• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

DAMN you OCZ

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Makaveli said:
Why would you keep going back and giving them your money for unreliable products again and again?

How many times do they have to slap u in the face?
Click to expand...


Apparently the slap only hurts until they entice me with another pretty graph with big numbers. 😀

But yea, I think I aught to get the OCZ logo with a big Cross sign on it tatoo-ed on the back of my hand just in case. 🙁
 
borisvodofsky said:
Apparently the slap only hurts until they entice me with another pretty graph with big numbers. 😀

But yea, I think I aught to get the OCZ logo with a big Cross sign on it tatoo-ed on the back of my hand just in case. 🙁
Click to expand...

lol as long as you remember friends don't let friends buy OCZ 😀
 
Andle Riddum said:
This may be of interest. http://www.behardware.com/articles/862-1/components-returns-rates-6.html

Behardware is the only site I know that has inside information on RMA's, quite impressive I must say. And yes OCZ scores big in faulty SSD's.
Click to expand...


- Crucial 0.82% (as against 0.8%)
Click to expand...

That makes me feel really special having to RMA a Crucial.

Edit: Duh I have a Corsair.

Vertex 3s are doing much better thanks to developments in the firmware, with a rate of just 1.01% for the Vertex 3 120 GB as things stand.
Click to expand...

and I feel a bit better buying a Vertex 3 120gb last month.
 
Last edited:
Why the heck did you buy so many OCZ SSDs after so much trouble? I waved goodbye after my first RMA due to a Vertex 2 failure after 2 months of use. I've had my Intel 320 for quite some time and has been perfect.
 
tweakboy said:
Long time ago guys, wasn't OCZ one of the top RAM makers ? 10 years ago maybe
Click to expand...

In my book they were never tops. They were, at one time, the fanboy favorite. Many brands like PCP&C and other rebranded products were at one time everyone's circlejerk favorite. Not mine, I've always been a Corsair fan. RAM, I've bought OCZ but only because it was cheap. Overall, cheapest ram with best timings has been the way I've gone. Mushkin being my favorite set.

But good old fashioned Crucial/Micron was always my pick over OCZ, even in OCZ's fanboy favorite heydays.
 
Railgun said:
I think there is a crucial piece that you need to look at...



This leads me to believe it is, again, not accurate and inflates the numbers.
Click to expand...



That link is posted time and time again, and the most relevant point about the "stats" from that RMA percentage is never discussed....that those "stats" do not break out failures from buyer's remorse returns, "better" brand went on sale or came back into stock, or any other type of return. It's just total returns to the seller without any sort of break down for reason returned supplied.

That said, anecdotal evidence and user experience has mounted to the point that they are relevant and OCZ seems to have a much higher problem rate than other SSD sellers.
 
Meghan54 said:
That link is posted time and time again, and the most relevant point about the "stats" from that RMA percentage is never discussed....that those "stats" do not break out failures from buyer's remorse returns, "better" brand went on sale or came back into stock, or any other type of return. It's just total returns to the seller without any sort of break down for reason returned supplied.
Click to expand...

Huh? Did you even read the first page? 🙄

Under what conditions is a part declared as defective by this etailer? There are two possible cases: either the technician considers the exchange of information with the client (type of problem, cross testing) sufficient to declare that the product isn’t working, or there’s a question mark over the component and the etailer tests it to check if it’s working or not.

Among the returns that aren’t tested, some of the components announced as having an issue by customers probably aren't actually defective, in spite of the precautions taken by the technician. This is something inherent in the etailing sector and in practice, it’s unlikely that any model or product is more affected by this phenomenon than any other (at least we’re aware of no objective argument that shows this).
Click to expand...

So, not perfect (what is?), but they do try to only count products that were returned because of a problem with the product.
 
Railgun said:
I think there is a crucial piece that you need to look at...



This leads me to believe it is, again, not accurate and inflates the numbers.
Click to expand...

The minimum was chosen to be sufficient for good statistics. They are using a minimum of 500 for manufacturer, and 100 for model.

So no, the numbers are NOT "inflated". Even for the samples that are close to the minimum, the numbers are as likely to be deflated as inflated. It just means the uncertainty is a bit larger for the samples close to the minimum.

If you are interested in facts, you can use the binomial distribution to estimate the uncertainty for a sample which is at the minimum (500, 100) for each return rate.
 
tweakboy said:
Long time ago guys, wasn't OCZ one of the top RAM makers ? 10 years ago maybe
Click to expand...

The only time their RAM was decent was in the DDR 1 days.

I still have a 2 sticks of DDR500 memory from them in my Opteron 170 HTPC which is running perfect still.

After that I didn't buy anything else from there too many bad stories of defective products, voodoo magic fixes on their forums, and just flat out denial of the quality of the products being released.
 
Makaveli said:
The only time their RAM was decent was in the DDR 1 days.

I still have a 2 sticks of DDR500 memory from them in my Opteron 170 HTPC which is running perfect still.

After that I didn't buy anything else from there too many bad stories of defective products, voodoo magic fixes on their forums, and just flat out denial of the quality of the products being released.
Click to expand...

Ironic, Crucial Ballistix back in the day was horrible. I had one set I returned only to get a set that failed again. (BTW it was put in a different system so I can rule out the motherboard causing it)

You can read Ballistix stories from the time and find more than above average failures of their DDR.

The reality is, almost every company has products that at one point or another will have a more than average failure rate.

The real problem is when Fanbois attach quality to a company name and not a the actual product. Pick and choose wisely, read reviews, etc.
 
Last edited:
jwilliams4200 said:
The minimum was chosen to be sufficient for good statistics. They are using a minimum of 500 for manufacturer, and 100 for model.

So no, the numbers are NOT "inflated". Even for the samples that are close to the minimum, the numbers are as likely to be deflated as inflated. It just means the uncertainty is a bit larger for the samples close to the minimum.

If you are interested in facts, you can use the binomial distribution to estimate the uncertainty for a sample which is at the minimum (500, 100) for each return rate.
Click to expand...

If the sample size is 500, and the actual number of drives of a particular model sold is, say, for the sake of argument, 2,000,000, a .0002% sample size would hardly be sufficient. While it's great to speculate, yes, I'm more interested in facts than theory, to which binomial distrubution does not apply.

It's like these Aldi commercials out here. One says 133 of some sample liked x. 77% of those liked y. There are 7 million plus people in London. You think 102 people is a sufficient sample size to prove anything?
 
Last edited:
Railgun said:
If the sample size is 500, and the actual number of drives of a particular model sold is, say, for the sake of argument, 2,000,000, a .0002% sample size would hardly be sufficient. While it's great to speculate, yes, I'm more interested in facts than theory, to which binomial distrubution does not apply.
Click to expand...

You really need to learn some basic probability and statistics before speaking like this.

Of course the binomial distribution applies. This is a standard pass / fail situation, in fact, it is the prototypical example of where the binomial distribution does apply.

And if you actually knew anything about statistics, it would be clear to you that the population size has no bearing on determining the confidence interval that can be obtained by a given sample size.

Now, if you would like some help with applying the binomial distribution to this example, I would be glad to help you. Just specify which particular return rate you are interested in, and I will show you how to estimate a confidence interval for the return rate, assuming that the sample size is at the minimum (100 or 500).
 
I thought it was theory...and I was looking for facts. Sorry if I spoke out line. Unfortunately it can't be disproven as a full census will probably never happen. And as it's theory, well...
Sorrry...specifically looking at the Vertex 3 120G number.
 
Last edited:
Railgun said:
I thought it was theory...and I was looking for facts. Sorry if I spoke out line. Unfortunately it can't be disproven as a full census will probably never happen. And as it's theory, well...
Click to expand...

It is mathematics, not "theory". Unless you think that 1 + 1 = 2 is theory. 🙄
 
I have an OCZ vertex 3. I've been thinking of replacing it before it craps out. I should have done more research before buying that POS. It was on sale for a reason eh.
 
Red Squirrel said:
I have an OCZ vertex 3. I've been thinking of replacing it before it craps out. I should have done more research before buying that POS. It was on sale for a reason eh.
Click to expand...

Andle Riddum said:
This may be of interest. http://www.behardware.com/articles/862-1/components-returns-rates-6.html
Click to expand...

Vertex 3s are doing much better thanks to developments in the firmware, with a rate of just 1.01% for the Vertex 3 120 GB as things stand.
Click to expand...

If the above is correct, you are more more than likely to have absolutely no problems?
 
jwilliams4200 said:
It is mathematics, not "theory". Unless you think that 1 + 1 = 2 is theory. 🙄
Click to expand...

I thought it was probability theory.

So what is the margin of error for such a statistic? You can't possibly say, with 100% certainty, that the sample is a 100% accurate representation of the actual return rate. It's probability for that very reason and not FACT. FACT would prove by accounting for every single drive sold and RMA'd. Statistics are a generalization of what probably is. While generally accepted, it's still guessing as you are not accounting for everything. If there is a 100% guarantee that the margin of error is, say, 1%, then sure. 3%? Maybe. But such a small sample without knowing what you're sampling against, regardless of what equation you pop up here isn't not a 100% accounting.

What are they sampling? Single drive sales/RMAs as the stat or interveiwing those that have purchased and whether they have returned theirs. Are they accounting for multiple drives per person or a simple yes/no regardless of how many?

And 1+1=2 can be proven. It's not theory or probability that one and one usually equals two.
 
Last edited:
Railgun said:
If the sample size is 500, and the actual number of drives of a particular model sold is, say, for the sake of argument, 2,000,000, a .0002% sample size would hardly be sufficient. While it's great to speculate, yes, I'm more interested in facts than theory, to which binomial distrubution does not apply.

It's like these Aldi commercials out here. One says 133 of some sample liked x. 77% of those liked y. There are 7 million plus people in London. You think 102 people is a sufficient sample size to prove anything?
Click to expand...

Um... LOL you need to take stat bro..

But first and foremost, they did NOT sell 2,000,000 boards.
 
borisvodofsky said:
But first and foremost, they did NOT sell 2,000,000 boards.
Click to expand...

It was an example. Thanks Capt. Obvious.

And I'm not interested in taking statistics. You can quote this all you want, but PROVE to me that the numbers represented are fact and NOT theory.

The ONLY way you can do this is account for every single device sold and returned. Until then, it's always theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top