http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7...ing-price-war/
Edit: Just noticed this is a "Mac Fixit" article. That's funny.
Edit: Just noticed this is a "Mac Fixit" article. That's funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/22093658
Even Intel makes a Sandforce drive as their flagship.
It's pretty common fact that Intel is the leader in SSD reliability and hold the most confidence with consumers- and also enterprise.
Intel took that 2000 series Sandforce you think has issues and did extensive validation and testing on it prior to releasing the new drives.
Quote:
Intel was rumored to be working on a SandForce based drive for several months now, but even the rumors couldn't encapsulate just how long Intel and SF has worked on this drive. According to Intel, the relationship began 1.5 years ago. Still lacking a 6Gbps controller of their own and wanting to remain competitive with the rest of the market, Intel approached SandForce about building a drive based on the (at the time) unreleased SF-2281 controller. Roughly six months later, initial testing and validation began on the drive. That's right, around the time that OCZ was previewing the first Vertex 3 Pro, Intel was just beginning its extensive validation process.
Codenamed Cherryville, Intel's SSD 520 would go through a full year of validation before Intel would sign off on the drive for release. In fact, it was some unresolved issues that cropped up during Intel's validation that pushed Cherryville back from the late 2011 release to today. (February 2012)
Intel's strenuous validation will eventually make SandForce's drives better for everyone, but for now the Cherryville firmware remains exclusive. Intel wouldn't go on record with details of its arrangement with SandForce, but from what I've managed to piece together the Intel Cherryville firmware is exclusive for a limited period of time. That exclusivity agreement likely expires sometime after the SF-2281 is replaced by a 3rd generation controller. There are some loopholes that allow SandForce to port bug fixes to general partner firmware but the specific terms aren't public information. The important takeaway is anything fixed in Intel's firmware isn't necessarily going to be fixed in other SF-2281 based drives in the near term. This is an important distinction because although Cherryville performs very similarly to other SF-2281 drives, it should be more reliable.
...
Intel did go on record saying that the 520 is expected to have far fewer F4/F7 BSODs than any other SF-2281 drive. I asked Intel if I should read into the phrase "far fewer", but the answer was no - the 520 is expected to have similar reliability to the Intel SSD 510 and 320.
At the end of the day that's what Intel really brings to the table with the 520. As you'll soon see, performance isn't very different compared to other SF-2281 based drives. Intel's biggest advantage comes from the unique firmware that ships with the drive. Intel is also quick to point out that while other SF-2281 manufacturers can purchase the same Intel 25nm MLC NAND used on the 520, only Intel's drives get the absolute highest quality bins and only Intel knows how best to manage/interact with the NAND on a firmware level. While it's nearly impossible to prove most of this, the fact that we're still able to reproduce a BSOD on the latest publicly available SF-2281 firmware but not on the SF-2281 based Intel SSD 520 does say a lot about what you're paying for with this drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd /forum/post/22093702
Something I'd like to point out, yes Intel has done extensive validation on SF-2000 but that doesn't mean all SF-2000 based SSDs are as reliable as Intel's.
From AnandTech:
However, yes, the issue with the SF-2000 was pretty rare to begin with and became quite overblown on a lot forums. The subsequently released firmware fixed most everyone's issues except for some very, very few isolated cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/22093529
I think it is you with an irrational hate of OCZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/22093694
Anyone that does 5 seconds of searching reputable sites will see positive review after positive review on Sandforce Based SSD drives.
Quote:
I am only so vocal about it because there is tons of people out there like you that think it's not a viable option or even a good option.
Quote:
The same logic you use against me- could be used against you.
Quote:
but people like you get under my skin because the message you try to deliver is not accurate today and does not apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy /forum/post/22093700
That's a phrase I have seen repeated ad nauseum without a single link or other reliable reference to back it up. Without that, as you say: "...Generally speaking, using personal experience to determine the reliability of a mass market electronic item is worthless..." And what you're trying to pass off as gospel fact is indeed your perception of other peoples' opinions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/22093694
And when people like you claim otherwise because you have a brand preference for something else is rubbish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/22093810
I
My evidence is the Millions of happy Sandforce based drive owners out there.
Your evidence seems to be made up and you appear reaching ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg /forum/post/22093935
I'm not going to get involved in this pissing match, but there is nothing wrong with the M4 after firmware update. It's been the most noticeable performance upgrade I've done to my htpc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/22094559
ALL SSD's ARE GOOD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovejedd /forum/post/22095027
Beg to differ. Cheap, crappy SSDs that deteriorate to below HDD performance still exist. However, SSDs with Indilinx, Intel, Marvell, Samsung, SandForce and Toshiba controllers should be pretty safe bets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin /forum/post/22095120
All companies have firmware issues occasionally.
All.
Its how they respond to the issue that counts. And Crucial was incredibly responsive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/22095560
Well, I don't know if I'd go that far, because Toshiba or true Indilinx controllers or even Intel controllers means it's at least two generations old, and the current models are a lot more reliable than pre-2011 models. Plus the current "Indilinx Everest" (actually a Marvell with Indilinx firmware) appears to be a total lemon. I wouldn't go near a Petrol or Octane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/22095560
Like OCZ, Crucial has marketed the heck out of their SSDs and undercut others on price. But I've never really understood why, other than price, people who want to avoid Sandforce flock to the M4 and ignore the 510, the M3, and the Performance Series. They probably sell at least ten times as many M4s as all the others put together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 /forum/post/22095560
Personally, I've been really happy with my Plextors. I wouldn't mind trying a Corsair Performance Pro, but they do seem to be a LOT more expensive; Corsair seems to promote their Sandforce models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayw69 /forum/post/22093811
If any of your doubt my sincerity:
1. I've bought 8 SSDs in my life. 7 of them were Sandforce based. 4 of 7 those being OCZ. There other 3 were A-DATA or GSKILL based on Sandforce. The 8th was a Crucial M4.
2. I'm contemplating buying an OCZ Agility 3 right now, because there is a nice combo deal on newegg with.... wait for it..... AN OCZ POWER SUPPLY.
3. None of my opinions on SSD reliability are based on my personal experience.
I believe that you cannot reasonably make the case that Sandforce based drives are on par reliability wise with drives based on other controllers. Not based on available evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/22096251
What is the deal? What size SSD?
You might step up to a SYNC or Toggle Nand drive for same cost if you deal hunt.
I am seeing 120GB under $100 and 60GB under $60-
Agility is a great value. I have one. But it's slower than a Vertex3, or other SYNC and TOGGLE NAND drives because it is Async. The memory chips are slower that is why it's a bit cheaper.
Still very pleasing real world and a great value. But for a like price if you can get a sync or toggle nand drive with the same Sandforce controller- it might actually be a better value given the bit of performance boost you get.
I have seen some pretty aggressive prices on the Mushkin as of late... too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayw69 /forum/post/22096444
If you have the 15% off coupon for OCZ SSDs in your Newegg email (seems they sent it out to everyone on the mailing list), it is $70 after rebate for the SSD and the Power Supply. And I happen to be in the market for both an SSD and a power supply. $35 each is hard to beat.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...t=Combo.952523
Unfortunately, I'm in California. So I pay tax for Newegg. Ends up being $40 each for me. Which is still pretty decent.
I'm up on my SSD research. So I'm not really looking for an education here. Synchronous NAND is great and all. But if I'm going to invest additional money into an SSD, it would be to purchase a Samsung 830 or Intel for reliability, rather than chasing incremental performance benefits.
My M4 reports the same thing with Intel Desktop Utilities. I just disregard it since the SSD would be melted if it was 100 degrees C.Quote:
Originally Posted by crbaldwin /t/1407836/ssd-prices-to-drop-even-more/120#post_22106656
So, I finally purchased an SSD for my first rebuild/install and Intel Desktop Utilities warns that its temperature is the maximum, 100 deg. I assume that the SSD (Crucial M4) just doesn't report its temperature correctly (or at all) but is this strange behavior to be expected? Note that with the same setup except a normal hard drive that the temperature was reported correctly.