SSD manufacturers' reliability, performance and pricing discussion

Hi folks,

Since the most 3 important characters of an SSD are:

- Reliability

- Performance

- Price

I put them under that order because I believe that like me, a lot of you might consider reliability as the most important because SSDs are still something "luxury" compare to HDD, and for the money spent we all want a reliable drive, dont we?

Performance is next. A SSD with best performance but poor reliability is still a bad SSD, isnt it ?

Price is my last concern because as I mentioned, SSD is still kinda expensive. You are willing to pay $200 for an SSD, why not pay more $20-$30 if its worth it ?

I have much interest in SSDs because it's a developing industry. Not like HDD which is mature already, IMO.

I know theres a thread for SSD benchmark, brands, etc. already but I jsut want to focus on BRANDS - this is what the majority would be concern about the most.

Meanwhile, there are also different threads of OCZ Vertex 3, Intel 510, Intel 320, C400... and not all are released. Its kinda speculation, lack of information and difficult to get an overall idea.

But they're gonna be released very soon. So I open this thread to discuss more about those characters of manufacturers, especially RELIABILITY.

My first question is, since the C400 just has a great review recently

Crucial M4 256GB SATA 3 SSD Review – Unexpected Performance in a Small Package

PCMark Vantage, as many ppl has said, is considered to be the best real-world benchmark for SSD.




I kinda lean toward it (I was considering Intel 510). My only concern is the reliability of C400 (or M4) or Micron's SSD in general.

Have any one of you had good/bad experience with your C300 ? I know C400 may be different from C300 but history is still something to consider.

Thanks folks !

 

You picked a good site to base your knowledge on, but I wouldn't rely on any one benchmark. For example, the Samsung 470 has a low score on this chart, but if you read the review of it, it's a solid performer and a much stronger contender than it's scores give it credit for. I'd also say that Samsung has pretty good reliability based on their previous drives.

Unless you need top performance for benchmarks or perform really heavily I/O based tasks, most of these drives will appear to perform the same despite differences in speed since the time it takes for the drive to accomplish simple tasks is less than the brain/eye can perceive.

 

Thanks ! I dont rely on benchmark either, but another reason I am considering the C400 is for resale. I would have picked up an Intel 510 if I didnt see not many people are interested in it. Maybe its a bad timing because new SSDs are being released very soon.

According to some reliable info, Micron's failure rate is almost the same as OCZ, but i dont see many complains ? Crucial's reliability is somewhat I am questioning atm.

 

SSD failure rates from overclockers.com thread
Intel 0,59%
Corsair 2,17%
Crucial 2,25%
Kingston 2,39%
OCZ 2,93%

certainly higher then Intel, but it seems crucial is good about replacements.. they have a nice support following on nbr and on the crucial forums

 

EDIT: A quick Google translate gives this additional information. This is failure rates for the first year only, ie failures within a year of the sale. So it is only infant mortality rates and so does not include any wear-out-the-flash failures. Also, it only includes the drives that have been returned to the store, not drives RMA'ed directly to the manufacturer, which mean manufacturers with good customer RMA service probably have their failure rates underestimated.

This is an added edit to the above reference (same source). I believe it to be true, so in essence, your biggest concern (providing you backup religiously) is the rma/return policy. Certain retailers are much better than others, so this could help ease your mind about what you buy depending on their specific policy. I think if you choose you retailer wisely, you can then use performance and cost to your advantage. Using that same logic, buy with the understanding that every drive has the potential to be one of the lemons in that batch, so the ease of replacement/return becomes more important. Other than Intel, the rates are not very far apart, and that difference could be because of the above added edit. Although I have probably been lucky with my purchases over the years, I buy assuming something could go wrong, and therefore plan where to buy to make it as painless as possible if it does go wrong. If the return/replacement policy is satisfactory, I go for performance. I don't like to compromise and wish later I had made a different decision. I hope this helps.

I also think some of the reasoning against the Intel 510 is from people unsure because they have been waiting on the Intel G3's, so don't want to make the jump yet.

 

This is my thinking too. I was all set for a c300, then I was convinced that I should go with Intel because they're more reliable. I've been unsure of the performance from the 510 (based on benches since I don't have the drive), so I've been second guessing the choice. I'm paying 2700 for this machine so I want parts that I'm going to be happy with. I'm not saying the 510 isn't a huge leap from my current 5400rpm drive, but I want the best that's available at this point.

That's why I'm trying to get my hands on the c400. I like it's seq speeds fir my sata3 port, and it's super randoms.

 

As far as I know those numbers are from 1 french store. And they're not failure numbers, they're return numbers.

So many people that were dissatisfied with OCZ JMicron performance may have returned it, leading to higher number of returns.

Add to that what Abidderman said.

 

Thanks guys for the info.
I understand that any product could be a bad one in the batch. However, When using the term "reliBility" I also mean the "degration" of the ssd even with Trim support. Thats more important to me. For that said, intel ssds remain their performance longer than the other competitors, is this true? OCZ seems bad at this, but for crucial i have no clue.

This is a test of a guy used 4 x c300 without TRIM after 7 months - seems very good

C300's after 7 months of thrashing

 

OCZ








Just kidding!


(this was done after latest secure erase + install apps + 3 hours garbage collection. Drive is 2 months old and using latest firmware. Giant sadface!)

 

First off, PCMark Vantage is biased towards high 4K R r/w's. This writes it off as a 'most real world benchmark' to me.

Second, you're not reading the reviews properly.

The Intel 510 vs. the Vertex 3 in actual real world timings (not benchmarks) is 4 seconds slower. 4 Seconds slower in 870 seconds total and handicapped by 4K R r/w's speeds that are ridiculed all over the web as 'slower than last generation'.

Intel knows how to build drives, not only for reliability, but also for real performance too. Stop reading about benchmarks and look past the marketing hype the very obviously biased reviewers are all gaga about.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/7280905-post58.html

 

This is what I am talking about. Check out the return policy, then check out the drive in real life. If your happy, keep it. If not, return it. You need to be happy with it. Any single drive can be be bad. Any single drive can be less impressive than the PR says. The ability to return/replace becomes more important. It needs to fit Your requirments. Not mine... or anyone elses requirements. If your the one paying and needing it.

 

I have an ssd I love and saves me a boatload of time. I did a review of the time it saves me... about 3 times the price I paid in a year. Great for me. Doesn't mean it works for you. Try the one you like, if it doesn't work right, return in given time constraints) and try something else.

 

One of few reviews that NOT recommend intel 510

HEXUS.net - Review :: Intel 510 Series 120GB SSD review : Page - 8/8

 

from the above article.. not completely dogging it, but not high marks either. this is why I was ambivalent about it. Newegg reviews aren't superb either (4/5 for the 120GB and 3/5 for the 250GB).

having my laptop put on hold until they can get a c400 in it

 

Hizz, how do you like your Pollux? I have been looking at one for a couple of weeks. I have heard good things about Mythlogic, Are you happy with them?

 

Don't have the rig yet :/ there's a few people in the Sager owners lounge that have gotten their Pollux though. Hopefully I'll get mine in the next week though

I have nothing but great things to say about mythlogic though they've been very helpful, even though I've changed my configurations a billion times lol.

 

Torai,

I too would not recommend the 120GB Intel 510, though not for the reasons your link states.

A bigger capacity will always prove to be better as long as controllers are based on 10 channels or less (and lower capacities mean populating less channels on the respective controller).

All the 'tests' done on that link are essentially meaningless to me. No real world tests that are done with a simple stopwatch and real tasks.

As long as buyers keep purchasing on these new 'numbers' that manufacturers keep wanting uniformed consumers to chase; then SSD's will be never take the crown as overall storage champions as we keep being told they should (for a few years already).

When the manufacturers cannot manipulate the available benchmarks anymore, then they'll have to really innovate again - that's when a real performance increase will actually happen.

I'm very happy that at least one manufacturer (Intel) doesn't follow these childish footsteps and simply gives us products that we can rely on and hopefully increase our productivity with at a fair price.

And, they've been doing that for 2 yrs or more now. I wish all competitors gave such focus to their SSD lineup.

 

I agree.. Intel is doing a great job. Don't particularly like that they didn't make their own controller for their 510 line up, but oh well.

I also agree that higher capcity drives yield better performance, but those of us that are bound to the middle of the pack have to compromise it seems. Can't get the huge performance/capacity of the larger drives, dont want to be stuck with the "crippled" performance of the smaller drives. Idk