or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Interesting SSD Reliability Study
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interesting SSD Reliability Study - Page 3

post #61 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Sure. But if they are all fast (agree totally --- especially for HTPC) and all relatively cheap (within $20 of one another at most) then why not use reliability as a deciding factor???
That's been my whole argument all along. I want the drive in my HTPC that's holding my OS and programs to be as reliable as possible if all other things are relatively equal. Unless someone can point out a better way to gauge this metric then surveys like this one should be at least considered in your buying decision for those of you who -- like me -- consider reliability (or the potential of reliability) a core measure.

I agree 100%. All else being equal (speed isn't much a factor between SATA III drives), and if price is within a reasonable amount, besides length of warranty (which is a measurable level of quality since if the drive fails you get a new one) I'd have no choice but to go on the "perceived reliability" of the brand as well as which controller that particular drive uses. And like most people, I want my main drive to be as reliable as possible (knowing that is impossible to guage at this point with SSD drives).

So from what I can gather, brands that are perceived (fairly or unjustly) as the most reliable for SSD are:
  • Intel (5 Yr Warranty)
  • Samsung (3 Yr Warranty)
  • Crucial (3 Yr Warranty)

Meaning if all else is equal, and you can get one of these drives for a good deal that makes them not much more expensive then a drive that is perceived "less reliable", that is your tie breaker (length of warranty could be another tie breaker if all else is relatively equal)
post #62 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

Wow, it's showing around $150 now. So $90 is a great deal on the Samsung 830 128GB. What would be considered a good deal on the Intel 520 120GB?

If you want a new generation Intel, I'd look at the 330 series. It has the same controller and same NAND as the 520. It's just modified by Intel to be slighly slower than the 520 so as to fill a different market slot. I have a 180GB 330 that's been great. They tend to have more specials on the 330 than on the 520.

A month ago Intel was running huge rebate deals on the new 330s so that a 60GB was about $64 and a 180GB was $135 at Newegg and Amazon.

A couple of weeks ago the Plextor M3 128GB was available for $99.

You just have to figure out what you want and then check Newegg and Amazon every day because the prices change every day (and once you buy it, stop looking or you'll be unhappy when you inevitably find it for less).

One thing you can be sure of is that several OCZ models and the Crucial M4 will be on sale at least one or two days every week.
post #63 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post


So from what I can gather, brands that are perceived (fairly or unjustly) as the most reliable for SSD are:
  • Intel (5 Yr Warranty)
  • Samsung (3 Yr Warranty)
  • Crucial (3 Yr Warranty)
Meaning if all else is equal, and you can get one of these drives for a good deal that makes them not much more expensive then a drive that is perceived "less reliable", that is your tie breaker (length of warranty could be another tie breaker if all else is relatively equal)

Plextor are also 5 years, have Marvell controllers, and have never had any reported systemic problems that I'm aware of. I've had a 64GB M2 for over a year, a 128GB M2 for nearly a year, and a 128GB M3 for about 6 months, and they're all great.

They're not as common as some others, they're usually premium priced, and they're not as often on sale, but they ought to be on any list of "best" drives.

But then, I've been a vocal fan of Plextor for a long time here. smile.gif
post #64 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

I don't disagree agree. In particular I've never used speed as a determining factor in buying a drive. And personally, I prefer Plextor, Intel and Samsung, as I said And I paid a premium especially for the Plextors and Samsungs (got a great deal on the Intel).
But I'm not sure I can really say with any confidence that those are more reliable than OCZ or any others. And I also am using a Mushkin and a Sandforce and they work just fine too. So is there a reason I should consider them "unreliable"?
I know OCZ gets a lot of flack, and I'm not defending them, but are they really less reliable (putting aside the Everest-based models)? Are Patriot or Mushkin or Kingston or Corsair Sandforce SF-2281 based models unreliable?
These surveys are not really statistically objective. OCZ has a larger and different audience than any other brand because it has really dominated the low price market. I suspect that skews the results.
At the same time, I will readily admit that personally I'm not likely to buy an OCZ drive any time soon. I read and react to the "common wisdom" too. I'll just admit that that is more an emotional gut reaction than based on solid data that they are in fact any less reliable than others.
I'm just not sure there is any reliable reliability data available for us to use in our decisions.

I agree. There just isn't any measurable way to statistically quantify reliability at this point. Simply looking at brand isn't a reliable factor either, especially with the OCZ Vertex drives, because the Vertex 3 (which used Sandforce) had lots of problems, where the Vertex 4 is using a 2nd generation of their Everest controller. So problems from one year don't necessarily appear in the next model as they may use completely different controllers, and with SSD almost all problems are traced back to the firmware that the controller uses.

So it's unfair to the new Everest drives to rate them poorly due to problems with OCZ drives using the first generation Everest controller or the SF controller. True the Everest controller is home grown with less data on problems then the SF for example, but so is Samsung's controller and they are consistently rated with high quality. So I'm definitely not suggesting OCZ is a great quality drive, but I agree that they get a lot of flack, not all of which is justified and there isn't enough data to come to a definitive conclusion around whether they are of measurably less quality then that of Intel or Samsung for example.
post #65 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

If you want a new generation Intel, I'd look at the 330 series. It has the same controller and same NAND as the 520. It's just modified by Intel to be slighly slower than the 520 so as to fill a different market slot. I have a 180GB 330 that's been great. They tend to have more specials on the 330 than on the 520.
A month ago Intel was running huge rebate deals on the new 330s so that a 60GB was about $64 and a 180GB was $135 at Newegg and Amazon.
A couple of weeks ago the Plextor M3 128GB was available for $99.
You just have to figure out what you want and then check Newegg and Amazon every day because the prices change every day (and once you buy it, stop looking or you'll be unhappy when you inevitably find it for less).
One thing you can be sure of is that several OCZ models and the Crucial M4 will be on sale at least one or two days every week.

Makes sense, people change their prices all the time. Was looking to see if there was a consensus price that people would say it's a steal and you just can't pass it up. The 520 128GB at $135 sounds like a good deal, but if it really isn't much cheaper then what you can usually find it for, I might as well hold out for a cheaper price since I'm in no rush to get it now anyway. I see the 330 has a 3 yr warranty vs the 5 yr on the 520. Knowing my C: partition on my Vista machine is set to 85 GB and I'm only using 40 between Vista and all my programs, then 120 should be more then plenty for my OS and programs drive.

So in the 120GB - 128GB range for the Intel 520, Samsung 830, OCZ Vertex 4, Plextor M3, what would a price be that would qualify as a steal? Or perhaps a better question would be what is the normal price these tend to go for, so if you see it for less you know that price won't be around for long and you should grab it while it's on sale?

Since I'll have to buy a new OS for the HTPC I plan on building shortly, it doesn't make sense to buy Windows 7 and pay for the upgrade to 8 when I can just wait a few months for 8 to start rolling out. My copy of Vista is Dell OEM so it's worthless on a custom build. Which is why I'm in no rush, but if I'm going to buy a SSD anyway and I happen to come across a model I like at a great price, I might as well grab it while it's cheap even though I may not need to use it for a little while yet. But if it's not really a great deal and I can always find it for that price, I can hold off for a few months before getting it.
Edited by bobby2478 - 7/19/12 at 4:38pm
post #66 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

So in the 120GB - 128GB range for the Intel 520, Samsung 830, OCZ Vertex 4, Plextor M3, what would a price be that would qualify as a steal? Or perhaps a better question would be what is the normal price these tend to go for, so if you see it for less you know that price won't be around for long and you should grab it while it's on sale?

Here's my $0.02 regarding the above question.

One of the better sources of sales that qualify as "steals" is Slickdeals. If an SSD you have your eye on ends up on the front page of Slickdeals, in general it is a steal.

For the more cautious (myself included), rather than putting 100% faith in a frontpage post on Slickdeals, you can do price history tracking for the item you are interested in.

I'll give an example.

I have been wanting to get a Crucial M4 128GB SSD for a planned future build. Currently, prices for that product are in the $109.99 - $129.99 range.

On Tuesday, a post appeared on the frontpage of Slickdeals showing that Buy.com had this SSD on sale for $89.99 + tax with free shipping for that one day only (24 hour sale).

Rather than automatically buy it, I compared this price to a couple of pricetracking sites, one devoted to Amazon, and one devoted to Newegg (these two online retailers tend to have the best prices among the reputable sites):

Amazon price tracking for Crucial M4 128GB SSD (courtesy of Camelcamelcamel.com):
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Crucial-2-5-Inch-Solid-State-CT128M4SSD2/product/B004W2JKZI

Newegg price tracking for Crucial M4 128GB SSD (courtesy of Camelegg.com):
http://camelegg.com/product/N82E16820148442

As can be seen, both retailers each show a historic low of $99.99 for this product in their respective price history graphs.

So Buy.com's $89.99 price was an absolute steal. This price comes out to $0.70/GB, which is great for the Crucial M4 SSD. Thankfully, the breaking of the "dollar-per-GB" barrier for SSD pricing is happening with more frequency these days smile.gif

In the end, however, I did not purchase the Crucial from Buy.com. Instead I went to a local Fry's and had them pricematch Buy's special sale price, per their internet pricematch guarantee. It was such a steep discount (for Fry's) that it took 30 minutes, and required several manager approvals, to complete.

So that's my input... Slickdeals + pricetrackers = best assurance of exceptional prices smile.gif
Edited by Vlad Theimpaler - 7/19/12 at 6:19pm
post #67 of 199
Actually, the question of why OCZ and others built a defective drive makes me shy away from them. If they truly understood SSD technology, why did they build a defective drive in the first place?. So far in this conversation, it appears that Intel, Samsung, Crucial, and Plextor are companies that have never designed a drive with severe defects. I'm not saying it can't happen in the future. IBM is a perfect example of what can happen to a stellar drive maker, but that's why I will now always wait at least a year before buying a drive and I will research the specific model thoroughly before buying. At this time, if I decided to buy another SSD, I would concentrate on the above four companies. I have no obligation to support any drive maker simply because they are trying to build good drives and succeed on occasion. I am left wondering if they know why they succeeded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

There just isn't any measurable way to statistically quantify reliability at this point. Simply looking at brand isn't a reliable factor either....
post #68 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taperwood View Post

Actually, the question of why OCZ and others built a defective drive makes me shy away from them. If they truly understood SSD technology, why did they build a defective drive in the first place?. So far in this conversation, it appears that Intel, Samsung, Crucial, and Plextor are companies that have never designed a drive with severe defects. I'm not saying it can't happen in the future. IBM is a perfect example of what can happen to a stellar drive maker, but that's why I will now always wait at least a year before buying a drive and I will research the specific model thoroughly before buying. At this time, if I decided to buy another SSD, I would concentrate on the above four companies. I have no obligation to support any drive maker simply because they are trying to build good drives and succeed on occasion. I am left wondering if they know why they succeeded.

Valid point around making defective drives, which is why I agree OCZ can't be put in the same category as drives like Intel or Samsung for example. But considering the vast majority of SSD defects are directly related to the firmware used to run the controllers in these drives, this is software that many times is corrected with a firmware update. Also, comparison isn't as easy even within the same brand because the same brand can use different controllers in different models of the same generation, or across different generations of the same model of devices they sell.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Intel or Samsung have NEVER designed a drive with serious defects. Every manufacturer has produced a lemon from time to time, the problem is that some companies such as OCZ have historically produced more then companies such as Intel or Samsung. So inherrently, Intel and Samsung are perceived (rightly in my opinion) as being a higher quality drive.

At the end of the road though, while failure is a pretty big inconvenience, warranty is a major factor at least for me. If your drive does in fact crap out on you, it's nice to know the company who made it will stand behind it and replace it for you. That in my opinion is worth something, knowing that even drives that have a good reputation like Intel, we just don't know how reliable they'll be over the next 3-5 years. We can guess based on the past, but that's all it is: a guess.
post #69 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Theimpaler View Post

One of the better sources of sales that qualify as "steals" is Slickdeals. If an SSD you have your eye on ends up on the front page of Slickdeals, in general it is a steal.
For the more cautious (myself included), rather than putting 100% faith in a frontpage post on Slickdeals, you can do price history tracking for the item you are interested in....So that's my input... Slickdeals + pricetrackers = best assurance of exceptional prices smile.gif

Excellent advice, thanks!!
post #70 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

Makes sense, people change their prices all the time. Was looking to see if there was a consensus price that people would say it's a steal and you just can't pass it up. The 520 128GB at $135 sounds like a good deal, but if it really isn't much cheaper then what you can usually find it for, I might as well hold out for a cheaper price since I'm in no rush to get it now anyway. I see the 330 has a 3 yr warranty vs the 5 yr on the 520. Knowing my C: partition on my Vista machine is set to 85 GB and I'm only using 40 between Vista and all my programs, then 120 should be more then plenty for my OS and programs drive.
So in the 120GB - 128GB range for the Intel 520, Samsung 830, OCZ Vertex 4, Plextor M3, what would a price be that would qualify as a steal? Or perhaps a better question would be what is the normal price these tend to go for, so if you see it for less you know that price won't be around for long and you should grab it while it's on sale?

First it was a 180 GB Intel 330 that was $135, or 75 cents/GB which was a steal.

Second, if you can find a 120/128GB Plextor M3, Samsung 830 or Intel 330 for under $100 it's a good deal, for $90 grab it because it's a great deal. That may not be true in 6 months, or even 3 months - no way to know where prices wlll be then - but it is now.

Third, you simply aren't going to find a 120/128 GB Intel 510 or 520, a Corsair Performance Pro, or a Plextor M3 Pro or M2P series for under $100. That's just not the market for those partcular drives. If you ever do, you'd better tell the rest of us pronto.
post #71 of 199
For those of you who are Plexi fans smile.gif

A bit "salty" but that price is MSRP and could proly be had for a $ 1.00 per gig in short order

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6090/plextor-m5s-256gb-review
post #72 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taperwood View Post

So far in this conversation, it appears that Intel, Samsung, Crucial, and Plextor are companies that have never designed a drive with severe defects.

Not entirely true. Crucial had the famous "5000 hour bug" in its M4 line. They fixed it, but it was a serious firmware fault.

So they may deserve a quality reputation, but you can't say they've never had a drive with a serious defect.

One interesting thing is that the users of the Marvel 9174 controller reportedly have more independance in writing their own firmware, and there are more variations between the brands, so that Crucial bug did not impact the Plextors or the Intel 510 or the Corsair Performance Pro. But, except for Intel, the users of the Sandforce SF2281 use the standard Sandforce firmware, so the bug in that firmware hit everyone (except Intel) and the fix was generated by Sandforce and distributed to the drive mfgs (and, at least according to Anandtech, Intel's fix does not necessarily get shared with other SF-2281 companies).
post #73 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by flocko View Post

For those of you who are Plexi fans smile.gif
A bit "salty" but that price is MSRP and could proly be had for a $ 1.00 per gig in short order
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6090/plextor-m5s-256gb-review

Thanks. I hadn't seen that.

I wonder if there will be deals on the M3 Pro if it's being discontinued. I got a good deal on a Samsung 470 when they were being cleared out.

I'm a little surprised that the reviewer had never heard of Plextor. They made the best (and highest price) optical drives for quite a few years and I've had an M2 SSD for well over a year. It's not like they were unknown.

BTW, they have, at least up until now, always included a 3.5 inch mounting bracket and transfer software with their drives. Apparently they are dropping those items with this new drive. (interesting that the "entry level" Intel 330 had a bracket, screws, and even a SATA cable in the box, and transfer software can be downloaded.)

Also interesting that they are using the same differentiator and cost reducing approach as Intel in cutting the warranty from 5 to 3 years on their "entry level" drive. Warranties do involve costs, and reducing it is one more way to shave a few dollars. If you want the longer warranty you buy the higher tier product in their line.
post #74 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

I wonder if there will be deals on the M3 Pro if it's being discontinued. I got a good deal on a Samsung 470 when they were being cleared out.

Interesting. For SSDs since the technology is evolving so rapidly, have they been coming out with their "next" generation devices almost yearly? If so, then have you noticed whether they continue to sell their old models after their next generation devices hit the shelves, or whether the try to clear out that old inventory? Wonder if it's sort of like cars where they discount heavily last yrs model year so they can clear out their old inventory to make way for the new model year.

Some brands like OCZ, you still see their older generation drives for sale (Intel also), so not every manufacturer appears to do this. But you bring up a good point on the M3 Pro and Samsung.
post #75 of 199
So much incorrect in wrong info in this thread it's amazing.

Thanks to zon2020 for actually being both factually correct and intelligent.

I can see common "trends" of misinformation in less informed posters that only serves to signify the differences individuals have in making purchase decisions.

The " trend" that crucial has no issues is an odd on to me because they pumped out six months worth of fatal flawed drives that certainly had serious issues
Kudos for fixing the firmware to them but when 100% of your mfg drives will crash blue screen of death at certain hour mark I just don't see how you can make that mistake. It's one of the more common known and larger SSD issues out there effecting lots of people
post #76 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

I agree 100%. All else being equal (speed isn't much a factor between SATA III drives), and if price is within a reasonable amount, besides length of warranty (which is a measurable level of quality since if the drive fails you get a new one) I'd have no choice but to go on the "perceived reliability" of the brand as well as which controller that particular drive uses. And like most people, I want my main drive to be as reliable as possible (knowing that is impossible to guage at this point with SSD drives).
So from what I can gather, brands that are perceived (fairly or unjustly) as the most reliable for SSD are:
  • Intel (5 Yr Warranty)
  • Samsung (3 Yr Warranty)
  • Crucial (3 Yr Warranty)
Meaning if all else is equal, and you can get one of these drives for a good deal that makes them not much more expensive then a drive that is perceived "less reliable", that is your tie breaker (length of warranty could be another tie breaker if all else is relatively equal)

Warranties aren't reliable indicators of equipment reliability, at best they are just insurance policies.

Warranties can back fire on the purchaser if the seller follows this strategy which has happened to me:

Customer brings in defective device. Said device has been out of production for a while, so the customer is offered a current product if he pays the difference in SRP. But, the current product's SRP is way out of touch with current competive street pricing. The warranty is a great opportunity to throw good money after bad.

When you're looking back from 5 years in the future, price/performance and acceptable device parameters (e.g. size) are going to be so vastly difference that the warranty could well be meaningless.

SSD pricing can be predicted to follow Moore's law, but recent pricing seems to be more aggressive than that. I just bought a 256 for less money than the best deal I could swing on a 180 just a couple of months ago.

Lovin' it! ;-)
post #77 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Warranties aren't reliable indicators of equipment reliability, at best they are just insurance policies.
Warranties can back fire on the purchaser if the seller follows this strategy which has happened to me:
Customer brings in defective device. Said device has been out of production for a while, so the customer is offered a current product if he pays the difference in SRP. But, the current product's SRP is way out of touch with current competive street pricing. The warranty is a great opportunity to throw good money after bad.
When you're looking back from 5 years in the future, price/performance and acceptable device parameters (e.g. size) are going to be so vastly difference that the warranty could well be meaningless.
SSD pricing can be predicted to follow Moore's law, but recent pricing seems to be more aggressive than that. I just bought a 256 for less money than the best deal I could swing on a 180 just a couple of months ago.
Lovin' it! ;-)

Yes things evolve rapidly in the SSD space, and what you paid $200 for today and what is worth $200 tomorrow will be drastically different. The point I was trying to make is companies with good brand reputation (Intel, Samsung for example) will replace your device for you if it fails. It may not be the most cutting edge device of the time, but something in line with what you had to start with, instead of you being SOL. I just had a Seagate 1TB drive fail after 3 yrs recently and it was out of warranty, I had to go shell out cash for another one. If it was still under warranty, I wouldn't have had to go buy another drive, but I'm sure I could have paid more if I wanted a 2TB replacement instead of just a 1TB. It sounds like they pulled the old bait and switch on you, which doesn't sound like a particularly solid business practice. You should never have to pay the difference in MSRP to get a warranty replacement. If you want something above and beyond what the warranty would replace, then paying the difference makes sense.

I never said warranty was any indicator of equipment reliability whatsoever. It is ONLY an insurance policy. There is NO reliable indicators of long term equipment reliability with SSDs, that's the problem. We can make assumptions or infer long term reliability based on short term or initial (out of the box) reliability, but that's all we have at this point.
post #78 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Warranties aren't reliable indicators of equipment reliability, at best they are just insurance policies.
Warranties can back fire on the purchaser if the seller follows this strategy which has happened to me:
Customer brings in defective device. Said device has been out of production for a while, so the customer is offered a current product if he pays the difference in SRP. But, the current product's SRP is way out of touch with current competive street pricing. The warranty is a great opportunity to throw good money after bad.
When you're looking back from 5 years in the future, price/performance and acceptable device parameters (e.g. size) are going to be so vastly difference that the warranty could well be meaningless.
SSD pricing can be predicted to follow Moore's law, but recent pricing seems to be more aggressive than that. I just bought a 256 for less money than the best deal I could swing on a 180 just a couple of months ago.
Lovin' it! ;-)

You know, I see that scenario written here a lot, but never in my life have I had a situation where I was told I had to pay additional to get a replacement under warranty. The item has always either been fixed, or (most commonly) replaced (usually with a refurbished of the same model), or I've been provided the replacement newer model at no cost.

I do agree warranties aren't reliable indicators of equipment reliability, although I do consider them a "vote of confidence" by the company that it's willing to accept the considerable cost to stand behind its product. Except for cars, I simply don't expect to ever need to use the warranty.

What I hate the most is the "you have to have the receipt to use the warranty". I call BS, particularly when the mfg date is often printed right on the product, or can be easily ascertained by the company based on the serial number. CyberPower was very good recently about a return of a UPS I bought over a year ago. When I said I didn't have the receipt, the CS rep said "no problem, I can see from the serial number its still within its warranty period." That kind of customer service will keep me as a customer. (It's also a nice thing about buying from Amazon or Newegg - you can always go back and print out your receipt from 2 years ago.)

There is a considerable cost for providing warranty coverage to a mfg, and that cost is built into the item's price. Companies do failure analyses to estimate the likely warranty cost they need to recover in the price. It's interesting that both Intel and Plextor have reduced the warranty on their "entry level" models from 5 to 3. It both reduces costs and allows them to further cut the price, and also helps them differentiate these drives from their higher-end, higher-priced, models. But there's really no reason to think these are actually any less reliable than the others.

BTW, as to crashing prices, I paid the same price 15 months ago for a 64GB Plextor M2 as I paid 2 months ago for a 180GB Intel 330 - $140 for each.
post #79 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

So much incorrect in wrong info in this thread it's amazing.
Thanks to zon2020 for actually being both factually correct and intelligent.
I can see common "trends" of misinformation in less informed posters that only serves to signify the differences individuals have in making purchase decisions.
The " trend" that crucial has no issues is an odd on to me because they pumped out six months worth of fatal flawed drives that certainly had serious issues
Kudos for fixing the firmware to them but when 100% of your mfg drives will crash blue screen of death at certain hour mark I just don't see how you can make that mistake. It's one of the more common known and larger SSD issues out there effecting lots of people

Please note I specifically said "perceived reliability". This was intentional as currently SSD "reliability" appears to be almost purely based on people's perception, which has been fed by how many problems manufacturer's have had with other devices they may have released in the past, or with current devices. If a company produces a bunch of drives that fail right out of the box then you surely could infer that they will be less reliable in the long run then a brand that doesn't have that problem (or less instances of that problem). It certainly wouldn't make me feel very good to open a brand new product only to have it crap out on me immediately. Thanks for calling out that Crucial had problems recently with a lot of fatally flawed drives right out of the box, perhaps they don't belong in the same sentence as Intel or Samsung or Plextor.

Nothing wrong with correcting posters who post (most likely inadvertantly) information that isn't factually correct, as everyone has the right to know what the facts are. But rather then suggesting certain posters are not intelligent, perhaps try correcting the factually incorrect things you feel they may have posted as I'm sure they didn't do it intentionally.
post #80 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

You know, I see that scenario written here a lot, but never in my life have I had a situation where I was told I had to pay additional to get a replacement under warranty. The item has always either been fixed, or (most commonly) replaced (usually with a refurbished of the same model), or I've been provided the replacement newer model at no cost.
I do agree warranties aren't reliable indicators of equipment reliability, although I do consider them a "vote of confidence" by the company that it's willing to accept the considerable cost to stand behind its product. Except for cars, I simply don't expect to ever need to use the warranty.
What I hate the most is the "you have to have the receipt to use the warranty". I call BS, particularly when the mfg date is often printed right on the product, or can be easily ascertained by the company based on the serial number.

100% agree. Only thing that makes sense with the receipt for warranty is let's say a device was manufacturered in December of 2011 and you buy it brand new in December of 2012. Without the receipt to show you didn't purchase that device until 1 year after it was produced, you would have lost 1 year of warranty.
post #81 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

You know, I see that scenario written here a lot, but never in my life have I had a situation where I was told I had to pay additional to get a replacement under warranty. The item has always either been fixed, or (most commonly) replaced (usually with a refurbished of the same model), or I've been provided the replacement newer model at no cost.
I do agree warranties aren't reliable indicators of equipment reliability, although I do consider them a "vote of confidence" by the company that it's willing to accept the considerable cost to stand behind its product. Except for cars, I simply don't expect to ever need to use the warranty.
What I hate the most is the "you have to have the receipt to use the warranty". I call BS, particularly when the mfg date is often printed right on the product, or can be easily ascertained by the company based on the serial number. CyberPower was very good recently about a return of a UPS I bought over a year ago. When I said I didn't have the receipt, the CS rep said "no problem, I can see from the serial number its still within its warranty period." That kind of customer service will keep me as a customer. (It's also a nice thing about buying from Amazon or Newegg - you can always go back and print out your receipt from 2 years ago.)
There is a considerable cost for providing warranty coverage to a mfg, and that cost is built into the item's price. Companies do failure analyses to estimate the likely warranty cost they need to recover in the price. It's interesting that both Intel and Plextor have reduced the warranty on their "entry level" models from 5 to 3. It both reduces costs and allows them to further cut the price, and also helps them differentiate these drives from their higher-end, higher-priced, models. But there's really no reason to think these are actually any less reliable than the others.
BTW, as to crashing prices, I paid the same price 15 months ago for a 64GB Plextor M2 as I paid 2 months ago for a 180GB Intel 330 - $140 for each.

+1

So true Zon2020!

I have never in my life been denied a warranty claim. Never. Any good company will just support it. With PC products I have probably purchased and RMA significantly more products than the average person ever would and never have I had trouble.

I have no fear at all that my warranty might be denied or not covered.



Additionally,

You do not need receipts with any of these. Most MFG's have a consumer support portal website. You just type in your serial number there and it tells you the product and when the warranty expires. They know from the serial number of your product the warranty info- and often it's a bit generous an allows an additional 6 months - I have RMA many HDD's that were just out of warranty without any issue.


This is all done online with almost no fuss or trouble.

Only a store "extended warranty" that replaces the product would see an issue over out of the norm issues like water damage or physical damage.

The MFG just swaps out defective products and it's as simple as that.
post #82 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

100% agree. Only thing that makes sense with the receipt for warranty is let's say a device was manufacturered in December of 2011 and you buy it brand new in December of 2012. Without the receipt to show you didn't purchase that device until 1 year after it was produced, you would have lost 1 year of warranty.
Wrong.


You are so wrong I laughed.

WD for instance- adds on warranty to account for when it could have been purchased (worst case scenario) in the event you did not register the product with them.

I have had products that were covered under this method many times.

They know when it was made and they know the warranty time. They conservatively estimate when the last drive would be purchased and set the warranty deadline as to not exclude anyone.

I just RMA a product after the warranty expired. It was about a month after and they did it no problem.

I think your wrong about this.
post #83 of 199
Moreover- I have specifically RMA both a Crucial and an OCZ SSD, in addition to many WD's, Hitachi and Seagates.

I can say with absolute certainty that at least with these companies there is no chance you would have any issue getting a replacement drive.

Crucial was the most frustrating process and also slowest ship- and it was still very easy and reasonable. About a week time, and only some annoying phone troubleshooting.

For the others it was a couple days- no phone calls needed.

Anyone who worries about warranty and coverage on these things is just being paranoid and scared.

There is no reason to live you life in fear.

Don't be afraid.

The warranties are excellent (3 years) and the companies are too.

The same irrational fear is what makes people jump on a "trendy" idea that one drive might be more reliable- or makes people reach for data that might support their "feeling" a certain product choice is best. My advice is just stop trying to think you can predict or control things you simply can not. The most reliable drive statistically - if you purchased it- would have similar over all chances of failure as the most unreliable statistical drive. On an individual product level- case by case- so many variables play into it that it's not even worth thinking about IMO.


All drives are pretty reliable, and the factors that make them unreliable can not be predicted with accuracy.

Any data about the past is irrelevant by the time you get it. Often memory chips and products are MFG in batches and there can be differences from one to another from the same MFG and product types.

It's funny to see so many people scramble to both defend a purchase decision, and also provide some type of comfort for themselves in creating the a false idea they did "best choice" and all the evidence points to such.

It's odds, and luck. Just like getting hit by lightning., I never worry about that when I go outside.
post #84 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

Interesting. For SSDs since the technology is evolving so rapidly, have they been coming out with their "next" generation devices almost yearly? If so, then have you noticed whether they continue to sell their old models after their next generation devices hit the shelves, or whether the try to clear out that old inventory? Wonder if it's sort of like cars where they discount heavily last yrs model year so they can clear out their old inventory to make way for the new model year.
Some brands like OCZ, you still see their older generation drives for sale (Intel also), so not every manufacturer appears to do this. But you bring up a good point on the M3 Pro and Samsung.

Depends on the company.

It was actually quite surprising that Samsung killed off the SATA II 470 shortly after they released the SATA III 830. They could easily have continued to sell both since it wasn't a direct replacement, but there was actually only a few months of overlap. Micro Center and Amazon had them on some fire sale prices, but they didn't last long.

The 470 was really a great drive, by the way. I put a couple of them in laptops (that were SATA II anyhow). They work great, they're fast, and Samsung provides some really good tools that enable you to easily optimize Windows for an SSD if you do a "clone" rather than a clean install. Intel is the only other one I've seen with as good a toolkit. Elminates the need to go in and manually modify registry settings.

I also saw some good prices on the Plextor M2 when they came out with the M3 (which has very little difference).

There are other companies still selling older models. But for the most part, all the SATA II drives based on anything other than Sandforce controllers seem to have disappeared.

And who can even keep track of OCZ's models? I bet they've had a least 20 different lines in the past 2 years, and that's without counting the "2, 3, 4" iterations of those lines.

And finally, you have to watch stores that are still selling ancient stock of drives that are not being made any more. You can still go on Amazon and buy a Plextor M2 or Samsung 470, or even a OCZ Apex or Colossus or Solid 2. You can even still buy a Western Digital Blue SSD - by most accounts the slowest and one of the worst SSDs ever made. I seem to recall Newegg selling those off last year at something like $180 for a 256GB drive which was a completely unheard of price for that capacity at the time.
post #85 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

Please note I specifically said "perceived reliability". This was intentional as currently SSD "reliability" appears to be almost purely based on people's perception, which has been fed by how many problems manufacturer's have had with other devices they may have released in the past, or with current devices. If a company produces a bunch of drives that fail right out of the box then you surely could infer that they will be less reliable in the long run then a brand that doesn't have that problem (or less instances of that problem). It certainly wouldn't make me feel very good to open a brand new product only to have it crap out on me immediately. Thanks for calling out that Crucial had problems recently with a lot of fatally flawed drives right out of the box, perhaps they don't belong in the same sentence as Intel or Samsung or Plextor.
Nothing wrong with correcting posters who post (most likely inadvertantly) information that isn't factually correct, as everyone has the right to know what the facts are. But rather then suggesting certain posters are not intelligent, perhaps try correcting the factually incorrect things you feel they may have posted as I'm sure they didn't do it intentionally.

Accept my apology.

I was not calling anyone out specifically.

I was more making the general assumption that it's widespread across many people- not talking about anyone in specific.

it's just the way human beings are. It's human nature.

People want to explain what they don't understand or know. They want to feel secure in understanding things that are unknowns.

This often makes them reach for information or evidence and even create it - if they can not find it.

Certainly this happens with reliability and product choices. It's mostly "feeling" with little data.

Any of the data presented is often after the "feeling" and choice has been made in support of it- not due diligence up front.

And last- the concept you can predict or understand down to the end user level the chance of failure of individual single products is just totally insane.

That is what drives people to do all these things. The fact they really don't know. It annoys the crap out of people to the point some might even just make stuff up to make them feel better.
post #86 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Wrong.
You are so wrong I laughed.
WD for instance- adds on warranty to account for when it could have been purchased (worst case scenario) in the event you did not register the product with them.
I have had products that were covered under this method many times.
They know when it was made and they know the warranty time. They conservatively estimate when the last drive would be purchased and set the warranty deadline as to not exclude anyone.
I just RMA a product after the warranty expired. It was about a month after and they did it no problem.
I think your wrong about this.

Not sure what your problem is.

Look at the Intel 320, released around March of 2011. It's STILL being sold brand new right now, and likely will continue into early 2013. Consider the following scenarios:

1. Purchased March 2011. 5 Yr warranty would expire in March 2016.
2. Purchased March 2012. 5 Yr warranty would expire in March 2017.
3. Purchased March 2013. 5 Yr warranty would expire in March 2018.

Even if they "estimated" when the last drive was produced and granted an extra cushion to not exclude anyone, are you saying they'd give the people who bought at initial launch an extra 2+ years of warranty making their warranty in effect 7 years, to match the people who bought the same device brand new 2 years later?
post #87 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

Not sure what your problem is.
Look at the Intel 320, released around March of 2011. It's STILL being sold brand new right now, and likely will continue into early 2013. Consider the following scenarios:
1. Purchased March 2011. 5 Yr warranty would expire in March 2016.
2. Purchased March 2012. 5 Yr warranty would expire in March 2017.
3. Purchased March 2013. 5 Yr warranty would expire in March 2018.
Even if they "estimated" when the last drive was produced and granted an extra cushion to not exclude anyone, are you saying they'd give the people who bought at initial launch an extra 2+ years of warranty making their warranty in effect 7 years, to match the people who bought the same device brand new 2 years later?

No they use MFG ship date .. Two years is excessive. They know from the serial number when it shipped out. They add 6 months to that date to account for time for the retailer to sell it off.

And any worthwhile MFG(intel included) would honor a product 1 month after the warranty.

I am not sure why you think these MFG's are out to screw you. They are not.

3 or 5 years is very generous I think. After that who really cares anyways?

It's ancient technology and almost worthless when a 5 year warranty expires anyhow.

Have faith in your MFG, my experience has always shown me they do the right thing. They are in the market of reputation and selling products based on that.

Thinking they are out to screw people out of warranty is silly IMO.
post #88 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

No they use MFG ship date .. Two years is excessive. They know from the serial number when it shipped out. They add 6 months to that date to account for time for the retailer to sell it off.
And any worthwhile MFG(intel included) would honor a product 1 month after the warranty.
I am not sure why you think these MFG's are out to screw you. They are not.
3 or 5 years is very generous I think. After that who really cares anyways?
It's ancient technology and almost worthless when a 5 year warranty expires anyhow.
Have faith in your MFG, my experience has always shown me they do the right thing. They are in the market of reputation and selling products based on that.
Thinking they are out to screw people out of warranty is silly IMO.

You're WAY off base. I DON'T think that mfg's are tying to screw you, and I NEVER made that assertion. Stating as fact that I think they are "out to screw me" is simply not factual and in my opinion, irresponsible. Personally I have A LOT OF FAITH in the warranties of reputable companies, which is why if all else was equal I'd rather get a device with a 5 yr warranty rather then 3 yrs because I have no reason to believe they wouldn't take care of me in the event of a problem.

All I said was IF a manufacturer DOES want to see a receipt for a warranty replacement, the ONLY reason this might make sense would be to help them reconcile the potential wide gap that may exist for devices that have been on the market for several years. After all, can they be 100% certain that 100% of their devices were sold within 6 months of when they were shipped?

That's the ONLY point I was trying to make. I never said that all mfg's need to see receipts, nor that they necessarily should require them. I was simply saying that was one POSSIBLE explanation for why some companies might want to see a receipt for warranty replacement.
post #89 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

Please note I specifically said "perceived reliability". This was intentional as currently SSD "reliability" appears to be almost purely based on people's perception, which has been fed by how many problems manufacturer's have had with other devices they may have released in the past, or with current devices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

it's just the way human beings are. It's human nature.
Certainly this happens with reliability and product choices. It's mostly "feeling" with little data.

Let's face it. SSDs are still basically "new" with very little track record. Sure, they've been around several years, but the current generation is remarkably better and cheaper than what came before, and their sales and usage have absolutely exploded both as confidence in their reliability has grown, and prices have plummeted. (Rightfully so, you rarely see the comments like "I'm not sure the technology is ready yet" that you saw very often just a year ago, plus a year ago you could buy a 2TB hard disk for $59 but a 64GB SSD cost well over $100.) So not only do most people have no more than a year or so experience with using ANY SSD, but data from pre-2011 drives is basically irrelevant because those devices were almost completely different than the current generation.

Because of the lack of data, people have to make judgements based on whatever they have, and reputation is a very big part of it.

Honestly, when I bought my first SSD, I chose a Plextor, not because of I had any idea at all how good Plextor's SSDs were (or any information upon which to base such a judgment), but because (1) it was SATA III at a time when many or most drives were still SATA II, (2) it used a Marvel controller at a time when reports of the SF-2281 Sandforce bug were already appearing, and (3) my prior experience with Plextor and their reputation with completely unrelated types of devices. When I bought my first Samsung 470 it was largely because of my good experience with Samsung hard drives (and because it was non-Sandforce) - again, having nothing to do with their SSDs. We haven't moved much beyond that point because no one has owned any of these current drives long enough to know how long they will last. We have data regarding some drives that crap out early in excessive numbers, but that's about it.

So, yes, company reputation has a LOT to do with it. And OCZ has probably earned some of the bad rep it's gotten by rushing products out the door. It pushed SF-2281 drives out in huge numbers at low prices when they were buggy so they became identified with the problem (which did not to the same extent tarnish Corsair or others). It pushed its Indilinx Everest firmware drives out when they obviously were not ready for prime time. And it's suffered as a result. In contrast, Intel sat on the SF-2281 for over a year while it worked out the kinks before it released a drive using that controller. So it has earned a good rep, which builds on its overall company reputation for quality. (Another good example - Intel brand motherboards have a deserved rep for being rock solid, but are made by Foxconn (as are many Apple products), while Foxconn's own motherboards have a lousy rep. Why is that? Foxconn is obviously capable of building some of the highest quality electronics in the world.) But those things matter.

So, Mfusik, you know how I feel about this. I admit that objectively I believe that a Sandforce controller based OCZ drive is probably just as reliable as one from Kingston, or Mushkin, or Corsair. But at the same time, personally, I'm not likely to choose a OCZ drive any time soon. And that's based on an highly subjective "reputational" confidence, or lack thereof. And that sense or lack of confidence, well founded or not, is worth more to me than the $20 I might save. I just feel more comfortable with a different brand even though I might know they are indistinguishable.

Fair, or unfair, OCZ has a reputation problem, and it's not entirely undeserved.
Edited by Zon2020 - 7/20/12 at 8:37am
post #90 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

So, Mfusik, you know how I feel about this. I admit that objectively I believe that a Sandforce controller based OCZ drive is probably just as reliable as one from Kingston, or Mushkin, or Corsair. But at the same time, personally, I'm not likely to choose a OCZ drive any time soon. And that's based on an highly subjective "reputational" confidence, or lack thereof. And that sense or lack of confidence, well founded or not, is worth more to me than the $20 I might save. I just feel more comfortable with a different brand even though I might know they are indistinguishable.
Fair, or unfair, OCZ has a reputation problem, and it's not entirely undeserved.

This will drive MFusick insane but its the perception.

And sometimes perception is reality. At least that's what some think.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Interesting SSD Reliability Study