Crucial’s M4 SSD is inherently faulty - AVOID

[Binky]

I'm an Intel or Crucial M4 kinda guy... problem is I only own Intel SSDs (160GB G2, 80GB G2, 40GB G2) since roughly 2009, and have had ZERO problems.

I've been recommending Crucial to people who have asked due to their (to my knowledge) quality controller from a reputable company and native SATA6gb speeds. Until the native Intel 6Gb controller arrives it's what I'd buy for myself.

But now, I think sticking with Intel controllers, even with massive performance deficits is probably the way to go.

I will not buy OCZ or Sandforce products (I've owned most controllers on the market since 2008, and have come to INTEL SUPERIORITY through experience).

But, but, but...Intel might be using Sandforce too soon. I see a dilemma in your future.

 

[Obsoleet]

They are certainly the slowest controllers among the modern ones. :biggrin:

And likely the only ones that have been running since 2008/2009 without issue for 99%+ of all consumers who bought them.
Intel is the undisputed king of reliable SSDs and I think you'll see this forum reflect that. Speed (which Intel has in spades) is nothing without reliability.

that may be. but I'll take my 6 drive V2 array or garbage SF-2281 drive over those Intel drives mentioned any day of the week and twice on Tuesday. Especially if they give me not one bit of issue.

They make me more money on a daily/mothly/yearly basis with the extra workflow they allow over the Intels. Benchmarks mean squat in usage and the clock tells the true story at the end of the day. Minutes a day.. hours a week.. days a year of time saved for this OCZ fanboy.

Until you lose your data.
In fact, in some situations it might allow you to do more compared to newer controllers, the latency of Intel drives under load is still one of the top. I don't have the link onhand but the max latency on an Intel SSD is <0.2ms max while most others skyrocket under certain conditions.

I've also owned multiple OCZ as well as Intel drives, and will never own another OCZ again. OCZ are popular because they are cheap and fast (that's the reason I, and most others bought them), not because they are the best or the most reliable.

 

[Obsoleet]

But, but, but...Intel might be using Sandforce too soon. I see a dilemma in your future.

But I only buy the Intel drives with Intel controllers.

And I'm certain even their Marvell (or Sandforce) based drives are better than anyone elses due to their superior engineering and QA. But to take the best road possible, I stick to the all Intel drives. Use what you want, but the proof has been out there since Intel released their drives, they are tops.

 

[Coup27]

aaaaaaaaand here we go again

 

[Obsoleet]

aaaaaaaaand here we go again

You don't have anything to worry about. You use Samsung SSDs according to your sig.
Those are in the league of Intel for reliability.

It's the OCZ (and apparently Crucial) users who have cause to worry. Although, I would still buy Crucial drives over OCZ.

Intel, Samsung and Crucial are all top notch R&D and QA firms. Going with the cheap-thrill drives is not a good idea.
Reliability > Speed anyday.

 

[Coup27]

You don't have to educate me my friend, I am on your side of the fence. I just sold my X25-M G2 to my boss (his first SSD) to raise funds towards my Samsung. I also have 2 x 320's in light duty machines at work and 1 in my laptop.

I just know when these OCZ & SF vs The Rest discussions break out nobody really wins.

I am definitely a believer of reliability over speed. I personally don't like how OCZ operate and believe they rush products out and and worry about finishing off their toolboxes, update procedure and firmwares later.

 

[groberts101]

LOL.. we should nickname these off-topic posts.. "Intel sausage festival's".

Personally I've tested many controllers and am fully confident of my decision to stay where I'm at right now. 2 years of raid 0 without a failure using 6 Sandforce drives must mean mines bigger than yours and I know how to use it.

Not to mention.. no one likes to admit theirs is tiny compared to the others. It's usually those guys who start the "mine's known for stamina" discussions.

kidding.... well.. mostly :biggrin:

 

[=Wendy=]

I just know when these OCZ & SF vs The Rest discussions break out nobody really wins.

I agree, it's not something that can be won. It's just folks expressing an opinion, and they will buy what they want to buy anyway.

I buy an SSD for speed, and the fastest without doubt is the SF-2281 based SSDs (just my opinion).
Personally I have had no problems with them, once I had sorted out a cranky mobo.

 

[Coup27]

However a Q to roberts and Wendy; if you had a friend who asked you to recommend an SSD for them and lived nowhere near you, knew nothing about computers beyond using them, and had to stand on their own two feet afterwards would you still recommend an OCZ or SF?

 

[Obsoleet]

I agree, it's not something that can be won. It's just folks expressing an opinion, and they will buy what they want to buy anyway.

I buy an SSD for speed, and the fastest without doubt is the SF-2281 based SSDs (just my opinion).
Personally I have had no problems with them, once I had sorted out a cranky mobo.

I wouldn't doubt the SF-2281 drives are the fastest in pure throughput. There's other metrics to consider that aren't in many reviews though that affect usability, such as max and minimum latency. It's difficult to find full comparisons of drives in that regard but it's a huge factor in the "SSDness" of the drive.
To say Samsung, Crucial or Intel don't have enough speed is more an excuse to not buy the Good Stuff.

Some drives peak latency at HDD (or worse) levels, namely OCZ.
That said, I've used OCZ and Intel drives on tons of different mobos, and only the OCZ's found "cranky" ones. I've also lost all my data twice (I've owned 3 different OCZ drives).
While I'm constantly abusing my Intel drives, ripping them in and out of different PCs and swapping drives, I'm going on 4 years now with 0 issues.

Once OCZ and the others reach the scope and magnitude of Samsung, Crucial or Intel I'll try them again. I credit those guys with trying but they're trying to make money like everyone else without the engineering and resources to back it up, but they won't get any more of my money until they get to the enterprise support level the others provide.

Per Anand-

Samsung's reputation for reliability rivals that of Intel.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4863/the-samsung-ssd-830-review/8 Quality.

 

[=Wendy=]

However a Q to roberts and Wendy; if you had a friend who asked you to recommend an SSD for them and lived nowhere near you, knew nothing about computers beyond using them, and had to stand on their own two feet afterwards would you still recommend an OCZ or SF?

That is very difficult to answer, as it would depend on a number of factors.

1, Does this person have native SATA3 support?
2, What will they be using the system for?

If they did have native SATA3 support and were into multi media editing, be that video, pictures or audio, then I would have no hesitation of recommending an SF-2281 based SSD such as the OCZ Vertex 3, or a Marvell based SSD such as the Crucial M4.
My personal preference would be the SF-2281 based SSD.

Regardless of what you hear around here, the SF-2281 based SSDs are plug n play for the vast majority of people. For those who have a problem getting it running, they would have the same problem getting any SSD setup and running (just my opinion).

 

[Coup27]

I credit those guys with trying but they're trying to make money like everyone else without the engineering and resources to back it up, but they won't get any more of my money until they get to the enterprise support level the others provide.

In light of the fastly inferior firepower in terms of company scale and resources OCZ have compared to the three mentioned companies, maybe instead of releasing I bet by now is nearly a 100 different SSDs or SSD based products they should have taken more of a similar approach to the above and released a few, finalised products.

Intel, Crucial and Samsung have released about 10-15 SSDs between them.

 

[Coup27]

Regardless of what you hear around here, the SF-2281 based SSDs are plug n play for the vast majority of people. For those who have a problem getting it running, they would have the same problem getting any SSD setup and running (just my opinion).

I know theres a checklist to go through to spec the right drive but really what I was after was what you said above. I was just interested to know if you would feel comfortable sending a newbie a 2281 drive and it working out the box which other vendors are better known for.

 

[groberts101]

we can quote anyone we want here.. but if Anand is the chosen one?.. well.. look where any SF 2281 based SSD rates in his testing routines(and be sure to compare apples with apples from a capacity standpoint to be fair). I particularly like his heavy-use test protocol which consists of more realistic wokflows to simulate what those extreme-over-achievers may do with their SSD's. I tell most that ask why I would use mine like that?.. "because I can". Which is of course the beauty of raided SSD's.

Aside from that.. I add much salt to anything posted on the internet and usually trust firsthand experience by far as the best measure of actual performance. And that only consists of very little benchmarking(mainly to test trends in driver/configs) and far more actual data flow to rate an SSD's abilities. Older gen Intel controllers rate pretty low on that scale in comparison to other newer models. Benchmarks show it.. reviewer test suites show it.. actual usage shows it. Sure it's better than other brands first gen offerings.. not to mention an HDD.. but time marches on.

Most people just get too caught up on boot speeds.. app opening times and general use metrics(such as navigating an OS's GUI) to rate these drives without tasking them hard enough to really see measurable differences between SSD's. Which of course reduces the height of that overview/rating.

Call me extreme I guess, but I also find it odd that many folks just call.. an SSD.. an SSD.. from an overall speed standpoint. There are perceptible differences in latency and overall feel between many SSD controllers and I can see it even in lighter usage as I've tested them in the last few years. Test an older small capacity Indilinx(30GB) and larger capacity(240GB) C300 and see how things feel during heavier multitasking. No comparison and you even start to imagine that the small Indy drive is a fast HDD in comparison.

That being said.. the SF controllers are known to have very low latency and it can be percieved over some others that even come close to the same measurements in benchmarks.

There is a new trend coming for even lower latency(and that fact alone should prove that even very minor changes in latency can and does have much more impact that some really understand or will admit) and I for one say bring it on. Because I'm one of the few that seems to be able to notice it.

And to answer Coups question without bias? I'd probably rec an Intel based SSD due to the greater compatability if it where a choice between that and a Sandforce drive. As for the choice between Intel and OCZ? Probably a new Everest controlled Indy drive as they are not having issues like all the cynics like to believe based on past issues. If it were mission critical data?.. I would say stay with a fast HDD and forget about SSD until the knowledge base increases to better understand troubleshooting and maintenance protocols.

 

[olmer]

Updated. See first post.

 

[Binky]

Props for updating the OP with the fixed firmware, but your title still screams "FIRE, FIRE!"

 

[olmer]

Me, plonker, sorry- figured out how to update the title now - fixed.

As to my replacement drive - it was delivered [very] late and was clearly used (0001 firmware on the label, corrected by hand to 0009), works fine, however, with 0309.

Still cannot get myself to go for Intel's offerings - live in the UK and HATE monopoly, can only hope that little guys up their game with my support, however tiny it is.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Well, the OP has certainly done his job spreading FUD, not to mention it's only a single issue and was promptly fixed in around two weeks.

Crucial makes excellent quality products. The only reason I got my current drive over an M4 is that it only costed me $150.

Stop accusing the OP of spreading FUD
-ViRGE

 

[olmer]

Well, the OP has certainly done his job spreading FUD, not to mention it's only a single issue and was promptly fixed in around two weeks.

Crucial makes excellent quality products. The only reason I got my current drive over an M4 is that it only costed me $150.

ohh, not again.

Two weeks? Read the crucial's thread, please.

Spreading FUD? Do find a word that is not true in any of my posts, quote and argue.

I can just as well tell everyone that you are an idiot, based on your last post, and that would be much harder for you to disprove.

Stop calling other members idiots. If you have a problem with someone use the Report Post button
-ViRGE

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

ohh, not again.

Two weeks? Read the crucial's thread, please.

Spreading FUD? Do find a word that is not true in any of my posts, quote and argue.

I can just as well tell everyone that you are an idiot, based on your last post, and that would be much harder for you to disprove.

Hmm, maybe the fact that it's completely overblown and exaggerated? And that the issue only affected the older drives, since newer ones haven't been powered on for over 5000 hours? Maybe the fact that you haven't updated the thread title, perhaps, indicating as if the drive still had the issue?

Typical FUD. Again, Crucial makes quality products, and their prompt fix of this SINGLE issue that only affected older drives or drives running 24/7 should be a testament to that.

 

[olmer]

Hmm, maybe the fact that it's completely overblown and exaggerated? And that the issue only affected the older drives, since newer ones haven't been powered on for over 5000 hours? Maybe the fact that you haven't updated the thread title, perhaps, indicating as if the drive still had the issue?

Typical FUD. Again, Crucial makes quality products, and their prompt fix of this SINGLE issue that only affected older drives or drives running 24/7 should be a testament to that.

And if you take care reading Crucial&#8217;s own release: It affects all M4 drives after 5184 hours of up time, regardless. 5184 hours is just over 7 months (well within guarantee, killing off all Crucial's profits if even 20% are RMA'd). Please point me to another SSD product with similar fault affecting ALL its range sold up to date with similar inherent problem. This is the reason it was covered up so intensely until it&#8217;s got fixed (those who followed original thread would know). Now calculate the extend of the problem and see how many more &#8216;issues&#8217; would be flagged up by people with firmware <0309 posting on these/other forums &#8216;my M4 gone tits up&#8217;, and finally compare M4 pricing change on f.e. Amazon with its competitors. Now, for a moment, consider that I do not at all want to blow it out of proportion and just trying to help (edited post&#8217;s title half an hour ago &#8211; not sure why it is still says &#8216;AVOID&#8217.

Edit: I cannot edit thread title - mods please do that. TIA.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

And if you take care reading Crucial’s own release: It affects all M4 drives after 5184 hours of up time, regardless. 5184 hours is just over 7 months (well within guarantee, killing off all Crucial's profits if even 20% are RMA'd). Please point me to another SSD product with similar fault affecting ALL its range sold up to date with similar inherent problem. This is the reason it was covered up so intensely until it’s got fixed (those who followed original thread would know). Now calculate the extend of the problem and see how many more ‘issues’ would be flagged up by people with firmware <0309 posting on these/other forums ‘my M4 gone tits up’, and finally compare M4 pricing change on f.e. Amazon with its competitors. Now, for a moment, consider that I do not at all want to blow it out of proportion and just trying to help (edited post’s title half an hour ago – not sure why it is still says ‘AVOID’).

Edit: I cannot edit thread title - mods please do that. TIA.

Stop whining. It's a non-issue; it was already fixed. You're simply looking for excuses to complain.

 

[Larries]

Stop whining. It's a non-issue; it was already fixed. You're simply looking for excuses to complain.

Read the dates of the post. The thread was posted one month ago... when the cause was probably not yet found. People just discredited OP and claimed that OP just had a bad drive. It was only afterwards that the issue was identified and a fix promised.

OP is just updating the results now.

 

[bradley]

The fact is the messenger isn't at fault, it was Crucial and their M4. The OP did a fine job informing us, and probably deserves an apology. As well, Crucial fixed the problem quickly and admirably. All's well that end's well.

 

[bryanW1995]

Sorry, but OP had an issue and it was fixed. But rather than wait and see what crucial could do to fix his problem, he turned into a drama queen.