Let's count Newegg customer reviews of current SSDs - Who will help?

I'd like to know the reliability rates for every current SSD. We've already done this quick and dirty but now I'd like to do it properly. I invite you all to help.

Here's my suggestion:
-first post which product you're going to count before you count it. This way we prevent doing the work double.
-when posting the result mention the following:
1. product name
2. link to Newegg product page
3. total number of reviews
4. number of failures.

How to count failures.
In essence a failed product is a product that doesn't work.
Include:

• Dead on arrival (product didn't work in the first place)
• failures (product worked but then failed)
• unsolvable critical errors (BSOD, not detected, etc.)
• 'I ordered two, both failed' counts as two failures

Do not include:

• speed issues (unless they're extreme speed issues)
• complaints about firmware update software (update didn't work but drive is working)
• complaints about 25nm NAND
• problems at first but then solved it
• 'my SSD makes noises'
• SMART reading says errors but the drive may still be working like normal

SSD reviews already counted

Corsair Nova V64
Corsair Nova V128

Intel X25m 160GB SSDSA2M160G2XXX

Intel X25m 160GB SSDSA2MH160G2R5

OCZ Agility 2 60GB
OCZ Agility 2 120GB

Corsair Force 60GB - Tsunade_Hime - (21/85)
Intel X25v 40GB - Tsunade_Hime (1/28)

Crucial C300 64GB - Phil (7/284)

Intel X25m 80GB (27/699)
SSDSA2MH080G2K5 - Phil
SSDSA2MJ080G201 - Phil
SSDSA2M080G2XXX - Phil
SSDSA2MH080G2R5 - Phil
SSDSA2M080G2XX - Phil
SSDSA2M080G201 - Phil

OCZ Vertex 2 range - Cloudfire (211/1109)

Intel 320 80GB - Cloudfire
Intel 320 160GB - Cloudfire
Intel 320 300GB - Cloudfire
Intel 510 120GB - Cloudfire
Intel 510 250GB - Cloudfire
Samsung 470 64GB - Phil
Samsung 470 128GB - Phil
Samsung 470 256GB - Phil

SSD reviews being counted at the moment
OCZ Vertex 3 120GB
OCZ Vertex 3 240GB

SSD reviews still to count - who will count them?:
Corsair Force 120GB
Crucial C300 128GB CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1CCA
Crucial C300 128GB CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1
Crucial C300 256GB CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1CCA
Crucial C300 256GB CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1

Intel X25m 160GB SSDSA2MH160G2K5

(this list will be expanded with other models)

If you see any current SSDs missing or any other suggestions please post.

Some things to watch for:
-not every failure is in the 1 star category. Also look for the other star ratings.
-let's only count 2.5" drives for now

Preliminary Results:
Crucial C300 64GB 7/284 = 2.46%
Samsung 470 series 3/109 = 2.75%
Intel X25m (G2) 80GB 27/699 = 3.86%
OCZ Vertex 2 range 211/1109 = 19.0%

Newly released products:
Intel 320 0/29 = 0%
Intel 510 4/56
Vertex 3 2/47

****************
Corsair Force 120GB
- Newegg.com - Corsair Force CSSD-F120GB2-BRKT 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- Reviews: 94
- Failures: 26

 

1. Crucial C300 64GB
2a. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148357
2b. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148361
3. 284 reviews
4. 7 failures
7/284 = 2.46%


1. Intel x25m 80GB SSDSA2M080G2XX
2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7&cm_re=SSDSA2M080G2XX-_-20-167-027-_-Product
3. 19 reviews
4. 1 failure

1. Intel x25m SSDSA2M080G2XXX
2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_re=SSDSA2M080G2XXX-_-20-167-016-_-Product
3. 275 review
4. 8 failures

1. Intel X25m 80GB SSDSA2MH080G2K5
2. Newegg.com - Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH080G2K5 2.5" 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
3. 62 reviews
4. 4 failures

1. Intel X25m 80GB SSDSA2M080G201
2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167018
3. 10
4. 0 (1 questionable speed issues, therefor not counted)

1. Intel x25m 80GB SSDSA2MH080G2R5
2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&cm_re=SSDSA2MH080G2R5-_-20-167-023-_-Product
3. 328 reviews
4. 9 failures

1. Intel X25m SSDSA2MJ080G201
2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167028&Tpk=SSDSA2MJ080G201
3. 5 reviews
4. 1 failure (1 questionable)

1. Samsung 470 64GB
2 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...062&cm_re=samsung_64gb-_-20-147-062-_-Product
3. 54 reviews
4. 1 failure

1. Samsung 470 128GB
2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...63&cm_re=samsung_128GB-_-20-147-063-_-Product
3. 41 reviews
4. 1 failure

1. Samsung 470 256GB
2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147064
3. 14 reviews
4. 1 failure

Samsung 470 failure rate: 3/109 = 2.75%
Intel X25m (G2) 80GB 27/699 = 3.86%

 

OCZ Vertex 2 40GB
Newegg Vertex 2 40GB
49 reviews
6 failures

OCZ Vertex 2 50GB:
Newegg Vertex 2 50GB
90 reviews
12 failures

OCZ Vertex 2 60GB
Newegg Vertex 2 60GB
Newegg Vertex 2 60GB
422 reviews
62 failures (!!!)

OCZ Vertex 2 80GB
Newegg Vertex 2 80GB
29 reviews
11 failures

OCZ Vertex 2 120GB
Newegg Vertex 2 120GB
Newegg Vertex 2 120GB
447 reviews
93 failures (!!!)

OCZ Vertex 2 240GB
Newegg Vertex 2 240GB
Newegg Vertex 2 240GB
72 reviews
27 failures

OCZ Vertex 3 120GB
Newegg Vertex 3 120GB
40 reviews
2 failures

OCZ Vertex 3 240GB
Newegg Vertex 3 240GB
9 reviews
1 failures

Intel 320 40GB
Newegg Intel 320 40GB
4 reviews (OEM included too)
0 failures

Intel 320 80GB
Newegg Intel 320 80GB
1 reviews
0 failures

Intel 320 120GB
Newegg Intel 320 120GB
13 reviews (OEM included)
0 failures

Intel 320 160GB
Newegg Intel 320 160GB
6 reviews
0 failures

Intel 320 300GB
Newegg Intel 320 300GB
2 reviews
0 failures

Intel 320 600GB
Newegg Intel 320 600GB
3 reviews
0 failures

Intel 510 120GB
Newegg Intel 510 120GB
45 reviews
2 failures

Intel 510 250GB
Newegg Intel 510 250GB
11 reviews
2 failures

 

Great

Let me know if you have any doubts about how to count. That way we can make sure everybody counts the same.

 

Love to see that though for a potential buyer, would the time relevancy skew the result ? Take the SF as an example, there was quite a number of failure that has already been fixed by latest firmware. So for a new buyer, using the old reported case is not a true picture(and may be a bit unfair to new SF drive with new firmware).

 

Yes this is definitely a problem but it's hard to do something about it.

Edit: for popular products like Vertex 2 60GB and 120GB we could include a rating for the last 6 months.

I suggest we count 'drive not being detected' as a failure (unless it was solved). Harsh for the manufacturer but reality for the consumer.

 

Phil maybe you can update your OP so that you can put a "check mark" next to the ones that have already been counted?

Or maybe even post the results in the OP itself?

Mr. Mysterious

 

Good idea. I've put the SSD that still need counting in the list:
SSD reviews still to count

The results are mentioned in the OP.

Thanks for your suggestions.

 

I`m done. So tired. Did my part. Don`t want to look at newegg ever again.

 

Thanks man. I feel I'm done too.

The OCZ Vertex 2 range has 211 failures in 1109 reviews. A whopping 19.0%.

 

wow. I was shocked when i went through the ratings of them. Several of the people was on their 3rd drive after 2 of them failing, but i didn`t count 2 because it was only 1 rating.

Vertex 3 looks very promising though. Let us hope that the failure won`t be popping in after a month or so.

 

The 80 and 240GB Vertex2's are scary. We're looking at over 1/3rd of the drives failing... 19% overall looks positively glowing compared to that.

Now to completely gut what I just said, the thing to remember is that people tend to review only when things fail them, not when they're good. So these are likely highly inflated numbers. That doesn't mean the comparisons between brands aren't accurate, but it does mean that the raw "failure rate" isn't going to be accurate and much higher than it actually is.

 

Intel X25-V 40GB
- Newegg.com - Intel X25-V SSDSA2MP040G2K5 2.5" 40GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- 28 Reviews
- 1 Failure

Corsair Force 60GB
- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...33124&cm_re=force_60gb-_-20-233-124-_-Product
- 85 Reviews
- 21 Failures

Also doesn't it not sample how good drives are. Most people who write reviews are the extremes. Extremely happy people or extremely mad customers. We don't get the median whose drives work but they had have had the occasional hiccup.

 

Yeah, I've purchased 3 Intel G2s (80, 120, and a 160) from Newegg and installed them in 3 different lappys. All 3 are still running perfecto but I can't be bothered to write reviews on them.
I sure read plenty before deciding to buy them tho.

 

I'd like to come back to the point made here by chimpanzee. The design flaw in this study is so critical that unless it is addressed, your results should be discredited. Although this is a tough issue to solve, I can't let it be dismissed. I could offer a suggestion:

Ideally we'd want to count the failure rates of drives bought in the future; this would tell us the most reliable drive to buy from now on. Of course this is not possible as we don't have any future reviews. However, we can find which drive would have been the most reliable to buy at any given point in the past: we simply need to count the failure rates in reviews of drives bought since that time point.

I'm not familiar with the review system on Newegg, but if you count the reviews written for drives bought since, say, 6 months ago, you can find the most reliable drive to buy 6 months ago. As long as there have been no major changes to any of the drives in 6 months, this will give a good representation of the failure rates of drives bought today.

I don't know when the last major update was done to any of the drives which are being considered, but find that date and look at only the reviews of drives bought since then. Remember to look at the date of purchase, not of review.

Sorry to complicate things but I don't want a worthless study to take place.

 

It's your assumption that the study would otherwise be worthless. Certainly not mine because products like Vertex 2 and Intel G2 have been selling for years. I'm much more interested in their overall reliability than in the last 6 months reliability.

And like I already answered before, for some popular products like Vertex 2 60Gb and 120GB it's easy to count the failures that happened in the last 6 months. We only need people to actually do it.

And we still have these SSDs to count:
Corsair Nova 64GB
Corsair Nova 128GB
Corsair Force 120GB
Crucial C300 128GB CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1CCA
Crucial C300 128GB CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1
Crucial C300 256GB CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1CCA
Crucial C300 256GB CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1

Intel X25m 160GB SSDSA2M160G2XXX
Intel X25m 160GB SSDSA2MH160G2K5
Intel X25m 160GB SSDSA2MH160G2R5
OCZ Agility 2 60GB
OCZ Agility 2 120GB

 

I agree. However there are suprisingly many people there who post ratings when they are satisfied with their product. But there is probably more unsatisfied than satisfied which makes the whole failure rate of the product in general a bit flawed. But i`m betting that the same amount of people who buy the Intel will go to newegg and complain as people from OCZ. So you get atleast a picture of which brands are the most reliable between them.

I just repeated what you said, but just want to make it clear that this study is quite interesting and give us some idea.

 

even while the study is not accurate, the amount where the vertex is off is big enough to put up the question "why". there are different answers, but most do not put a good light on the vertex.

 

It seems Corsair Force has exactly the same problem.

So maybe it's not OCZ that's the problem, it's Sandforce 1200.

 

the ocz problem is that they're a bunch of liars that sell you anything.

the sandforce 1200 is not the only product with problems they tried to sell and lied to their customers while doing so.

so yes and no, it's not only an ocz problem. but they're problem magnets

 

In my opinion it would be worse than useless. Your introduction included:

This study would not find that. Furthermore, the results would mislead people looking to buy an SSD in the future.

It annoys me when people throw around misleading or wrong statistics because people end up listening to them, and even repeating them. Remember that French website people kept posting which talked about reliability rates? That annoyed me, and I don't want this to turn into one of those.

If you don't want to to deal with the issue, you'll end up with numbers which are outdated and wrong today. If you decide to continue anyway I'll not trouble you again, but I'd appreciate it if it was made clear the exact context of the results whenever they are repeated on this forum such that people are not mislead.

 

That's plain wrong. Even if the Vertex 2 has become more reliable in the last 6 months, the numbers are totally right. The numbers are the reported failures over the entire product life of the Vertex 2. Not just the last 6 months.

If you want to count only the last 6 months please go ahead. But those numbers won't be accurate because those people only had their drive for 6 months.

 

6 months was a random time frame. I meant go back as far as you can without stepping over any major revisions to the drives.

 

There were no mayor revisions. OCZ has been updating the firmware gradually many times. If you buy a Vertex now from Newegg it can still come with outdated firmware.

I think these numbers are more accurate when they reflect OCZ (/Sandforce) firmware problems, like they do now.

 

All the Vertex 2 drives are still plagued with failures. Lots of bad feedbacks in this month.

 

OCZ Agility 2 60GB
- Newegg.com - OCZ Agility 2 OCZSSD2-2AGTE60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- 252 Reviews
- 42 Failures

I would say most of the failures occurred within the past 4 months.

Intel X25-M G2 160GB SSDSA2MH160G2R5
- Newegg.com - Intel X25-M Mainstream SSDSA2MH160G2R5 2.5" 160GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- 97 Reviews
- 6 Failures

Intel X25-M G2 160GB SSDSA2M160G2XXX
- Newegg.com - Intel X25-M Mainstream SSDSA2M160G2XXX 2.5" 160GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) - SSD
- 87 Reviews
- 3 Failures

OCZ Agility 2 120GB
- Newegg.com - OCZ Agility 2 OCZSSD2-2AGTE120G 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- 132 Reviews
- 48 Failures

 

Great work Tsunade_Hime. Thanks for your contribution.

I'll start counting the Corsair Novas now.

Edit: Corsair Nova V64 5 failures in 54 reviews

Corsair Nova V128 4 failures in 27 reviews.

Overall failure rate 11.1%

 

Im not feeling so good

 

Corsair Force 120GB
- Newegg.com - Corsair Force CSSD-F120GB2-BRKT 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- Reviews: 94
- Failures: 26

Crucial C300 128GB CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1CCA
- Newegg.com - Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1CCA 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- Reviews 52
- Failures: 4

Crucial C300 128GB CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1
- Newegg.com - Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- Reviews 256
- Failures: 6

Crucial C300 256GB CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1CCA
- Newegg.com - Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1CCA 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- Reviews: 10
- Failures: 1 (kinda iffy)

Crucial C300 256GB CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1
- Newegg.com - Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- Reviews: 122
- Failures: 15

Intel X25-M 160GB SSDSA2MH160G2K5
- Newegg.com - Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH160G2K5 2.5" 160GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
- Reviews: 10
- Failures: 0

 

Great to see crucial has amazing reliability rates!

Mr. Mysterious

 

That's probably orders of magnitude higher than the actual fail rate, since this study has what is called "response bias" in statistics: it's been proven before that users whose products do not function up to expectations are many times more likely to post feedback, whereas those whose products work perfectly are much less likely to take the time to contribute.

I'm a good example. I have perfectly functioning Intel X25-M and Samsung 470 Series SSDs, however, I've never posted a review before.

So, bottom line: you can't use the absolute percentages as a meaningful number, because it's not. But, if you compare to other SSDs with a similar time on the market, similar number of reviews, and similar category, then the numbers could potentially give an idea of relative reliability.

 

I hate to go against the grain, but what is the current hypothesis and what conclusions are we trying to draw?

There's a good reason why scientific papers contain more than just tables of data. If we're blindly collect data without knowing what to look for, we'll only end up with a difficult to interpret sea of information from which just about any conclusion can be drawn. That's probably what some of the posters have an issue with.

Perhaps somebody well versed in data mining or business management could start us off by asking some intriguing questions to focus and guide this study?

 

The only way to get truly reliable data is to buy 1000's...preferably 10,000 SSDs per brand. And test them out over 10 years in a variety of scenarios.

Then record the results, do some basic statistical analysis and post the results.

Anyone want to volunteer?

Mr. Mysterious

 

When I click on the 1 star reviews here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...rue&Keywords=(keywords)&Page=1#scrollFullInfo

I don't see any 1 star review. According to Newegg there should be 5! Anyone know what's going on.

It could be interesting but I don't think it will be necessary. There are all kinds of limitations in these numbers and I think most people realize that.

However, it is possible to draw the following conclusions:

-Sandforce 1200 drives like Vertex 2 and Corsair Force have significantly higher failure rates than more reliable drives like Crucial C300 or Samsung 470.

-Intel X25m was often regarded as the most reliable drive of all. These data show that Samsung 470 and Crucial C300 may be at least as reliable or maybe even more reliable.

I advise a lot of people on which SSD to buy. In the past I have often recommended Sandforce 1200 drives. I won't be doing that anymore.
I've been saying 'if you want the most reliable get the Intel X25m'. I won't be saying that anymore.

 

as it's impossible to get sales/returnrates as that's normally not public, it's the only data we have and can do statistics on. and so far, the data proves what we expected: vertex2 being massively out the line, and the others more or less the same. this combined with the issues that ocz went trough, the revisions, the lies, the firmware updates, the dramas on the big pages, etc, together all shows the same: the vertex2 is special, and not in a good way.

 

To add, Corsair Force is equally bad as Vertex 2, indicating that Sandforce 1200 has massive problems.

 

indeed. still, no one was doing so much publicity stunts as ocz. their vertex series has a questionable quality (as we have further proof in this thread), so did their core line.

i'm still impressed people still buy from them..

 

The numbers compared to all shipments may be fairly inaccurate, since we all know owner reviews are very subjective and bad news posts a lot more than good news. (and especially no news and boring news, those two guys never post)

But you would have to really put your head deep in the sand to claim that there isn't a pattern of problems with many OCZ drives compared to most other major models.

Those posts on newegg and similar sites are not meaningless, even if they aren't from a peer reviewed double blind paper

 

There's a lot more to reliability than simple failures, though. If you happen to be one of the unlucky C300 owners whose hardware/software combination happens to trigger the firmware bug, I doubt you'd call the C300 a reliable drive even though it's technically functional. In that sense, Intel and Samsung are still ahead.

Now that you mention it, I'm starting to get curious about SF-1500. I assume it'd be roughly the same as SF-1200, but that wouldn't be very scientific.

The Vertex 2 has been the cheapest option in the super popular 60GB ($95) and 120GB ($175) space for months, probably thanks to the 25nm switch.

Looking at 120GB models, prices for the C300 ($200) have dropped significantly in recent weeks thanks to the M4, but that's a very recent phenomenon - as recently as 2 weeks ago, a 128GB C300 cost $220-$240. The X25-M G2 ($230) remains considerably more expensive than the Vertex 2, and Corsair Force ($230) price levels have been essentially flat since the end of last year.

Someone who's not familiar with the latest SSD market news could easily pick a Vertex 2 simply based on the price and the (no longer true) idea that all Sandforce drives are the same.

It's a shame that the no news and boring news groups are extremely underrepresented. They're by far the most statistically interesting groups since they reflect the vast majority of users who are satisfied with their purchase, but not to the point of boasting about it. For the record, I've never had a problem with any of my SSDs and I've never written a review for any of them either, and I've had Intel, Samsung, and Sandforce drives.

 

true that they are popular and payable. still, the amount of issues where since day one, and didn't reduce over time. popularity or not, it's scarily high.

 

Just to clarify, if someone with C300 experienced heavy stuttering and RMAed the drive because of that, I count that as a failure.

I'm expecting Tsunade did the same. But let's ask him to confirm.

PS. Intel and Samsung also have their problems, so I'd put them in the same league.

 

Yes I counted SSD stuttering w/ RMA as a failure. Some where it was stuttering and they didn't RMA it I did count as for me doesn't count as normal operation, thus a defect/failure.

Funny one of the C300 128GB hardly had any issues while another 256GB was plagued with issues.

Edit: Phil update the first post, all SSDs on the to be counted list are done.

 

Yes the C300 256GB CTFDDAC256MAG-1G1 seems to have a lot more failures than the other C300 models.

I hope the new firmware update fixes their issues. Overall the C300 seems like a very reliable drive though.

 

If you click on "all reviews" you will find 17 reviews while it should be 43 of them. Weird.

EDIT: I counted that one earlier yes. I found 1 failure. I see that 7 new reviews have been added since then. Interesting

 

It's very weird. I can only see the 5 star reviews now.

 

Maybe newegg heard of what we're doing and decided to stop it?

Mr. Mysterious

 

That's what I thought too. Or maybe someone from OCZ was watching and contacted Newegg.

Edit: it's working now! Only one real failure (DOA) for the 120GB model. Not bad.

The 240GB seems to have 1 RMA.

 

This study is not worthless.

As MidnightSun said, there is bias to the study because it is response based; not everyone is forced to truthfully review their drive after "X" of months. The TRUE percentage of failure cannot EVER be known unless you are able to sample EVERY SINGLE drive X months after it was manufactured, but a range of failure rates can be estimated with a high margin of error. This is considered bad statistics, yes, and the study is not deemed "credible", BUT it is not even close to WORTHLESS.

What Phil is trying to do, is to simply compile data so that you can get a general sense of how reliable these SSD's are, according to people who have decided to respond. Try finding anything other than individual, non organized forum posts like: "Is this SSD reliable/fast? . . . Vertex2 sucks . . . My SSD's 4k score is lower than my friend's help?!?!, etc" when trying to research hardware. It is a nightmare and I appreciate the time he's putting into this.

So many of you are instantly convinced by a neighbors', a parent's, or best friend's opinion on certain brands or products and you will agree on it without realizing its only 1 of a billion different points of view, but instantly refute Newegg reviews as if they were anything different than what your brother recommended.

Something is always better than nothing at all.

 

Thats not a unreasonable assumption.Really sounds like something they would do.

Just thinking like that about a high end company like them speaks volumes about there reputation

 

I updated the 120 GB version. 1 more failure and 2 more reviews