An open call to TweakBoy: My SSD vs. Your Samsung F4

[mosco]

Also, don't get me wrong, I love the speed of an SSD, I just don't think they are there yet in reliability. Unless you get an intel one, the firmware just seems really flaky.

At some point this won't even be a debate.

 

[SickBeast]

:whiste:

 

[Voo]

Also, don't get me wrong, I love the speed of an SSD, I just don't think they are there yet in reliability. Unless you get an intel one, the firmware just seems really flaky.

At some point this won't even be a debate.

Well the only reliable data we have to compare SSDs vs HDDs shows that a) Intel has a WAY lower failure rate than everyone else and b) that the rest of SSDs have about the same rates (except for 2tb+ 7.2krpm drives which are just plain horrible in that regard).

And then the difference is that most SSDs just have fw problems that should be corrected in the future (well we can hope; Intel obviously can do it, so others should be able to get the same results) while HDDs will alwys have the mechanical failure component.


But still, anyone who values his data will backup it, independent on which drive he's using and the known failure rates

 

[SickBeast]

 

[SniperWulf]

I never had a Intel SSD die, I have had my OCZ, Corsair and Crucial SSD die, I am waiting years before I try something other than an Intel SSD again.

^ Fixed for my situation 😀

 

[VirtualLarry]

There are just too many SSDs "dying" period, in the market today. They were supposed to be MORE reliable than a platter drive, because of no moving parts, but as it turns out, they are significantly LESS reliable (well, except for those 2TB drives, which I agree have horrid failure rates these days too).

 

[Voo]

There are just too many SSDs "dying" period, in the market today. They were supposed to be MORE reliable than a platter drive, because of no moving parts, but as it turns out, they are significantly LESS reliable (well, except for those 2TB drives, which I agree have horrid failure rates these days too).

And you surely don't mind sharing your data that you represent just as a fact here? Because the only reliable data I know of shows that SSDs are just as unreliable as HDDs (excluding those 2tb 7.2krpm drives) and Intel ones are by far better.

 

[bradley]

Ssd vs F3 baracudas lol

Anyone want to take on my Ram drives? Anyone?

Or perhaps better yet, can you imagine an ACARD ANS9010 revision that allows for DDR3, with as cheap as 4GB modules are right now?

 

[bradley]

And you surely don't mind sharing your data that you represent just as a fact here? Because the only reliable data I know of shows that SSDs are just as unreliable as HDDs (excluding those 2tb 7.2krpm drives) and Intel ones are by far better.

I saw recent data of a return rate of 2% for both enterprise SSD and HDD. Those are probably more reliable numbers than the overall return rate for PC components, of which Intel has below 1% return rate for SSD with every other manufacturer at 2-2.5%.

 

[Lonbjerg]

There are just too many SSDs "dying" period, in the market today. They were supposed to be MORE reliable than a platter drive, because of no moving parts, but as it turns out, they are significantly LESS reliable (well, except for those 2TB drives, which I agree have horrid failure rates these days too).

Look again:

 

[smakme7757]

My Corsair Force 180Gb died after 35 days! I got it replaced of course, but i think i will go Intel next time as they seem to have the best reliability.

For most people a dead drive just means some down time, but for me i might loose a days work or anything that hadn't been backed up in the last cycle. That costs me both time and money.

My system disk will always be an SSD despite my bumpy start with the technology. But i try to keep everytihng on a platter drive that's important.

 

[moriz]

I recently read the intel 320 review on techreport. In it, there's a link to some statistics about return rates of SSDs vs hdds. Intel x25 is the lowest, at 0.5%. other SSDs hover around 2-3%. Hdds are the worst, highest at over 10%.

So yes, SSDs are more reliable.

 

[bradley]

I recently read the intel 320 review on techreport. In it, there's a link to some statistics about return rates of SSDs vs hdds. Intel x25 is the lowest, at 0.5%. other SSDs hover around 2-3%. Hdds are the worst, highest at over 10%.

So yes, SSDs are more reliable.

I did some searching and it seems information about 10% 2TB HDD failure rates are from a particular French e-tailer; they aren't actual manufacturers' numbers. Not that I haven't seen these numbers quoted for 2010 and believed them myself. If someone finds more scientific numbers, please post them.

1 TB Mechanical Drives:
- 5,76% : Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.B
- 5,20% : Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.C
- 3,68% : Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
- 3,37% : Samsung SpinPoint F1
- 2,51% : Seagate Barracuda 7200.12
- 2,37% : WD Caviar Green WD10EARS
- 2,10% : Seagate Barracuda LP
- 1,57% : Samsung SpinPoint F3
- 1,55% : WD Caviar Green WD10EADS
- 1,35% : WD Caviar Black WD1001FALS
- 1,24% : Maxtor DiamondMax 23


2 TB Mechanical Drives:
- 9,71% : WD Caviar Black WD2001FASS
- 6,87% : Hitachi Deskstar 7K2000
- 4,83% : WD Caviar Green WD20EARS
- 4,35% : Seagate Barracuda LP
- 4,17% : Samsung EcoGreen F3
- 2,90% : WD Caviar Green WD20EADS

SSDs:
- Intel 0,59%
- Corsair 2,17%
- Crucial 2,25%
- Kingston 2,39%
- OCZ 2,93%


Anyway, SSDs have a much smaller sample size vs. HDD. Let's see what the future holds in 5000 writes. You can probably make an SLC SSD read-only in a few days by bombarding it with small continuous writes.

 

[alaricljs]

The interesting thing about those intel numbers is that .5% is the number that INTEL determined were faulty, not the number that users *could not get to work* I don't know if the numbers reported for other brands are similarly skewed, however the actual return rate on SSDs is higher than .5% for Intel by their own numbers.

People are used to HDDs and they are universally compatible since they have been out for as long as they have been. There are no big changes in HDD firmware, SSDs on the other hand receive major code changes on a fairly regular basis. Compatibility is a moving target.

When joe user can slap an SSD in just as easily as an HDD then we will see better return rates and fewer complaints. Yes, SSDs as devices are more reliable once you get them running. HDDs on the other hand are easier to get running.

 

[Avalon]

About my SSD

To be fair, you bought the 40GB version. Typically those are pretty poor performing compared to 80GB and even 160GB SSDs, simply because to cut the size down they cut the number of physical memory chips and channels, and it is the amount of channels that gives the drive its speed.

Likely the users telling you they've had great experiences are with the larger, much better performing drives.