SSD Prices to Drop Even More... - Page 4

Somehow I doubt it. I saw a few decent deals after rebates (e.g. Intel 320 80GB for $70 AR back in February) in light of the 8MB bug but nothing as of late.

I'm not waiting for price drops on the Intel 320. With the recent release of the SandForce-based Intel 330 which I assume has also undergone extensive validation testing, there's no reason to go with the much slower 320. The Samsung 830 is also another good option for reliability. Just wondering why Intel's "value" offering is now one of their most expensive consumer SSDs available. Pricing for the Intel 320 Postville Refresh is the same as Intel 510 Elm Crest (Marvell) and is more expensive than the performance-oriented Intel 520 Cherryville (SandForce).

Samsung830's are a great choice for both performance and reliability.

They excel at incompressible data and media. They generally outpace the M4 in all performance and sell for the same price. They are also much more reliable than the M4 it seems.

If you did not want a Sandforce drive- that is what you should get. (Samsung 830 > Crucial M4)

Here is what Tomshardware said:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3194-3.html


If you want or don't mind a Sandforce drive (I love them)- you can get an even faster SSD of the same size for an even lower price. For the $90 and $120 Price points they recommend a Sandforce controller based drive.

$89-$99 for the 120GB now.

Personally I like the Sandforce drives. I have a Mushkin and many OCZ's that I am very pleased with.

In contrast I dislike my Crucial. I moved it to a PC that gets almost no use.

Even the windows experience score for the Crucial M4 is lower than the sandforce drives of the same size. It just validates what I feel in everyday use. It's a bit slower and I can notice it. I have the exact same PC built with a Vertex3 and not only does it benchmark better- but I can feel it too.

People always bash the Sandforce and promote the M4 like it's a GOD. I whole heartedly disagree. My personal experience is total opposite.

The first Crucial M4 I got a lemon. The swap out was still not up to par. I contrast I have 15+ Sandforce drives with no issues at all.








Call me a fanboy. I like what I like. Sandforce drives have treated me well. Reviews and benchmarks prove the superior speed time and time again. They sell for the lowest prices.

I probably saved on average $20 on each of the Sandforce based drives I have purchased as compared to something else that could be comparable. $20 x 15 SSD drives is a lot of money. If and when one does fail... the replacement is already paid for in the savings I have accumulated by not overspending.

I totally laugh at the suggestions about reliability. To me- it's silly and nonsense. Odds are always in your favor you will get a good product that won't die or fail. Only doomsdayers suggest otherwise. People touting the reliability of one brand over another seems senseless to me. Odds are that even purchasing an SSD from one of the crappiest MFG out there will yield you a perfectly working unit. No one seems to understand you could buy the most reliable brand and the least reliable brand (if it was even possible to calculate accurately) and with bad luck or good luck you could get a mix. I mean- you could get the best brand and have it die, and have the worse brand seem to live on forever working perfectly.

Besides- almost all of the Sandforce drives I have seen come with 3 or 5 year warranty's. With OCZ they just swap it out for you advanced replacement. It leads to higher return numbers, but it's way better to get a new replacement a couple days later than wait for a repair or RMA to process. That's just my .02cents on the subject.

If you play Russian Roulette with 1 bullet in the gun, odds are good that you will survive pulling the trigger. Even with 2 bullets, you are more likely than not to survive. So, I guess if you are forced to play Russian Roulette, you have no preference whether they give you a gun with 1 bullet or 2 bullets in it?

Me, I'll take the gun with 1 bullet and be glad that my chance of dying is reduced by a factor of two.

Likewise, I'll choose the SSD brand that has 7 times less chance of being returned than OCZ. That would be Crucial. Although I would actually choose Plextor instead of Crucial, since Plextor has even less chance of getting a bad newegg review than does Crucial.

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

OCZ offers advanced replacement for any consumer complaint- and allows retailers to return defective product back to them for full refund.

Crucial on the other hand- does not offer such the same way OCZ does.
So no doubt this would effect the return numbers.


Now according to your theory I have played Russian roulette 15 times with maximum number of bullets and survived. Perhaps I should play a lottery ticket?

I don't think I am that lucky. I just think the odds of getting a good one are in your favor with any product.

Oh... and I only played once with Crucial and I got my brains blown out.

Put aside the fact that the Crucial performs at a lower performance level (important to me) - The only issue I ever had with an SSD was with an M4.

And- Even If your right and I have a chance of getting a bad SSD- the OCZ still comes with 3 year and 5 year warranty- They would just send you another one. Does not seem like it's much risk at all.

I save $600 total buying SSD's from OCZ and Mushkin with Sandforce controllers. On average $20 per drive times 15 SSD's purchased.

I already have the money to purchase 6 more 120GB Vertex3 or Mushkin Enhanced Chronos SSD's @ $99 each with the money I saved. So if one does fail- I am still very happy.

I am actually very happy- because not only are the Sandforce 22xx controller drives recommended at the 100-120$ price point for 120GB/128GB sized segment class- because they are cheaper- But they are also faster and post better benchmark scores in everything with the exception of incompressible data like media files. You don't need speed to play back a media file anyways...

It's the Random I/O's that matter. And for that... Sandforce wins.

You love those Crucials. You love to bash OCZ too... that's cool. I respect your opinion. But your never going to change my mind.

Perhaps if all 15 of my drives failed tomorrow and Crucial had a new product with a faster spec and performance level for a lower cost- I might in time sway away.

But honestly... the OCZ Vertex4 uses the same controller as the Crucial M4 but has some additional proprietary tweaks that allows much higher level of performance. It also comes with a 5 year warranty... so if I chose not to purchase a sandforce drive.. I would probably choose that over Crucial.

Or- the Samsung830 which is better than the Crucial for the same price and does not use Sandforce controller.

Bottom line is there is tons of alternatives to choose from. All are good real world. I just think Crucial M4 is a poor choice from personal experience.

I am not making this up. I have no hidden agenda. I just know what I know.

You can type all the nonsense you want, but I notice you did not answer the question. So I assume the answer is that you would indeed choose the gun with one bullet over the gun with two bullets. As would any rational person. Which means that you do understand basic probability, despite your claims that "it's silly and nonsense".

In fact, it is your defense of OCZ that is "silly and nonsense". But as you say, no amount of facts and evidence will change your mind about it. You just have an irrational love of OCZ.

Just grabbed a Curcial M4 64gb for $58.49 from buy.com by using ebates for a 2.5% discount.

It's not just OCZ. It the entire sandforce line up that gets bashed.

I just buy the OCZ cause they are good prices at the time, and after I had some luck I kept with it.

The other Sandforce drives are all basically the same. There is little difference between on Sandforce controller SSD and another... only the type of memory used (sync, async, toggle etc)

So assuming your looking apples to apples-- any of them are a better choice than Crucial M4.

And- I also said the Samsung830 is a better drive and better choice- and on the performance side of things even the Vertex4. I know you hate OCZ but it uses the same controller as the Crucial M4- yet performs better and comes with a 5 year warranty. What is not to like ?

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

So let me agree and admit your welcome to your brand preference.

Excluding OCZ- there is still tons more and better choices than a Crucial M4. The only reason to purchase one would be an extreme low price.

That is why they sell. If you can get another SSD within 10$ of the same price your probably better off doing so.

Sandforce > Crucial M4
Samsung830 > Crucial M4
Other Marvel controller drives > Crucial M4

You get the idea.

Only a super low price should make that drive tempting.

Mfusick. I think what you're missing, is that your personal experience is essentially worthless information for anyone else trying to make an informed decision.

Generally speaking, using personal experience to determine the reliability of a mass market electronic item is worthless. However, because most people cannot reconcile differences in their personal experience with the more widely accepted or known information, they fall back on the information that is perceived to be more reliable. So if you think Sandforce is a superior option to other SSD options based on your personal experience, that is understandable. While I wouldn't ever agree with this kind of decision making, it at least has a consistent thought process that leads you there.

But given the avalanche of evidence that Sandforce based SSDs are less reliable than other options, very few people are going to be convinced by your arguments. Other people are just like you. They are going to either go by their personal experiences, or by the general concensus.

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.


It's funny because every major review site I read like the drives and has no issues with them.

If you read Tom's Hardware- it has long recommended Sandforce based drives. OCZ, Mushkin and many more. Ton's of MFG make these..

The best possible performance is with a TOGGLE NAND + Sandforce drive today. Enthusiast eat these up.

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.

If you actually believe that today in JUNE of 2012 and a year later after the firmware fix first came out-- the chance of getting a bad drive is high- your indeed the fool.

The same logic you use against me- could be used against you.

My point is that it's popular to bash Sandforce and even OCZ more...

While it's not popular to point out that the Crucial has it's own issues.

It's common fact and widely known that most of the Crucial M4's died around 5000 hour mark. You start getting BSOD errors (blue screen of death)

They came out with a firmware fix for this, and today if you update your firmware- supposedly your ok.

How is that any different than the firmware fix on the Sandforce?

Sandforce SSD's sell like crazy.. and there is millions of them out there. I can't remember the last time I saw a complaint on here about one from an actual user.

I agree with your points your making and all valid.

My personal experience is not a guarantee for anyone else to have the same results.

But- I don't understand how a firmware fix corrects a Crucial and the problem gets swept under the rug... while a year later the Sandforce is still crucified for a near non-existent problem in the first place.

Check this out:

Even from day one the amount of effected Sandforce controller drives was a very , very small amount. It was not common- it was not many. It was a very small amount of the total of them. And the errors were with seemingly certain hardware combinations. Non of the errors were able to be duplicated in the lab in testing at first because it was small amount and certain combos to make it happen. It was not like a huge portion of the drives were ever effected.

The finally figured it out and released a firmware update. The problem basically went away. The problem is there was so many of them out there because they sell so well that the story became internet legend and it became popular to jump on that bandwagon.

Months later even Intel uses the same Sandforce controller- and claims extensive testing and validation on it prior to release.

It's silly to think like you do. It was never likely even in the beginning before the firmware update you would have an issue at all.

Today it's a total non issue.

But- The Crucial issue was widespread on the m4's and effected pretty much all the drives with the original firmware. It was certainly a higher percentage than the Sandforce issue. Crucial releases a firmware and they are a hero.. problem gone. Case closed.

It's funny how it's popular to hate on one and blindly love another...

reality is they are both good. You could have good or bad luck with either one.

Odds are in your favor you would have good luck with either.

but people like you get under my skin because the message you try to deliver is not accurate today and does not apply.

Why do so many sites like Toms Hardware recommend the Sandforce based drives as both best buy and best value- and also as upper level highest performance tier products ?????

Are they lying? Don't they know what you do ?

I think the avalanche of evidence you speak about is actually BS.

Anyone that does 5 seconds of searching reputable sites will see positive review after positive review on Sandforce Based SSD drives.

They will find superior benchmarks on compressible data and I/O's.

They will find the drives appear on the "recommended list" and the "best value" lists at almost all reputable PC review sites.

I could list 5 popular well respected review sites that recommend them as best value and also have done multiple reviews on them all positive.

And if you look you can find Sandforce SSD's for $89 and $99 in 120GB sizes and $50-60 in 60GB sizes.

Given all this avalanche of evidence- it seems almost silly for you to make the assumption and argument your trying to make.

It's not like I am making any of this up. It's all true.

I would think seeing the same drives show up on different reputable review sites as top picks and best buys would be enough for a consumer to make an educated purchase decision. These MFG that make them are big names too... not some fly by night company. Most come with 3 or 5 year warranty.

It's just silly to think a Sandforce Drive would have any issue at all.

Everyone should feel confident in buying one and thinking it should work great as expected for the expected lifecycle. And when people like you claim otherwise because you have a brand preference for something else is rubbish.

Sometimes certain products become a fad- or a it becomes cool or uncool to like or hate on a product. I just hope people see beyond that and as you say "look at the avalanche of evidence"

Most of the people I see bash them are just naysayers. They don't even own one and never did or will. They read something quickly once... and held onto it to repeat like it's from the bible.

LET IT GO ! It's ok. You can buy a Sandforce Drive. Aside from being faster and cheaper... and not wanting that- I can't see a solid reason to do otherwise. It won't self destruct or blow up your house like you think or suggest.

It's funny cause I have never in my life seen a superior performing product with a lower price tag take so much abuse and hate.

I can only attribute it to owners of other non sandforce brands just naturally re-inforcing their own purchase decision and jumping on the bandwagon as naysayers.

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...

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.

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.

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.

MFusick:

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




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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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.

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.


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.


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

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.