AVS Forum banner

SSD Prices to Drop Even More...

12K views 151 replies 36 participants last post by  whiteboy714 
#1 ·
#102 ·

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.

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:
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.

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.
 
#103 ·

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.

I agree with this. And months later you see very few issues. Certainly today sand force drives are proving reliable.


You don't see many if any complaining about the sand force drives any longer either.


Certainly not more than say an M4, which seems to have a new user hitting the 5000 hour wall and complaining of BSOD errors daily. And you hear about it because these BSOD errors happen almost hourly on the crucial m4 SSD drives without the latest firmware. There's tons of them out there.


My point is not to bash the Crucial. It's to teach don't hate on sand force.
 
#104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick /forum/post/22093529


I think it is you with an irrational hate of OCZ.

Are you sure you know the meaning of the word "irrational"?


I have several reasons for avoiding OCZ products, and telling other people to avoid OCZ:


1) OCZ has BY FAR the highest return rates of any major SSD brand. Their return rate is more than double that of the second worst brand, and more than EIGHT TIMES more likely to be returned than the best brand in the survey (Crucial). Of all the SSD brands surveyed, only OCZ has any models at all with greater than 5% return rate, and OCZ HAS TEN MODELS ON THE GREATER THAN 5% RETURN RATE LIST!


http://www.hardware.fr/articles/862-7/ssd.html


2) OCZ has BY FAR the highest percentage of below-average (1- or 2-egg) newegg reviews: 25.4% of reviews for recent OCZ models are below-average. This is more than SEVEN TIMES as bad as Plextor, with only 3.5% below-average reviews. Looking at individual models, the Plextor M3 has only 3.7% below-average reviews, the Samsung 830 has 6.5% below-average reviews, but OCZ models dominate the list at below-average review percentages of 26.2% OCZ Vertex 3, 34.5% OCZ Octane, and a whopping 53.3% for OCZ Petrol!



3) OCZ has a long history of bad quality control and outright dishonesty in the products they sell. OCZ was in the business of hoodwinking people way back in 2002 when Ryan Peterson was only marketing manager and OCZ was trying to defraud their RAM customers:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/1655/t...red/index.html


OCZ's tradition of using shills (OCZ employees and associates who get kickbacks) to promote their products, posting rave "reviews" in forums, also goes back to that time and continues today.


And things only progressed further as OCZ got into the SSD business. In the past few years, OCZ has changed the flash used in their SSDs without changing the model number which resulted in SSD capacity being lower than advertised and reduced performance (of course, not in the models they send out for review). OCZ has used lower-grade flash in some SSDs (again, not in the review models), and most recently they have claimed to use in-house developed controllers in their Octane and Vertex 4 SSDs, only to quietly admit (after third parties found proof) that they are actually using Marvell controllers in those SSDs.


With this many lies and tricks having come to light, one can only wonder what other skeletons OCZ has in the closet.
 
#105 ·

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.

Anyone naive enough to believe those "reviews" tell you anything about the likelihood of trouble, failure, or compatibility problems deserves to be taken for a ride.


The fact is that OCZ has a long history of picking out "cherries" to send for reviews, but the actual retail models often are far lower quality than the review models. Worse yet, OCZ also has a long history of using shills and disguised employees to post reviews and raves in forums. And, of course, the review models are sent for free to reviewers who are known to give good reviews (and most reviewers that say anything at all bad about OCZ will not receive another model for review).


Even in the rare cases where OCZ does send out a review sample that is representative of actual retail parts, and when OCZ does not (or cannot) pressure the reviewer, and the reviewer is honest, even then the reviews cannot give a good idea of how reliable or trouble-free the product is likely to be. This is obvious when you consider that most reviews are based on using the product in one computer, for usually one or two days at the most, before it must be sent back. That is not a good way to determine how compatible an SSD is with a diverse range of computer equipment, or how reliable it is over the first year of ownership. For that, you need to look at return rate data, or at newegg product reviews. And in such data, OCZ is seen to be terrible, the worst of the major SSD brands by far.
 
#106 ·
MFusick:


Read my post again. Where in my post do I say anything about OCZ or Crucial?

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.

What logic of mine are you using against me? What message am I delivering that is not accurate?


I made the following points:

1) Using personal experience to determine the general reliability of a mass market electronic item is stupid.

2) Despite that doing so is stupid, people will rely on personal experience due to bias.

3) That bias will never extend to believing YOUR personal experience over the general concensus. It only extends to believing THEIR OWN personal experience over general consensus. (Note:Occasionally you'll find people who substitute the personal experiences to others for their own. But typically only in very limited relationships. "It happened to my dad" or "My cousin says...")



But to address some of the points you are making:


1. I believe that 100% of Crucial M4 drives without the firmware fix will encounter the 5000 hours bug. It is not SOME. It is ALL. But you have to think about the manifestation of the problem and solution provided.

-The problem did NOT result in data loss of the entire drive contents. Your PC would regularly BSOD. Which of course can result in data loss of in-use data when the computer crashes. But the whole drive is not wiped.

-The solution is known to be reliable because the problem was relatively simple in its nature. You apply the firmware update, and you can be 100% sure the problem will go away. This is because the problem was universal across all drives, very specific in timing, with identical symptoms.


2. Compare the above Crucial M4 problem with the Sandforce problems

-A failed Sandforce drive due to the "sleep bug" resulted in FULL DRIVE DATA LOSS. This is a significant loss for people. Even if you have a backup, you need to rebuild. You canon compare full data loss to constant BSODs. It is the difference between being stopped halfway through a race for an extended pit stop versus having to start a race from the very beginning.

-OCZ and other Sandforce vendors went through MANY MANY firmware revisions before fixing the issue. And the confidence level of the fix being reliable is naturally lower, because the manifestation of the problem itself was much more unclear. You can say with 100% certainty the Crucial problem is gone with the new firmware. This cannot be said about the OCZ problem. Did the latest firmware make the issue go away? The honest answer is: "I don't know". And for many firmware revisions, we now know in hindsight that the answer was no.


3. I'm not that up to speed with the article's on Tom's Hardware. I do visit the site on occasion. But I know in my reading on Anandtech, Anand and others consistently mention reliability of SSDs in their reviews. And their recommendations for reliability are Intel and Samsung. There are many references to warnings about Sandforce reliability or the lack thereof.


4. We're going to disagree on our assessment of the number or percentage of Sandforce based drives with issues. You are of the opinion that this number was small and limited to certain configurations. I believe that it was very large and not limited to certain configurations. There is very little hard data to back of either of our beliefs. Just know that there are more people in my camp than in yours. But we both have to concede this is a point we cannot be certain about.


5. There is a reason Intel did not come out with a Sandforce controller SSD until LONG after its competitors had. Intel's validation testing conforms to a higher standard that other vendors. Intel runs their own firmware, which other Sandforce vendors do not have access to. And they took the time that OCZ and other Sandforce vendors did not, to build and test and test and test again. The bottom line is, the Sandforce controller is complex compared to the architecture of other SSD controllers. Intel has the talent and the money and the standards to build a solid product on this platform. Other vendors don't have those resources.



You're accusing others of being brand loyal for Crucial and brand haters for OCZ. I don't see that here.


Here is a simple thought experiment. For the Crucial M4 fans out there. If Crucial released a Sandforce based (either first or 2nd gen) SSD, would you recommend it? Or would you tell people to run away from it?


I'm suspecting it is the latter.
 
#107 ·

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...

Provide me with what you would consider to be reliable information, and I will attempt to provide it.


Consider the following statement: "Most people find Adolf Hitler to have been be a bad person."


You could easily argue that the above statement is is just my opinion of other people's opinions. And ask me for evidence.


At some point, I feel like something has become a consensus to the point where SPECIFIC hard evidence isn't required.


From a strictly factual perspective, I cannot argue with your point. But I think it lacks a practical perspective of knowledge.
 
#108 ·
Jim.


You have a very irrational hate of OCZ. Are you a disgruntled employee that was fired ?


Or do you work for Crucial ?


Almost non of the stuff your claiming has any proof to it. Anyone reading it knows what side of the fence your on. It is obvious your reaching...


That aside my point was not about OCZ as much as it was about Sandforce controller based drives.


OCZ happens to be a major mfg of Sandforce SSD's that have long been recommended by top review sites as best performance and best buys.


I could show you ten positive reviews from different sites.


Could you show me one negative one ?


Doubt it.


Aside from being a major Sandforce controller SSD mfg OCZ also owns and uses indilix controllers.


They also use marvel controllers like Crucial does.


You hate of OCZ is so obvious and apparent to me that I doubt it's worth addressing this any further.


I am talking about SSD's in general and your on a crusade against OCZ that boarders on lunacy.


Let's just say I agree just for arguments sake. I will exclude OCZ from the mix any further because obviously its in league with the devil and your sure to go to hell for owning one. Right ?


Now moving on...


What else is wrong that I said ?


I can't argue with you over OCZ because that's like arguing with someone over religion. There will be no winning or losing or insight gained. I can tell you made up your mind on that one.


But I am still talking in general about SSD's and it's common fact that Sandforce based SSD's all perform about the same as each other.

(yup that even includes OCZ)


What brand SSD do you own ?

Ever owned an OCZ?


Your so adamant and angry towards OCZ specifically I would be curious to hear why?
 
#109 ·

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.

Please stop this nonsense. I've not stated a preference for any one brand over the other.


I don't care about OCZ. I don't care about Crucial. If both of these companies died tomorrow, I would not care.


I am making arguments about decision making and what constitutes reliable information.
 
#110 ·
I am not even sure I should go on here.


The Sandforce issues you clowns are afraid about is near nonexistent.


It's like getting hit by lightning.


Suggesting it's wides spread and common without any proof is irresponsible and unethical,


There is no proof cause your wrong.


Considering how many millions of sandforce drives are out there if the problem was even half as widespread as you knuckleheads would like to believe it should be pretty easy to demonstrate such.


But if coarse it's not easy and your wrong.


My evidence is the Millions of happy Sandforce based drive owners out there.


My evidence is also that these drives appear on best buy lists and top recommended lists.


My evidence is in the many positive professional reviews.


Your evidence seems to be made up and you appear reaching ...


Clearly you have an unnatural hatred and alterior motive that extends beyond merely supporting a purchase decision.


I flip my hand and it has professional review sites listing it as top choice. Your hand has you claiming Newegg reviews .,, lol


You should have folded.
 
#111 ·
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.
 
#112 ·

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 ...

I am myself a happy Sandforce owner.


I am of the opinion that anyone who states that the reliability of Sandforce based drives is equivalent to those of other vendors (Such as Samsung 830, non-Sandforce Intel, Crucial M4) is ignoring available evidence.
 
#114 ·

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.

Oh yes. +1.


Nothing wrong with M4. As compared to a HDD any SSD is huge improvement.

M4 is a fine drive. It should work great for expected life without issues and Crucial is a good company.


My rant was not as much to totally bash the M4.

It just seems like it's mostly M4 owners that bash the sandforce and propogate the myths that all are defective- have issues--- not reliable-- etc...

Then I see them brush the M4 firmware issue under the rug.



I get's under my skin.


I know that most Sanforce drives from with 3-5 year warranty. Even if you got a bad one which would be like getting hit by lightning- You would get it replaced without any issue at all. It would would be very improbable, but you still would be ok. I don't believe the chance for that is any higher than any other drive or MFG.


For some reason the M4 owners are the most obsessed with the Sandforce issues. They regurgitate is constantly.


Not saying all or even you fit into this boat- but my rants is directed towards those who do this.


I want to open up everyone's eyes. ALL SSD's ARE GOOD. Including Sandforce and even including M4's
 
#117 ·

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.

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 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.

This is where the difference in approach also matters. Other than Intel, basically all the Sanforce controllers use the controller and Sandforce firmware as a package. That's how Sandforce sells it, and that's why a single Sandforce firmware update could be applied across the universe of makes and models of drives last fall. Which is why there's basically no difference in SF-2281 models with the same NAND type other than Intel's.


Marvell, on the other hand, takes a difference approach, and each of the four companies using varients of the Marvell 9174 - Crucial M4, Plextor M2 and M3, Corsair Performance, and Intel 510 (ignoring for the moment the renamed Indilinx Everest) have done significant customization to their firmware, which is how Marvell sells it. This is also why the bug that hit the Crucial M4 apparently did not touch the other three makes. I think we can assume it was a product of Crucial's firmware. They reacted well to the problem, but they still created the problem and didn't detect it before they sent product out the door.


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.


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.
 
#118 ·

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.

I've forgotten about Everest. Was thinking about their older controllers which, while on the bottom of the SSD totem pole, still make for a fairly decent upgrade over mechanical disks. As for more reliable, I actually trust the Intel X25-M G2 Postville more than the Intel 320 G3 Postville Refresh.


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.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head - price. The m4s tend to be the next cheapest after SandForce. However, there's a pretty nice deal on the Plextor M3s currently (128GB for $130, $100 AR) and with the 5 year warranty, they're a no-brainer over the Crucial m4.

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.

Isn't the Corsair Performance Pro basically the same as the Plextor M3s?
 
#119 ·

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.

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.
 
#120 ·

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.

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.
 
#121 ·

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.

While I respect your opinion...


I would chase the higher speed and performance for a lower price personally..


You could buy another one with the money you saved.


Intel is great... but I don't fear the cheaper/faster ones enough to justify spending the extra money.


For $10 or $20 I sure would jump on a much faster drive though..


Your point is valid. While I don't personally share the same feelings it is a great example of what motivates people to buy certain things- and shows different things are important to different people.


To me- I like SPEED and LOW PRICE/VALUE.


Others, Speed, performance is not important. Or- at least not as important as price or reliability.


In a perfect world you would look at all three- but the reliability part is subjective.


There is no concrete benchmarks available or firm data to compare like speed and performance benchmarks or price of one SSD vs another.
 
#122 ·
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.
 
#124 ·

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.
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top