Interesting SSD Reliability Study - Page 4

I think your logic makes perfect sense and respect your opinion.

I don't think that there is really any difference at all in reliability or performance from one sandforce 22xx to another... provided its the same type of memory.

I believe the memory is all sourced from similar places- and I don't see OCZ using memory any different or less reliable than anyone else.

So while I agree with you- I think that today after having been out a long time OCZ is just as safe as any other brand.

But your 100% right they were the first big player and rushed stuff out the door. They pay for that repuation now.

You make the most sense of anyone in this thread and I generally agree with most of your opinions. This one is no different.

You have a logical reason for your decision making and your not super biased- It makes sense.

No your wrong on this one.

Zon2020 is 100% right.

he gets that there is very little difference, and OCZ is probably just as safe and good as any other but chooses not because of a valid reason.

He thinks the reputation they earned by being the first big SSD player and pushing stuff out the door too quick tarnishes them and chooses other MFG's instead.

That makes sense.

I think I got it. What exactly did you think I missed ?

Big difference between Zon2020's opinion and perception of reality and a few of the others here including yourself.
That is why I respect him and what he says.

Here is what I see about Zon2020's opinion that is most like my own:

At the time he purchased his SSD's there was some reports of issue with the new Sandforce 22xx drives. These drives were very new at the time.
So he made a logical decision to purchase something else. His reasoning was based on a very current piece of knowledge at the time. Not a very old reliability chart, or any "trendy" idea.

Since then he has admitted a couple things, or at least suggested he might believe them to be partly true.

#1. The issues with the initial Sandforce controllers at this point are pretty much a non issue and have been improved or resolved.
#2. He understands it was not that widespread and only effected a small amount of drives, with specific hardware combo's. Not as major or universal issue as the haters believe.
#3. Today- the relevance of an old issue that is not likely to exist now is very low.

Crucial brainwashed owners, The OCZ haters, and almost all sandforce controller haters in general do not understand the above - or believe it to be true. They are wrong- and they spout false claims of widespread reliability issues and suggest it's still a problem today. There is a big difference between the two.
I take major offense to the second type since I believe them to be wrong on all counts. I take no offense to Zon2020's thinking because it's very much near how I see reality even if he decision making is different than mine.

That is my understanding of his take on the Sandforce issue. He might have choosen to not purchase something or purchase something else- but his thinking was based on sound logic and an accurate grasp on reality.

Moreover- to the point of the OCZ brand in specic (I think this is where your expecting a rise from me):

I believe Zon2020's opinion is very different than many because he is not a hater. Just chooses something else.

I know that he knows and understands the following:

#1. OCZ is a major player in the lower price tier, and attracts many noobs with amazing values
#2. OCZ was one of the first and the largest SSD makers initially- and they rushed products out the door to capitalize on a new market in SSD. As a result they suffered some growing pains and at least partly earned some of the negative reputation they have.
#3. OCZ has a negative reputation from before SSD times- that many older PC enthusiasts won't forget or forgive which creates an even stronger "hate" and makes the hate on OCZ popular and trendy. While it might not translate directly into today's SSD product it does exist.
#4. OCZ makes tons of drives. They sell tons of SSD drives. Probably more than most other MFG's. The chances of getting a solid product is probably very high.

So if he does not trust OCZ because of negative reputation (both partly deserved or not) and thinks that $20 spent on another brand might not be a bad idea I respect that opinion. It's his money and his choice.

The difference might seem small but it's significant to me.

He does not think all Sandforce drives are evil or likely to have serious issues today. He knows Sandforce is great performance and great prices too. He realizes that Crucial has major issues too, and is equally subjective in his opinion of OCZ and Crucial. Many others here brush the Crucial stuff under the rug about firmware but then bash on Sandforce and OCZ and Sandforce for the same thing. They are no different. He never suggests that OCZ would be likely to have major reliability issues, and simply just chooses another based on personal preference and personal feelings. I see nothing wrong with any of that.

If you swap out all my arguments the term "OCZ" with the term "MUSHKIN" or "CORSAIR" I bet he, and many others would find a lot less to disagree with.

I am not as big as an OCZ supporter as you think that I am.

I think I am much more a value/performance supporter in general and that in SSD's OCZ seems to fit. Mushkin and other Sandforce SSD drives also get my nod of approval for basically the same performance and prices as the VERTEX3's OCZ. If your an OCZ hater, there is still tons of options for you without spending tons more on a lesser performance drive because the MFG is "trendy" and "popular"

I think Sandforce drives in general are very reliable. They are as reliable or better than non sandforce drives like the Crucial. Today this is true. Months and months ago.. it was possible to argue it.
So if it's cheaper and it's faster and it's as reliable or better- it at least deserves a consideration. Right?

regardless if you actually choose one of the other- I believe he is willing to admit it might be worth a look today and he sees the situation as it really is. Everyone is going to have a brand preference and personal feeling, but I think he's the most subjective I have seen on the subject so I take no offense to his decision making process.


In contrast- I have never seen you recommend or list a Sandforce drive in your guides. Why not? You list the Crucial, but say a Muskin is both faster and cheaper. It's recommended as the top pick at Tomshardware below the Samsung (which is recommended over the Crucial too).
So why no Sandforce controller drives in your guides?

It's not like they are worse or more expensive.

My arguments are very much directed towards the flaws and assumptions people make regarding reliability of SSD- that are both popular and based on "feelings" and not facts. They are not designed to stick up for one brand or another.
I could honestly not give two sh!ts if someone hates OCZ or not for whatever reason. That's OCZ's problem. I don't own stock.

I care when I think people are wrong or they falsely broadcasts lies and inaccuracy. Zon2020 has done none of that.

I feel the same way. 240GB and 480GB OCZ Agility 3/Vertex 3 can be found regularly for $150~170 and $350~380 respectively but I'd rather wait for a sale on another brand instead of getting OCZ. Yeah, it's the same SF-2281 controller and the same IMFT ONFi/Toshiba Toggle-Mode NAND but I'd prefer not to get OCZ. Currently on the lookout for the Intel 330 240GB or another good sale on the Samsung 830 256GB to replace the boot drive on my workstation.

Samsung 256GB 830 for $219.

heads up.

(Vertex3 still only $180... lol)

Nah. Not good enough. Got it for $190 on Newegg's last sale.

You should RAID0 two Vertex3 120GB's.

70 each is only $140 total for 240GB and way faster performance.

It appears anyone who posts something who isn't Zon2020 then you disagree with them and don't appear interested in even attempting to comprehend their viewpoint. Personally I also think Zon2020 is very insightful and provides some very helpful information for people who are looking to understand SSD's a little better and what they should look for when buying something new. You'll notice however when Zon2020 posts his opinion, he doesn't denigrate others who may have a different opinion then himself. He states his opinion and provides fact and reasoning behind why he arrived at that understanding. This is very helpful to the topic at hand, and I for one appreciate it. Personally I'm not here to pad my personal ego or to get into pissing matches with other members. I'm trying to learn about SSDs and what things I should consider when shopping and comparing between different models. I can then form my own opinion based on the research I've done, the facts I've been able to gather, and the helpful opinions and insights of other posters on this forum.

You state you're amused by people who rush to judgement, who get an idea in their head, and instead of searching for the truth they appear only interested in building support for their own view point. Yet this is what you have done on several of your posts.

So let me try this again. In terms of the memory components themselves, you're right there is VERY LITTLE difference between memory that OCZ uses vs memory that Intel uses. With SSD drives there are no moving parts like conventional HDDs, so you don't have issues with platters, arms, heads, motors, etc. So while there is a HUGE difference in the HDD world between the quality of components, when talking about the MEMORY portion of SSDs there is very little difference, if any. Of this I 100% agree.

What I think Zon2020 was stating earlier, which I coincidentally agree 100% with, is that in the SSD world defects primarily come from the firmware as well as the controller that perticular drive uses. Since the memory itself is basically the same, the differences lie in the controllers for each drive as well as the firmware used to run that device. Some companies like OCZ may have rushed things out the door in the past, where their firmware wasn't fully baked yet. Firmware and controllers are really important on SSD drives as these control how info is written and read from each memory cell, and how data is allocated across all the cells in the device.

Between all the SF-2281 drives, Intel has an agreement with Sandforce for an exclusive firmware, so while they also use SF-2281 controller like many other companies it is a mistake to assume they are no different. Their firmware is specially developed for them, an only they use that particular fiirmware version. Also, they sat on their 520 drive (which uses SF-2281) for awhile because they wanted to really flush out the firmware and make sure when they released their product that they wouldn't have any problems. Intel has A LOT riding on their reputation for quality, and they don't want to risk that. When they finally did launch their SF-2281 devices, compared to other drives using the same controller they had very few problems. In fact, whatever problems were identified were fixed right away on the Intel, and it took awhile for them to trickle down to the other SF-2281 devices (likely due to the contract Intel has with Sandforce about exlusive firmware).

By this point, Sandforce has likely fixed many of the problems that plagued earlier devices via updated firmware, none of which really hit Intel, and that is mostly due to the time they took before pushing their devices out. So to say the difference right now between Intel SF-2281 devices and any other SF-2281 devices for example is very minimal, I would also probably tend to agree with this. This isn't to say that if I PERSONALLY had the option of buying an Intel drive for only $20-$30 more, personally I would spend a little more. But that's only me, and I wouldn't say anyone who went with the cheaper one would be wrong. And this is a FAR CRY from what the case would have been shortly after the Intel was released as they had a very stable product where other drives using the same controller (but different firmware) had lots of defects.

Samsung on the other hand uses a completely different controller all together. OCZ Vertex 4 uses their proprietary Everest controller, while I believe the Vertex 3 used a SF controller. So it isn't as simple as just looking at what company makes the drive. To your point, they all use the same memory, so the real difference is in which controller and firmware each device uses. Even a company like OCZ can use different controllers across their different models in any given year.

So I DON'T AGREE that you can simply say since they all use the same memory anyway that they're all basically the same. To Zon2020's point, there is a HUGE difference in the specific controller or firmware that a particular device uses. So if you're looking to make a decision, it isn't as simple as looking at the brand. Probably the most important piece of info you should look for is which controller each device uses, and factor that into your decision. At the end of the day there is no RIGHT or WRONG answer. Each person will form their own opinion and buy what they feel the most comfortable with, and that's how it should be.

Anyone remember why OCZ HAD to get into the ssd business in the first place !

Big prize if anyone knows ! ( not really)

Honey Badger don't care, he really just doesn't give a $#!+.

Ouch !!

One caveat, though. Other than Intel, the rest of the SF-2281 world uses Sandforce's firmware. It's actually part of the whole license deal from Sandforce as I understand it. And yet, the problem is looked at as a "OCZ Problem" for OCZ, and as a "Sandforce problem" for everyone else (Corsair, Kingston, Patriot, Mushkin, A-Data, and others).

That's probably not fair, but probably is a result of OCZ being one of the first and definitely the biggest seller.

So there's really two questions (and I always separate out Intel into its own category because of its proprietary firmware and am not including them in this group).

First, are you comfortable buying an SF-2281 based SSD? That is, are you comfortable that the problem is fixed or so rare as to be irrelevant? I can understand either a yes or no answer to this. Personally, I'm probably still in the "no" camp, again putting aside Intel (and frankly, but for the Anandtech Cherryville article, I'm not sure I would have bought my Intel 330 drive).

But if the answer to that is "yes, I'm ok buying a SF-2281 drive", at that point what is the basis for saying "but I don't want an OCZ one"? They're using the same controller with the same firmware, and same NAND as everyone else. I don't think the problems arise from the case or assembly. So is saying "I'll buy a Corsair or Mushkin SF-2281 drive but not an OCZ" really a rational response? I don't know of any true basis for that. (again, Marvel's license terms are reportedly different, and with theirs the firmware is less uniform among manufacturers.)

I think it's valid as an subjective emotional response to their tarnished reputation, but objectively, there's probably no factual basis for making that distinction.

Still, I understand people making that choice, and I'm been making that choice myself, both to avoid non-Intel SF-2281s, and to avoid OCZ. There's alternatives available, so why worry about it is my thinking. But I'm not convinced there's really a sound factual basis for feeling that way.

Now, that's also a different question from buying an Indilinx controller OCZ, for which there seem to be valid reasons to avoid, and the Petrol fiasco of course just reinforces the overall view of OCZ
.
And I'm not shedding any tears for OCZ. They got aggresive in their marketing and pricing and created their own problem. (BTW, Mfusik, I wasn't really aware that OCZ had a pre-SSD reputation problem. I always looked at them rather neutrarally as just another player in the pc component space, with neither a good nor bad view of them. Is there some particular problem in the past that soured people on them?)

But I'm still not convinced that in the Sandforce controller world (SF-2281 or their SATA II ones for that matter), brand makes any difference at all.

Another thing worth pointing out, Samsung also manufactures their own memory (Toggle-Mode) so no, they're not the same memory as everyone else. I think Samsung's the only company that manufactures everything from controller to NAND Flash to RAM. Intel and Micron (Crucial) manufacture their NAND (IMFT) but Intel has used several controllers (Intel, Marvell and SandForce) while Crucial gets their controller from Marvell. Most everyone else buy NAND from either IMFT (Intel-Micron) or FFT (Toshiba-SanDisk).

Yep.

OCZ Vertex/Agility: Indilinx Barefoot
OCZ Vertex 2/Agility 2: SandForce SF-1200
OCZ Vertex 3/Agility 3: SandForce SF-2200
OCZ Vertex 4/Agility 4: Indilinx Everest 2

There's one reason I don't want an OCZ SandForce but would buy from someone else. So far, OCZ is the only known manufacturer that enforces Life Time Throttling. Wouldn't affect folks with normal usage but then again, I'm not normal and I'd rather not buy a drive with artificial restrictions when there are other similar drives with similar pricing that don't have the restriction. Let me kill my drive early if I want to (and just base warranty on MWI instead of years), not gimp performance so I won't have to RMA it within the warranty period.

"Known" being the operative word.

But if there actually is a difference in their treatment, that would certainly be a valid basis for distinguishing among the brands.

It's a manufacturer selectable option. OCZ chose to enable it on their SSDs. Mushkin explicitly states they don't have it enabled on their product page. Intel and SanDisk don't appear to have it enabled either based on the results on the Xtreme Systems endurance testing thread. If LTT was enabled, they wouldn't be able to kill their SSDs that quickly as the write speeds would be throttled to a point such that NAND writes and used P/E cycles don't exceed the "life curve". Mind you, the life curve is pretty generous and you'd need to be writing massive amounts of data to your SSD continuously to hit it. However, since there are plenty of other similarly priced options, why go for the one with restrictions?
Edited by ilovejedd - 7/20/12 at 2:34pm

Pay the price and use SLC based SSD.

That's what I was looking for, but unfortunately I didn't see any SATA III drives on Newegg that were SLC. All SLC drives were Intel coincidentally and were all SATA II, only MLC drives were SATA III. From what I've read though, in terms of how long the SSD will last before the cells start to degrade from too many write/rewrite cycles is still around 15-20 years even on an MLC drive with very strenuous use. Knowing most drives "fail" long before that (5 years), it didn't seem that anyone was too concerned about the fact an MLC won't last as long as an SLC, because in either case most people will replace their drives long before the memory cells are fried.

That's what I understood as well. In fact, what the article seemed to hint at was that Intel's firmware was really at the cutting edge and not only had fewer problems then the standard SF-2281 firmware employed by everyone else (because Intel took their time to run it through the ringer first), but any things that were identified were fixed right away on the Intel. Many of these same defects were problems on other SF-2281 drives as well, but due to the contract with Intel it took a long time for some of these defects that were fixed first for Intel, were eventually fixed in their standard firmware.

So in the SF-2281 space, you basically have Intel, then everyone else. Besides Intel (due to their special firmware), every other SF-2281 device, regardless of brand, used the same firmware and controller, and these are where problems with SSDs to this point have arisen mostly. Thus to piggy back on what you said, with Intel as the only exception, there is no objective reason to view one different then the other. So while you may have a bad taste in your mouth about OCZ due to some other issues, in regards to reliability of their SF-2281 drives they realistically shouldn't be any worse then any of the other drives that use the Sandforce firmware for the SF-2281. You can still make an emotional decision to not buy OCZ, but factually, there isn't any evidence (or logic frankly) that would indicate they should be any worse then any of the other SF-2281 drives (excluding Intel).

Intel is the only one you can seperate out, not just because of their stellar reputation to date, but also because they are the only drive in the SF-2281 space that physically uses different firmware.

Really the most likely to fail are where the FAT are located, same for HDD and SSD. If next generation OS will move location of the FAT around, then SSD will last a long time. Incidentally I have many SLC drives from Sandisk and Samsung, mostly with PATA interface and used in Thinkpads. This is before TRIM and Windows7 time. They are slow by today's standard but dead reliable. Today only enterprise SSD use SLC anymore.

Slickdeals has the 256GB Crucial M4 for $170 plus free shipping. I also see Tigerdirect has the 120GB Intel 520 for $139. Either of these sound like a good deal?

I have really been eying the Intel since they've been so good to date, and $139 seems really cheap for that drive. 120GB should be plenty of space for me, but seeing the 256GB Crucial M4 for only $170 made me think.

Knowing both Intel and Samsung are generally rated near the top for reliability, and knowing Crucial has had some issues (not sure about the M4 which uses Marvell controller), wondering if I'd be better off either going with the Intel or waiting for possibly the Samsung 830 to go on sale? Out of these 3, Intel is the only drive with 5 year warranty vs 3 for the other 2. But to double my drive size for not much more, might be a tradeoff worth considering...

Even the Samsung 830 wasn't completely immune from bugs:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5460/samsung-updates-the-firmware-of-ssd-830-series-fixes-bsod-issue

For double the capacity for an extra $30, I'd go for the Crucial m4 256GB. If you only use half the capacity, then you'll have tons of free space that the SSD controller can use as spare area to maintain drive performance/life.

No, the Intel 520 is NOT a good deal when you can buy the 120GB 330 for $99.99 at Newegg today, unless you somehow think paying $40 for 2 year extended warranty you'll probably never use is a good value. Personally, I don't. Hardware-wise they are identical. Intel apparently slows down the drive slightly by altering the clock speed or something similar in order to create an "entry level" drive, but they're the same drive and you will never notice the speed difference. I know of no good reason to pay an extra $40 for the 520.

Indeed, if I was looking for a 120/128 GB drive today, the 330 is definitely what I would buy. BTW, the 180GB 330 is only $159.99 at Newegg, which is what I'd get if 120 wasn't big enough. (Same price for either one at Amazon, if you prefer buying there.)

Ask yourself this. if you were buying an Intel 330 today at Micro Center, and the gnome at the checkout dutifully asked you if you wanted to buy a 2 year extended warranty for $40, what would you answer? If the answer is "no" then that should tell you all you need to know about paying $40 extra for the 520.

Good point, you're right for only 2 year less warranty that I'd likely never need in the first place, not worth it.

Wondering if it would be worth stepping up to the 256GB Crucial for only $170, vs getting the 120GB 330 for $99 or the 180GB 330 for $160. For only $10 more, I'd get an extra 76GB of storage. Curious if you or others would have serious reservations about NOT getting the M4, or if that wouldn't be much different then anything else NOT named Intel or Samsung?
Edited by bobby2478 - 7/22/12 at 9:59am

+1. Judging from this, it seems the Intel 330 is probably using the same 5,000 P/E cycles rated NAND as the Intel 520:
The likelihood of either SSD failing within 5 years with typical client usage is very slim. The Intel 330 120GB at $100 is a much better value.