Hardware.FR - May Return Rates for SSD & HDD

[Ao1]

Taken from Hardware.Fr, translated via Google (not perfect but readable).

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html

SSD

- Samsung 0.05% (against 0.48%)
- Plextor 0.16% (N / A)
- Intel 0.37% (against 0.45%)
- Crucial 1.12% (against 1.11%)
- Corsair 1.61% (against 1.05%)
- OCZ 6.64% (against 5.02%) / 2.92% without Petrol / Octane SATA 2 (against 3.05%)

We have not made ​​a mistake on the number of Samsung which is very impressive. It almost overshadow the entry in the standings with Plextor also a very good score. But be careful, its M3 and M3 Pro the manufacturer had a guarantee with recovery SSD free home via a carrier that promotes necessarily more returns live. The rate determined by Corsair is on the rise, such as OCZ is once again very high.

This rate is actually significantly impacted by two series, Petrol Octane SATA 3 and SATA 2, which are respectively 39.79 and 36.13% of returns, a shame. Without these two the range of OCZ rate falls to 2.92%, which her ​​brother always the last place but at a much more reasonable rate remains inflated by some series (7.51% on Agility 4 for example) then others are doing better (1.89% for Vertex 3 and 1.46% for Vertex 4).

If we look at models with a return rate of over 5%, OCZ hogs the ranking:

- 52.07% OCZ Octane SATA 2 128GB
- 45.26% OCZ Petrol 128GB
- 44.76% OCZ Octane SATA 2 64 GB
- 40.57% OCZ Petrol 64GB
- 10.23% OCZ Agility 4256 Go
- 8.70% OCZ Octane SATA 3 256GB
- 7.41% OCZ Agility April 64 GB
- 6.85% OCZ Agility 4128 Go
- 6.59% OCZ Agility 3 90GB
- 5.56% OCZ Octane SATA 3 128GB

In the next period (from October 2012 to April 2013 sales), here are the numbers we get for the moment:

- 0.15% Samsung
- 0.43% Intel
- 0.65% Corsair
- 0.78% Kingston
- 1.32% Crucial
- 1.39% OCZ

This time OCZ finally seems to be on track.

4.20% 128 GB OCZ Vector
4.07% 256 GB OCZ Vector

At the launch of Vector OCZ highlighted the work done prior to the launch to ensure a high level of reliability. It does not it seem borne fruit since these SSD stand in front and with high rates for storage media even if we stay away from those records fortunately recorded for Petrol and Octane SATA 2.

HDD

- Toshiba 1.15%
- Seagate 1.44% (against 1.65%)
- Western 1.55% (against 1.44%)
- Samsung 2.24% (against 1.30%),
- Hitachi 2.40% (against 3.45%),

We mixed all formats of hard drives, which allows the passage of integrating Toshiba despite still low volume on 3.5 ". Latter ranks first. We also note the sharp rise in the rate of Samsung, and. Conversely a beautiful fall Hitachi Here are 5 discs with the highest rate of return:

- 5.04% to 1.5 TB WD Caviar Black (WD1502FAEX)
- 4.94% 7K1000.C Hitachi 1TB (HDS721010CLA332)
- 4.87% Hitachi 7K3000 2TB (HDS723020BLA642)
- 3.57% Seagate Barracuda 320GB (ST320DM001)
- 3.51% Red Caviar 2TB (WD20EFRX)

If we look more closely the 2 TB drives are the figures obtained:

- 4.87% Hitachi 7K3000 (HDS723020BLA642)
- 3.51% WD Caviar Red (WD20EFRX)
- 3.01% Samsung SpinPoint F4 (HD201UI)
- 2.12% WD Caviar RE4 (WD2003FYYS)
-% 1,97 WD Caviar Black (WD2002FAEX)
- 1.95% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 (ST2000DM001)
- 1.30% WD Caviar Green (WD20EARX)
- 1.01% WD AV-GP (WD20EURS)

And 3 To:

- 2.85% WD Caviar Green (WD30EZRX)
- 2.71% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 (ST3000DM001)
- 1.89% WD Caviar Red (WD30EFRX)

 

[Phynaz]

I don't want to thread crap, but return rate from a single retailer doesn't say anything. I know there is a tendency to equate return rate with failure rate, but that is not what this data is.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Another data point, Backblaze has stated in the past that in their HDD testing, the 2TB Hitachi 7K3000 series was the MOST reliable out of their tested HDDs.

Yet this data shows them with the highest return rates of 2TB HDDs.

Who to believe?

 

[jacktesterson]

I've had quite a few OCZ SSD's including Vertex 3 and 4's and a couple Agilty 4's, and a couple Vertex Plus's - never had issues with any of them.


I'm not defending OCZ, I currently only own a Agility 4 in a HTPC - but I've been problem free with them.


I had a 2 x 256GB Vertex 4 in my Gaming system I recently sold and they were awesome.

 

[It's Not Lupus]

Amazing percentage from Samsung for SDDs.

 

[Elixer]

I don't want to thread crap, but return rate from a single retailer doesn't say anything. I know there is a tendency to equate return rate with failure rate, but that is not what this data is.

Yeah, not enough data to make any good opinions one way or the other.
Heck, they might have only sold a really small amount of some SSDs, and out of those, how many failed ?

We need to see Newegg's + Amazon's data to see some good numbers.

 

[Riceninja]

i picked up the samsung 840 250gb, despite elitists saying 840 pro was the only way to go.

samsung has a track record of doing extremely well in whatever industry they foray into, and i guess ssd is no exception.

had it been a TLC ssd from any other company, i probably wouldn't have bought.

 

[jacktesterson]

I just

 

[Ao1]

Of course this only provides an insight and not necessarily the full picture, but as most manufacturers won’t publish RMA rates the analysis by Hardware.Fr is very helpful and by and large it does not seem at odds with other sources of information on RMA rates.

As for sample rates that the stats are based on: (Google translate)

Return rates reported concerns units sold between April 1 and October 1, 2012, for returns created before April 2013, 6 months to 1 year of operation. The evolution of the failure rate over the life of a product form a generally spread to practically flat, and therefore these figures cover the first part of their lives, a time when the rate is high.

Statistics by brand based on a minimum sample of 500 sales by those models on a minimum sample of 100 sales, the largest volumes involving tens of thousands of parts by brand and thousands of pieces per model. In each case, we compared the rates obtained by the manufacturers to those of our previous article on the subject published in October 2012.</SPAN>

 

[Phynaz]

Once again, return rate <> failure rate.

 

[BFG10K]

Once again, return rate <> failure rate.

Yeah, but hardware that works fine isn't as likely to be returned as hardware that doesn't.

So while we can't say that every return is a failure, we can say which brand/model is more likely to work better.

Or to put it another way, I_WOULD_NOT_TOUCH_OCZ. They've consistent ranked at the top of those charts since they started, and not in a good way.

 

[Ao1]

The thread title does not say failure rate and neither do the posts, but I am intrigued. Most retailers check RMA goods and if no fault is found they are sent back to the customer. I don’t know if the statistics are based on RMA’s that have a verified fault or if they include no fault found RMA's, but either way its not something to ignore.

 

[Railgun]

Here we go again.