDL - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
I love the novelty: I think raid0 is a great solution to keep costs low, use the current hardware/NANDs.I also don't mind the performance. But the price?
There are already SSDs with costs below $1/GB. For 1TB, the cost of enclosure, assembly, boards ... should be proportionally lower. I think it would be fair in today's market to pay $750~$800 for this SSD, but no more.
I am still an SSD-skeptic at these costs: sorry but for me until I can get 1TB for less than $300, this is a no-no. Yes, I can install a mechanical HD for storing large files, but I dual-boot and ~100GB are always gone between Windows and Linux, so 256GB feel too tight and anything larger is still way too expensive.
JarredWalton - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
Note: editing to remove some referrals. Sorry, but if we leave those in we just encourage spammers and run the risk of more people doing this.RE: Love the novelty, not the price by amdwilliam1985 on Thursday, October 18, 2012
Check out Samsung 830 from amazon, I got the email this morning, man these are lovely prices. I got my Samsung 128GB for more than $150 a while ago.
samsung 830 128gb = $69.99
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0077CR60Q/
samsung 830 256gb = $154.99
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0077CR66A/
Not sure how long these prices will last.
If I don't already own an SSD in my windows 7 laptop, I'll be grabbing the 256gb for sure. Samsung and Intel has the best quality as far as I know in SSD.
DanNeely - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link
Samsung is launching the 840 series drives; the 830 sales will probably end when inventory is depleted.