# Best SSDs?



## Fizban (Jul 24, 2013)

I recently puchased a 256 GB SanDisk x110, but it wound up being DOA so I returned it, it appeared to be one of the better "bang for buck" SSD's at the moment (I paid $197.18 for it), but am debating now whether to order another one, or look into other models instead.

I figure all models have SSD's that are faulty, so not going to write off the x110 lineup as being bad just because I had a bad experience with the first one I tried.

Any specific alternative model that I should look into?


----------



## manofthem (Jul 24, 2013)

I'd fancy the Samsung 840 Pro, like a pro


----------



## Fizban (Jul 24, 2013)

The Samsung 840 Pro does look like a great SSD, originally went for the sandisk largely because it came out to be 77 cents per GB as opposed to the 840 pro's 94 cents per GB.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jul 24, 2013)

840 pro
corsair force
corsair neutron
ocz vertex 4.50
ocz vector
ocz vertex 4


----------



## pigulici (Jul 24, 2013)

+1 for Samsung 840 pro(I have 2x samsung 830, verry happy)...


----------



## Jetster (Jul 24, 2013)

Samsung or Intel


----------



## RCoon (Jul 24, 2013)

Quit now while you're ahead. 99% of people (including me) are going to tell you to get the Samsung 840 (Basic or Pro, depends on budget).
The new Toshiba range however, is exceptionally fast.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Toshiba/THNSNH256GCST_256_GB/


----------



## McSteel (Jul 24, 2013)

Using the 840 Pro, still can't get used to the speed-up...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 24, 2013)

well wanting the "best" in term for bang for bucks is understandable and if i didnt found a Vertex 3, unused and still in original sealed box for 70$, i would have gone Samsung 840 pro aswell


----------



## Jetster (Jul 24, 2013)

I had two of the Vertex 3 120s I bought for $70 each. Sold them both for $90 each and bought a Samsung 840 250Gb


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm happy with both my Vertex 4 and my Corsair Force 3. The Samsungs are nice too though.


----------



## Maleko (Jul 24, 2013)

Have a Samsung 830 myself, fantastic drive


----------



## Kaynar (Jul 24, 2013)

I read somewhere that samsung has a new series of SSD coming at the price point of the 840 basic line but 2 times faster than the 840pro line...


----------



## Fourstaff (Jul 24, 2013)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269-6.html

Not the best article for SSDs but its a good start.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 24, 2013)

Kaynar said:


> I read somewhere that samsung has a new series of SSD coming at the price point of the 840 basic line but 2 times faster than the 840pro line...



Its called the evo .
I have two 250 basics and for performance v price they can't be beat and mainly are slower at writing not reading I get 450 mb read rates from full ssds and don't write often to them so id go with them again if needed.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 24, 2013)

Samsung 840 Pro because of its Magician software that lets you:

Manually purge deleted data (manual optimization), without waiting for TRIM to ruminate on it, getting instant write performance gains
Set overprovisioning amount, without destroying most kinds of partition records (some kinds will get destroyed)
Download and update the drive's latest firmware with Windows still running (and running off the drive you're trying to update)
Detect if TRIM is working like it should
These are things that [insert SandForce SSD maker] told us couldn't be done.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2013)

Can you change the overprovisioning size while the drive is being used as the boot disk?


----------



## Jetster (Jul 24, 2013)

silkstone said:


> Can you change the overprovisioning size while the drive is being used as the boot disk?



You can reduce the unallocated space but its difficult to increase it. You want to start with 20 percent then if you need a bigger drive just expand your partition reducing your unused drive space


----------



## ne6togadno (Jul 24, 2013)

Jetster said:


> You can reduce the unallocated space but its difficult to increase it. You want to start with 20 percent then if you need a bigger drive just expand your partition reducing your unused drive space



20% is too much
here you can see what ocz stuff answered to my questions about OP and monitoring of ssd health


----------



## v12dock (Jul 24, 2013)

+1 Samsung 840 Pro


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2013)

Samsung 840 Pro or OCZ Vector.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 24, 2013)

I've been pretty happy with both of my Corsair Force GTs.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2013)

Jetster said:


> You can reduce the unallocated space but its difficult to increase it. You want to start with 20 percent then if you need a bigger drive just expand your partition reducing your unused drive space



I was asking specifically about the Samsung 840. You can change the overprovisioned space on the corsair force 3 drives, but it must be done when set up as a slave.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 24, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Samsung 840 Pro because of its Magician software that lets you:
> 
> Manually purge deleted data (manual optimization), without waiting for TRIM to ruminate on it, getting instant write performance gains
> Set overprovisioning amount, without destroying most kinds of partition records (some kinds will get destroyed)
> ...



My non pros do all this for less money and only 30mbs less read speed but admittedly half the write speed which does not matter unless you Are a Pro doing writes to the drive often.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Jul 24, 2013)

well i think i personally am going 840 Pro or Reg depending on what i can afford


----------



## Hood (Jul 24, 2013)

Samsung 840 Pro
Corsair Neutron GTX
Sandisk Extreme II
These are the top performing SSDs, all are considered very reliable, all come with toolkit software for optimizing the drive.  They all perform best in 240GB sizes and up, because these sizes have enough NAND chips for fast parallel writes, but the 120/128 models are still best in class.  I've been using a Crucial M4 128 as my boot drive for 8 months, just recently acquired a Samsung 840 Pro 128, and my system feels a lot faster now, so yes, it matters what model of SSD you use.  The Sandisk X110 is unproven, and I can't find any serious reviews.  You're only saving $20 on a 256GB drive; not worth it IMHO.  Go for the Sammy Pro, or for $10 less, the Neutron GTX, your system will run at it's best.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 24, 2013)

Over provisioning. Its just unallocated space. You can use the provided software from Samsung or OCZ but you can also just use windows disk manager to extend or shrink the volume. I know this from the Samsung support and changing it in disk manager and checking it with the Magician software afterwards. It works. That's why it better to have more. You can always decrease the percentage of OP as your drive fills up.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2013)

Tigerdirect have 840's for $80 AR atm.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...ffiliateID=rGMTN56tf_w-wMPU_lFBnY.s0tlRboQIiQ


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2013)

Not the PRO though. Those are a lot slower writes wise remember.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2013)

You wouldn't really notice a difference coming from a HDD. I barely notice any difference on my Corsiair and (faster) Vertex.

IMO, the high-end drives are over-rated.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2013)

I can notice a difference from my Vertex 2 and Vector when installing(writing) applications. The Vtx2 speeds are twice as fast as that Samsung who's write speeds are as fast as a modern HDD. 

THough one is not installing things most of the time, you are reading them, part of the point, to me at least, is to experience all of what SSD's can offer. One with 130MB writes that are as fast as a HDD isn't a drive I would go for myself. 

It will still be a significant upgrade, especially post installation of apps, from a HDD though particularly in the reads and IOPS.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 24, 2013)

silkstone said:


> You wouldn't really notice a difference coming from a HDD. I barely notice any difference on my Corsiair and (faster) Vertex.
> 
> IMO, the high-end drives are over-rated.



Exactly and since most dont write often the pro write speeds are wasted on almost all.
How many times do you put software on a drive, for most just the once like me.
Once my Os and software is on ,there is scarcely any writing to the ssd going on.

Pros are for working Professional users that write a lot or the epeen crowd and non pros do NOT write at hdd speeds not that it matters much anyway but 250 mbs write 540 read (same read as pro)  and fifty pound cheaper in the UK I bought two to raid 0  but they are fast enough that I didn't bother.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 24, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Quit now while you're ahead. 99% of people (including me) are going to tell you to get the Samsung 840 (Basic or Pro, depends on budget).
> The new Toshiba range however, is exceptionally fast.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Toshiba/THNSNH256GCST_256_GB/



So true, i have to Sammy 240 pro's if they were in stoke at the time and screw budget save up some more as you will get more including a 5 year warranty.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Exactly and since most dont write often the pro write speeds are wasted on almost all.
> How many times do you put software on a drive, for most just the once like me.
> Once my Os and software is on ,there is scarcely any writing to the ssd going on.
> 
> Pros are for working Professional users that write a lot or the epeen crowd and non pros do NOT write at hdd speeds not that it matters much anyway but 250 mbs write 540 read (same read as pro)  and fifty pound cheaper in the UK I bought two to raid 0  but they are fast enough that I didn't bother.


Perhaps newegg.com and TD are wrong? The TD link above shows 130MB writes and so does the newegg link. That is HDD speeds and slower than SATAII SSDs by 2x (granted IOPS on the writes are a ton faster than a HDD, but I think you may now get my point). That said, you are correct (as I also stated) that once one installs software that is generally it.But if you have the $40 to step up to the Pro, why not?

I have to admit its a bit ironic you talk about Pro's and epeen yet you bought two SSDs to put in R0... I assume you manipulate large files quite a bit, hence a need for it? Or like to sit waiting for other players in a MP game? Boot times are barely faster due to the RAID bits loading so it wasnt for quicker boots...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 24, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Perhaps newegg.com and TD are wrong? The TD link above shows 130MB writes and so does the newegg link. That is HDD speeds and slower than SATAII SSDs by 2x. That said, you are correct (as I also stated) that once one installs software that is generally it.But if you have the $40 to step up to the Pro, why not?
> 
> I have to admit its a bit ironic you talk about Pro's and epeen yet you bought two to put in R0... I assume you manipulate large files quite a bit, hence a need for it?



They are wrong I am Write.
I am not saying they have no value just not worth the extra for a gamer / enthusiasts.
Finally haha you got me there but I wanted faster then the revox2 120 gig I was using which still beats most drives today but found little noticeable gain and that's why im piping up    you?.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 24, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> My non pros do all this for less money and only 30mbs less read speed but admittedly half the write speed which does not matter unless you Are a Pro doing writes to the drive often.



Non-pro's write performance is kinda bad. He's willing to shell out $200, so he'll get Pro in that money.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2013)

Samsung's site is wrong as well I guess... 

The OP asked for the BEST SSD, not a budget SSD too.


----------



## erocker (Jul 24, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Non-pro's write performance is kinda bad. He's willing to shell out $200, so he'll get Pro in that money.



Yes. I have two of them. They're not very good for an O/S drive. If you need something to put your games on though, they're quite good since it's all read.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2013)

A great point erocker as most of the drive activity (writing wise) once in windows are small 4k or less (think page file). With 32k IOPS versus ~triple that on the Pro, I can see it making a difference there as well.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 24, 2013)

Also Pro has the extra 6 GB space.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 24, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Samsung's site is wrong as well I guess...
> 
> The OP asked for the BEST SSD, not a budget SSD too.


Yes indeed what a tw@t I am trying to save a guy some money feck it then
Op you want the fastest , you can't afford it but it'll be pciex based

Oh and you linked the 120 not the 250 which is what I suggested and does write at 250mbs ish

For clarity id add twenty quid and get two samy non pro 250 gb which do 500-540mbs read and 230-260mb write oh thats what I didxD.

And if I Had raided them for twenty quid more thats 800-1000mbs read and 4-500 write with plenty of io 90-120000


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2013)

Oops, yep... that 256 is 240MB! My apologies. Its still half the write speed of Vertex 4, Vector, Sandisk Extreme II, Adata XPG SX900, YADA, BUT... twice as fast as a HDD! 

No problem with saving anyone money. Just noting its half the write speeds of different and just as reliable drives. 

It appears that the OP should have plenty of information to make an informed decision at this time, which was intent to initially.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 25, 2013)

erocker said:


> Yes. I have two of them. They're not very good for an O/S drive. If you need something to put your games on though, they're quite good since it's all read.



$240 for 1 x 256 samsung 840 Pro
$160 for 2 x 120 Samsung 840's in Raid 0.
($240 for 3 x 120 Samsung 840's)

I believe that they'd give similar write performance. Though I hear that TRIM doesn't work in Raid 0,or did they fix that already?

My Corsair Force 3 is an OS drive (and is all read). It works great. Though it does say 510 MB/s max sequential write. Why are the Samsung 840's only 130 MB/s?


----------



## Fourstaff (Jul 25, 2013)

Using 840 non pro ATM, other than sequential write I think it performs at least as good, if not better than my friend's 830. We can agree that 830 is quite good for last gen, yes?


----------



## AsRock (Jul 25, 2013)

silkstone said:


> $240 for 1 x 256 samsung 840 Pro
> $160 for 2 x 120 Samsung 840's in Raid 0.
> ($240 for 3 x 120 Samsung 840's)
> 
> ...



Trim works on INTEL chipsets and believe it they got it sorted out in 11.5 of the drivers although there is 12.5 now.

From the IRST help file.


> This feature provides support for all pass-through solid-state drives (SSDs) in your storage system that meets the ATA-8 protocol requirements. Also, support is provided for SSDs that are part of a RAID 0 array. This feature optimizes write operations, helps reduce device wear, and maintains unused storage area on devices as large as possible.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 25, 2013)

Trim with RAID works with 7X, 8X Intel chipsets


----------



## McSteel (Jul 25, 2013)

silkstone said:


> $240 for 1 x 256 samsung 840 Pro
> $160 for 2 x 120 Samsung 840's in Raid 0.
> ($240 for 3 x 120 Samsung 840's)
> 
> ...



TRIM does work, and you can always use Samsung Magician for manual TRIMming.
The low write performance is due to the non-Pro using TLC (Triple Level Cell) flash. This means that each flash memory cell holds three bits of information, for a total of 8 possible states. This means that the write voltage is higher, and that both writing and especially erasing take longer than in MLC and SLC flash chips.

Sequential writes are all nice and dandy, but most of the time you will have random writes, and those are much less affected, especially at deeper queues. You're much more likely to need a bunch of small-to-medium size files from your drive than a single, continuous large file. And even then ~130 MB/s is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 25, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> Using 840 non pro ATM, other than sequential write I think it performs at least as good, if not better than my friend's 830. We can agree that 830 is quite good for last gen, yes?


It should perform as good as it has similar specs really...still has low writes compared to most other drives, but yes, its solid.

830 (128GB):
Max Sequential Read
*Up to 520 MB/s*
Max Sequential Write
*Up to 320 MB/s*
4KB Random Read
Up to 80,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write
Up to *30,000 IOPS*

840(256GB)
Sustained Sequential Read
530 MB/s
Sustained Sequential Write
*240 MB/s*
4KB Random Read
Up to 95,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write
*Up to 44,000 IOPS*


----------



## Iceni (Jul 25, 2013)

I have the 840 250Gb. 

Real world figures on my P67 chipset. 4.4Ghz i5 2500k.

magician.
S read 559MB/s
S write 260MB/s
R Read iops 94610
R write iops 56043

AS SSD benchmark

...........read........................................write
seq......518MB/s 32.4iops.......................249.4MB/s 15.6iops
4K........25.5MB/s 6525iops.....................66.8Mb/s   17094iops
4K64.....352.5MB/s 90244iops.................188.6MB/s 48275iops
acc.......0.1ms.....................................0.05ms
512B.....9965iops..................................19852iops

score....430.........................................280

total score 924

My total score lines up pretty well with the Tomshardware score.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/ssd-charts-2012/AS-SSD-Overall-Total-Score,2792.html


As for buying.

for 250GB There is a difference of about £70 between the 840 and the 840 pro.
for 500GB There is a difference of about £100

However 

2x 250Gb 840's in raid 0 will cost £20 less than A single 840 500GB drive... and give more performance than the single drive.


----------



## erixx (Jul 25, 2013)

840 evo.....


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 29, 2013)

I just got a 120GB PNY prevail elite, seems ok to me, my boot time is amazing, less than 30 secs. I'm also getting a 2TB WD black tonight to pair it with, mw eindows storage will be nice and fast now.

This is the drive i'm getting, for £50, bargain.
http://www.ebuyer.com/407048-wd-2tb-internal-hard-drive-wd2000fyyz?utm_source=google&utm_medium=products&gclid=CKmdtryE07gCFUZZ3godl0YA0g

And the SSD-
http://www3.pny.com/Prevail-Elite-SSD-120GB---SATA-6Gbs-P3096C501.aspx


----------



## Warrgarbl (Jul 29, 2013)

Since there seem to be quite a few people who suggest an SSD RAID... I have once read a test (no idea where, though) where they measured the performance of a striping RAID with 2 SSDs and it turned out to have little benefit in common applications because putting SSDs in RAID causes their access times to go up considerably, thereby negating the sequential speed increase in most cases.

I can totally see that working for certain applications though, such as video editing.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jul 29, 2013)

Warrgarbl said:


> Since there seem to be quite a few people who suggest an SSD RAID... I have once read a test (no idea where, though) where they measured the performance of a striping RAID with 2 SSDs and it turned out to have little benefit in common applications because putting SSDs in RAID causes their access times to go up considerably, thereby negating the sequential speed increase in most cases.
> 
> I can totally see that working for certain applications though, such as video editing.



A lot of raid chipsets also add to boot time, if boot time is a concern it can not be as good


----------



## Hood (Jul 29, 2013)

"This is the drive i'm getting, for £50, bargain."
That's no Caviar Black, that's even better, an RE enterprise drive, designed for 24/7 heavy use.  That is a bargain...and goes well with the enterprise class SSD.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 29, 2013)

Hood said:


> "This is the drive i'm getting, for £50, bargain."
> That's no Caviar Black, that's even better, an RE enterprise drive, designed for 24/7 heavy use.  That is a bargain...and goes well with the enterprise class SSD.



I know a guy who is a network engineer of some sort, I guess that's why they are both enterprise drives, for the prices of them, how could I say no.

The HDD is actually this one-
http://www.ebuyer.com/185175-wd-wd2003fyys-re4-2tb-sataii-7-2k-64mb-enterprise-hard-drive-wd2003fyys


----------



## Hood (Jul 30, 2013)

Yes, reliability can be elusive these days, with everything being made in China and con artists running major hardware companies, so getting enterprise class hardware at bargain bin prices is a big win.  Lately it seems like you can't order parts for a simple build without getting at least 1 DOA component.


----------



## Ikaruga (Jul 30, 2013)

I have two 256GB 840pro here, and they are working perfectly. They do get a little slowish on heavy loads sometimes, but I just quickly run magician's optimize at those times and continue whatever I was doing with full speed. They are quite, good imho, and I think it's safe to say that they won't disappoint in computers aimed at home desktop usage with occasional work loads. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## D007 (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm sure liking the one I won from Kreij in one of his giveaway contests. 
It's in my specs.
Crucial vertex 4. 256gb SSD.
Been running like a charm since I got it.
I have filled it multiple times and emptied the data and filled it again..


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 31, 2013)

Go big get a Crucial M500 960gb for $600 lol


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2013)

D007 said:


> I'm sure liking the one I won from Kreij in one of his giveaway contests.
> It's in my specs.
> Crucial vertex 4. 256gb SSD.
> Been running like a charm since I got it.
> I have filled it multiple times and emptied the data and filled it again..


That would be OCZ Vertex 4...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 31, 2013)

I'd wait for the evos. They look near perfect and finally give us something to do with our ram.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 31, 2013)

Can't go wrong with a 256 ocz Vector. Been running one for a while now and its just as fast the sammy drives.


----------



## Hood (Jul 31, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> Can't go wrong with a 256 ocz Vector. Been running one for a while now and its just as fast the sammy drives.



Don't bet on it - a sizable percentage of buyers would disagree with you. The Vectors are plagued by the same issues as most OCZ drives; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - up to 30% of them die within 3 months, BSODs, unrecoverable sectors, unrecognized in BIOS, etc.  You got lucky.  You'll never see the word "reliability" in the same sentence as "OCZ" unless it's their own marketing hype.


----------



## radrok (Jul 31, 2013)

Crucial m500.

840 Pro doesn't warrant the price increase over it. No noticeable difference unless you keep transferring large amount of sequential data between SSDs.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2013)

Hood said:


> Don't bet on it - a sizable percentage of buyers would disagree with you. The Vectors are plagued by the same issues as most OCZ drives; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - up to 30% of them die within 3 months, BSODs, unrecoverable sectors, unrecognized in BIOS, etc.  You got lucky.  You'll never see the word "reliability" in the same sentence as "OCZ" unless it's their own marketing hype.


would you happen to have links of such claims? 30% I think is being incredibly dramatic at best.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 31, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> would you happen to have links of such claims? 30% I think is being incredibly dramatic at best.



Some interesting results on Google for OCZ failures, I think he may be correct.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=30%25+ocz+ssd+failure&oq=30%25+ocz+ssd+failure&aqs=chrome.0.69i57.6435j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 31, 2013)

well that still make 70% customers who, like me, are satisfied with teir OCZ SSD


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 31, 2013)

Here's my ssd speed, at top.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2013)

tigger said:


> Some interesting results on Google for OCZ failures, I think he may be correct.
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=30%25+ocz+ssd+failure&oq=30%25+ocz+ssd+failure&aqs=chrome.0.69i57.6435j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


OCZ _*VECTOR*_.  I can google Intel drive failures and come up with the same results...google search, especially with the wrong terms, mean nothing.

EDIT: Here is thread I started at my home site about hardware failure rates. While the numbers are not the gospel, its a big enough data set to form an educated opinion. As you can see, OLD OCZ drives were pretty damn bad, which everyone knows. But he specifically mentions the VECTOR. Hopefully their new article will have the Vector return rates. I would be willing to be my life that OCZ Vector return rates are nowhere near 30%.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=732217


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 31, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> OCZ _*VECTOR*_.  I can google Intel drive failures and come up with the same results...google search, especially with the wrong terms, mean nothing.
> 
> EDIT: Here is thread I started at my home site about hardware failure rates. While the numbers are not the gospel, its a big enough data set to form an educated opinion. As you can see, OLD OCZ drives were pretty damn bad, which everyone knows. But he specifically mentions the VECTOR. Hopefully their new article will have the Vector return rates. I would be willing to be my life that OCZ Vector return rates are nowhere near 30%.
> 
> http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=732217



I did say *may* be correct. I am not insinuating OCZ are any better or worse than any other SSD.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2013)

No worries, my post was to point out he was talking about the VECTOR is all. So thanks for the links, but I am looking for OCZ Vector links. 

Just because the Honda Pilot has terrible reliability, doesn't mean the Civic would because its a Honda (that is not true of course, but is a good analogy as they are different cars ((controllers))).


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 31, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> No worries, my post was to point out he was talking about the VECTOR is all. So thanks for the links, but I am looking for OCZ Vector links.
> 
> Just because the Honda Pilot has terrible reliability, doesn't mean the Civic does. (that is not true, but is a good analogy as they are different cars ((controllers))).



If yours is working fine, I wouldn't worry about it. The only reason I got this PNY is that it was raucously cheap, as was my WD RE4 hdd, they are both enterprise class though as he is a network thingumyjob.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2013)

LOL, trust me, I am not worried about it.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 2, 2013)

Hood said:


> Don't bet on it - a sizable percentage of buyers would disagree with you. The Vectors are plagued by the same issues as most OCZ drives; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - up to 30% of them die within 3 months, BSODs, unrecoverable sectors, unrecognized in BIOS, etc.  You got lucky.  You'll never see the word "reliability" in the same sentence as "OCZ" unless it's their own marketing hype.


To be honest I have never had a single OCZ failer of any type. Memory or ssd's and I've had a number of them. But really I think all manufactures have issues not just ocz.


----------



## Hood (Aug 2, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> To be honest I have never had a single OCZ failer of any type. Memory or ssd's and I've had a number of them. But really I think all manufactures have issues not just ocz.



I bought a Vertex 4 and it lasted 15 days, just disappeared from BIOS and shut down the system.  I returned it and got a Crucial M4 for reliability, but I missed the faster speed of the OCZ drive, so when they released the Vector, I read every review and user comment I could find.  OCZ went out of their way to emphasize how much testing and validation went into the Vector (for 3 years!) and how it's the most reliable drive on the market.  So I was surprised to see that many people were having issues with the new drive, and to see failure rates similar to some of their older models.  You'll only see hints of this on hardware review sites, since most of them rely heavily on advertising from manufacturers, but comments from actual buyers lean heavily towards the Vector being one of the most UNRELIABLE drives on the market.  Before someone says that all user reviews are biased because mostly only dissatisfied customers bother to write comments, consider that a much smaller percentage of Samsung, Corsair, Sandisk, and Crucial buyers bother to complain, presumably because their drives are still working fine.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 2, 2013)

Hood said:


> I bought a Vertex 4 and it lasted 15 days, just disappeared from BIOS and shut down the system.  I returned it and got a Crucial M4 for reliability, but I missed the faster speed of the OCZ drive, so when they released the Vector, I read every review and user comment I could find.  OCZ went out of their way to emphasize how much testing and validation went into the Vector (for 3 years!) and how it's the most reliable drive on the market.  So I was surprised to see that many people were having issues with the new drive, and to see failure rates similar to some of their older models.  You'll only see hints of this on hardware review sites, since most of them rely heavily on advertising from manufacturers, but comments from actual buyers lean heavily towards the Vector being one of the most UNRELIABLE drives on the market.  Before someone says that all user reviews are biased because mostly only dissatisfied customers bother to write comments, consider that a much smaller percentage of Samsung, Corsair, Sandisk, and Crucial buyers bother to complain, presumably because their drives are still working fine.


I wont argue that but in my experence like I said I have never had a single issue with any OCZ ssd.. I even have an Agility 360gb one and nada... no issues. Im not a ocz fan boi but like i said nada no issues period on any ssd's from them. IMO I'll always buy OCZ ssd's and nothing else... Well except a Sammy pro but this Vector beats the sammy is raw speed


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 2, 2013)

Hood said:


> I bought a Vertex 4 and it lasted 15 days, just disappeared from BIOS and shut down the system.  I returned it and got a Crucial M4 for reliability, but I missed the faster speed of the OCZ drive, so when they released the Vector, I read every review and user comment I could find.  OCZ went out of their way to emphasize how much testing and validation went into the Vector (for 3 years!) and how it's the most reliable drive on the market.  So I was surprised to see that many people were having issues with the new drive, and to see failure rates similar to some of their older models.  You'll only see hints of this on hardware review sites, since most of them rely heavily on advertising from manufacturers, but comments from actual buyers lean heavily towards the Vector being one of the most UNRELIABLE drives on the market.  Before someone says that all user reviews are biased because mostly only dissatisfied customers bother to write comments, consider that a much smaller percentage of Samsung, Corsair, Sandisk, and Crucial buyers bother to complain, presumably because their drives are still working fine.


As far as reviews go... here is the thing... while we use some marketing of theirs, we can only judge the product when we test it. Meaning, if the drive works for the couple weeks we have to review and publish, that is our dataset. I think its VERY unfair to essentially call review sites biased, especially the ones like ours that received it before/at release time. Our site was one of the first to receive/review one, so I personally didnt have the chance other sites who received them later did to see it on the market. Blame those people I suppose, but not the early reviews. 

That said, I am still hard pressed (and waiting for the person that said that to step up with some reliable data - EDIT: which was you who said  a 30% failure rate, LOL!) to find any quantifiable evidence that there is a high failure rate with the Vector. Until then... all you have is what you said, the vocal minority bitching about their broken drive. If they sold 50k of these drives with a 2% failure rate, that is 500 pissed off people of which 200 of them bitch on forums (more made up statistics, LOL!). That said, even if its a 4% failure rate, that is 96% that are fine. People shy away from a drive that is 96% ok versus 98%? Perspective...'come get some'. 

Now I know this is from OCZ themselves, so take it with a grain of salt...
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?108980-dead-OCZ-Vector
... also note that when drives were failing with exceptionally high rates (*cough* OCZ Octane), they did not lie and say they were extremely low either. 

EDIT: Now, I am not saying that OCZ has a good reputation, they most certainly do not, however, a lot of people's feelings on them are because of past reliability on specific drives with absolutely no clue on what actual return rates are. Looking across forums and seeing people bitch a lot or a little is hardly an accurate barometer for judging failure rates. For example, let's say a maker sells 1M units at 2% failure rate, that is 20,000 people, versus another drive that sells 200k with the same failure rate that is 4k people. Who do you think will look 'worse' on forums in that situation even though the failure rate is EXACTLY the same?? What we need to know, and will never, is all the companies failure rates for specific drives. Only then can anyone be accurate. I have already posted 'the best' information on SSD failure rates earlier in this thread. Yeah, OCZ had some duds. Let's see, when the newest version of that article comes out again, what the story is with each OCZ drive.

EDIT2 (sorry!): After checking a couple things out, OCZ came out with a FW release in late march which has this for release notes:



> *Fixed a corner case issue with firmware corruption after unexpected sudden power loss scenarios, which caused drives to no longer be recognized.
> *Improved SATA timings, which addresses intermittent detection issues on some platforms


.

Some of the first things they are saying when troubleshooting problems are to make sure they are flashed to that FW. It is resolving things for some, of course, not all. So if you are looking at titles only, it helps to be a bit more granular in one's diligence towards using forum posts as a metric. After looking through a lot of threads, it seems another 'some' are software issues or overclock instability even. Like I said, threads are not a good barometer.


----------



## Hood (Aug 2, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> As far as reviews go... here is the thing... while we use some marketing of theirs, we can only judge the product when we test it. Meaning, if the drive works for the couple weeks we have to review and publish, that is our dataset. I think its VERY unfair to essentially call review sites biased, especially the ones like ours that received it before/at release time. Our site was one of the first to receive/review one, so I personally didnt have the chance other sites who received them later did to see it on the market. Blame those people I suppose, but not the early reviews.
> 
> That said, I am still hard pressed (and waiting for the person that said that to step up with some reliable data ((read not forum threads)) to find any quantifiable evidence that there is a high failure rate with the Vector. Until then... all you have is what you said, the vocal minority bitching about their broken drive. If they sold 50k of these drives with a 2% failure rate, that is 500 pissed off people of which 200 of them bitch on forums (more made up statistics, LOL!). That said, even if its a 4% failure rate, that is 96% are fine. People shy away from a drive that is 96% ok versus 98%? Perspective...'come get some'.
> 
> ...



I guess it's also possible that user comments are biased because of all the bad press OCZ has gotten in the past, causing dissatisfied customers to be more vocal than they otherwise would have been.  I've even heard it suggested that rival companies are planting false reviews on forums and E-tailer sites.  I ignored these warnings about the Vertex 4, and my drive died in 15 days, so maybe I'm not the one to ask..


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 2, 2013)

Damn, you needed to hit refresh, I was editing like a fool WAY before you posted this!! 

Good points... people automatically think the drive was the issue (and sometimes it is, surely), but a lot are software issues, or something that FW can resolve if it is the drive. Again, thread titles in forums, without looking in to each one, cannot automatically be blamed on the drive itself.


----------



## Ikaruga (Aug 2, 2013)

radrok said:


> 840 Pro doesn't warrant the price increase over it. No noticeable difference unless you keep transferring large amount of sequential data between SSDs.



As a happy 840pro user, I would like differ because it's a very good SSD, so let me just fix that for ya:

_"No noticeable *reading speed *difference...."_


----------



## Raw (Aug 2, 2013)

*I love to death my Intel 520 Series Cherryville*

I love to death my Intel 520 Series Cherryville 180 SSD SC2CW180A3K5 2.5" 180GB SATA III MLC Boot Drive. 
Just saying... I also have an OCZ Technology 100 GB Vertex 2 Series SATA II 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive OCZSSD2-2VTX100G  that's run flawlessly for over a year now, using it in a different machine. So I have nothing bad to say about OCZ. It is slower than the Intel of course, but hey, who can  really notice a second or two upon bootup? Not me.
But that Cherryville is a killer. It just seems fast as all hell and I'm now gaming on it too, besides using it as my boot drive.
Did I say it was fast? Oh yea, I did, sorry.
Host Writes: 35.4 TB
Timed Worlload, Media Wear: 65535
Total LBAs Written: 35.48 TB
Total LBAs Read: 28.49 TB
Total NAND Writes: 10373
Power On Hours Count: 896870
Drive Health: 100%
Est. Life Remaining: 100%


----------



## radrok (Aug 2, 2013)

Ikaruga said:


> As a happy 840pro user, I would like differ because it's a very good SSD, so let me just fix that for ya:
> 
> _"No noticeable *reading speed *difference...."_




Where did I say it wasn't good? 

I also bet that you wouldn't notice the difference in a system equipped with an m500 over an 840 pro.

I know I don't because I own an m500 480 and a 512 840pro and there is no difference


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 2, 2013)

> I also bet that you wouldn't notice the difference in a system equipped with an m500 over an 840 pro.
> 
> I know I don't because I own an m500 480 and a 512 840pro and there is no difference


I believe that as the difference is not nearly as much as the Pro versus non Pro...

M500 512GB is *400MB writes @ 80k* IOPS 
840 Pro 256/512GB is *520MB writes @ 90K* IOPS. 
840 256GB is *240MB writes @ 40k* IOPS.

The 840 is well over 50% slower than the Pro while the M500 is ~20%  slower.


----------



## radrok (Aug 2, 2013)

Yeah as I said unless you move ridiculous amount of sequential data between SSDs you'll notice no difference.

Maybe with the 840 vs 840 pro.


----------



## Hood (Aug 3, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Damn, you needed to hit refresh, I was editing like a fool WAY before you posted this!!
> 
> Good points... people automatically think the drive was the issue (and sometimes it is, surely), but a lot are software issues, or something that FW can resolve if it is the drive. Again, thread titles in forums, without looking in to each one, cannot automatically be blamed on the drive itself.



I remember reading 6 or 8 months ago something from OCZ claiming the SSD failure rate is less than 1% across the industry.  I find that hard to believe, especially about OCZ.  I don't think most people would believe that.  Maybe when averaged out over years, and of course it depends on what you classify as a failure.  It seems a lot of customer service depts. tell you, "we tested your drive and found no problem", and send you back the same drive.  Then if you RMA the same bad drive again for the same problem, they tell you the same thing, and send you a "refurbished" drive (that may or may not work).  So their records show that they found no problem with the drive, and it's not counted as a failed drive.  Blame it on "instability due to overclocking".  Eventually, the drive gets sent to some other disgruntled customer as as refurb.  The dance continues, and there's no blame or bad press because "Our failure rates are in line with everybody else's, under 1%".  Except you can't fool everyone, can you, not when they see these repeated failures generation after generation.  Other manufacturers manage to come up with hardware and software safeguards to prevent firmware corruption and loss of recognition after a sudden power loss.  My Crucial M4 got lost to the BIOS a couple of times when the power flickered, but it was recognized after rebooting and resetting the boot order, and the next firmware update totally solved the problem.  When my Vertex 4 went, the computer was at idle, doing nothing, no power surges or anything like that, and I watched it bluescreen, and nothing I did would let it be recognized again (I tried all of the recommended routines for reviving the drive).  The Crucial is still going strong, (now as my game installation drive), as is my newest SSD, a Samsung 840 Pro I'm using to boot Windows 8.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 3, 2013)

radrok said:


> Yeah as I said unless you move ridiculous amount of sequential data between SSDs you'll notice no difference.
> 
> Maybe with the 840 vs 840 pro.



As ive said , once your Os drive is wrote and relatively stable there is little perceivable difference between samy pro and non pro
And ive a ocz revo x2 120 that beats most things still three years in and has no issues ever..


----------



## radrok (Aug 3, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> As ive said , once your Os drive is wrote and relatively stable there is little perceivable difference between samy pro and non pro
> And ive a ocz revo x2 120 that beats most things still three years in and has no issues ever..



But... but... synthetic benchmarks shows night and day difference!!!!

The 840 pro must be leaps and bounds better than the plain 840, it's gotta be.

j/k of course

Benchmarks are a good indication of performance but people gotta take a look at the whole picture instead of basing every single purchase on them.

They are benchmarks, not real scenarios reproduction, that's why they are benchmarks and serious review editors put real usage scenarios results in reviews alongside synthetic benchmarks.


----------



## Ikaruga (Aug 3, 2013)

radrok said:


> I know I don't because I own an m500 480 and a 512 840pro and there is no difference



Oh sorry, I thought you were comparing the 840 with the 840pro


----------

