Kingston V300 NAND bait-and-switch - Has anyone managed to get a replacement?

[semo]

I just wanted to find out if owners of the new V300s with slower asynchronous NAND are complaining to Kingston about it?

I have complained to Kingston and so far I'm not getting far with it. They just keep talking about ATTO benchmarks which use compressible data sets and don't detect the performance issues with the new drives.

Years ago, Anand and the community managed to get OCZ to compensate users who got scammed by the Vertex 2 25nm transition (even though they never issued a full recall). I think Kingston should do the same and this won't happen unless complaints start flooding in.

 

[tweakboy]

Kingston is sure a cheapo company making the ssd......interns mostly.. gl

 

[PliotronX]

I'm glad word got out as the company I work for orders s-tons of v300s and will be switching brands upon my recommendation. Good to all getting a decent model for your dollars..

 

[semo]

I'm still trying to get a replacement from them but so far their attitude is that different drives perform differently and that they prefer ATTO as the benchmark. They have given me a link to a document which actually lists Crystal Disk benchmarks and they have two versions of the V300 even in their own documentation. The drive I have performs even worse than the "V300 120A".

http://media.kingston.com/support/downloads/V300_Benchmark_Brief_MKF_586.pdf

I can't believe that they are getting away with this. Their own internal document shows that there are more than one "V300" revision, yet this information is not public. This is a classic bait-and-switch tactic. They have a V300 120S drive that they use for show and a 120A for actual sales (and in my case, my drive is even slower than the 120A).

 

[PliotronX]

Dang, Kingston was always a brand I trusted since the advent of SDRAM. Sorry about the frustration I know how ya feel [Kingston B&S Support Group]

 

[semo]

They've offered me a KC100 as a replacement. I think that's a good trade...

I'll look deeper into it later but any advise would be welcome.

Thanks

 

[jaydee]

Interesting... I just ordered and received a 60GB V300 for work. It's for a no-GUI CentOS server that's not going to use more than 5GB probably, with little I/O work, so I wouldn't notice the difference. It was basically the cheapest SSD I could find that I was sure would work from CDW.

 

[alexruiz]

I don't understand all the fuss about this.

Did Kingston specifically advertise sync NAND on this SSD?
No, so then there is nothing to complain about, end of story.

If you have been following SSDs, you already knew that in Kingston's product segmentation, the V series has always been async, while the hyper-x has been sync. I in fact always assumed that the V300 was a cut down hyper-x with async nand, same SF-2281 with likely watered down firmware, and especially, async nand. I was really surprised to learn that some V300 were shipping with sync NAND, but the fact that the internet is raging on a "bait ad switch" is out of proportion.

They never promised sync NAND, so no damage is done. If Kingston is at fault on something, it is because they were dumb enough to put sync NAND on a SSD that has alway been async, because they were dumb enough to have different firmwares, so the customers of the normal version will feel cheated they didn't get the "premium version", and even worse, to even have test reports with both types of NAND. The V series has always been targeted to be as cheap as possible, so who on his/her right mind would expect toggle NAND on what is probably the cheapest SSD out there ? If you wanted ultimate performance you should have picked a OCZ Vector, or if you wanted the best value for the money, a Toshiba Q pro series with 19nm toggle NAND and Marvell controller. A V300? Async NAND for sure.

Sauced up drives for benchmarks? Please, all SF-2281 SSDs score over 500MB/s of reads with compressible data, so not even need to have a "sauced up" version of the drive when all they needed was to pick the right benchmark. If they promised you sync NAND and didn't deliver, they are at fault, but they never promised that. If you want to go after them, go after them not because they got async NAND, but because they got really crappy async nand.


ps. Yes, I have use the V300 async. On a blind test, very hard to detect speed difference with the sandisk extreme IIs or Toshiba Q pros in the other PCs at home. If I pick the right benchmark, I would surely identify the V300s, but for windows normal operation, feels every bit as snappy as the others.

 

[RU482]

Id have to second alexruiz.....I mean, c'mon, you were buying a Kingston SSD in 2014....did you think you were getting a top of the line drive??? cheap ass

If you didn't see the wave of 1st tier SSD manufacturers stepping up their game and taking over the market (Samsung, Crucial/Micron, SanDisk/Toshiba), you probably won't truly notice the difference on the Kingston SSDs.

I'm not knocking Kingston....it's just reality

 

[infoiltrator]

No. The original V300 shipped and review samples given with Synchronous NAND. Performance was rated good to very good, an improvement on the V200.
When people noticed the slower performance (starting last May or so) there was dissembling and no explanation.
Basically if you send out review samples, sell a product for a time, make a fundamental performance change (the asynchronous version is mostly slower than a V200), tell no one, deny any changes, then deny any real difference (label clearly states "up to"). Wait almost a year to admit you have changed NAND...
No mention of the change and no new review samples sent out. And a lottery of which version you might get.
OCZ already got reamed for not changing model name for a NAND change having much less impact.
YOU SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE BUYING.
If you feel a slower drive by a name brand company suits your price or purpose fine.
I just feel disappointed in the whole sleazy deal.
It is like buying a car with high performance badges and a stock engine without being able to tell till after you own it.

 

[RU482]

No. The original V300 shipped and review samples given with Synchronous NAND. Performance was rated good to very good, an improvement on the V200.
When people noticed the slower performance (starting last May or so) there was dissembling and no explanation.
Basically if you send out review samples, sell a product for a time, make a fundamental performance change (the asynchronous version is mostly slower than a V200), tell no one, deny any changes, then deny any real difference (label clearly states "up to"). Wait almost a year to admit you have changed NAND...
No mention of the change and no new review samples sent out. And a lottery of which version you might get.
OCZ already got reamed for not changing model name for a NAND change having much less impact.
YOU SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE BUYING.
If you feel a slower drive by a name brand company suits your price or purpose fine.
I just feel disappointed in the whole sleazy deal.
It is like buying a car with high performance badges and a stock engine without being able to tell till after you own it.

good point. it is rather bullshitish. Another reason to not buy a from a lower tier manufacturer in a rapidly changing market. They f*cked up by not changing the model number. They REALLY f*cked up by not owning up to it. They are paying dearly I assume in an already cut-throat marketplace. And if you had been an aware consumer, seeing the tier 1's opening up the flood gates, you would have realized that Kingston is no different than OCZ...and should have expected that something had to give

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I don't understand all the fuss about this.

Did Kingston specifically advertise sync NAND on this SSD?
No, so then there is nothing to complain about, end of story.

When you ship a product that performs at a high level to review sites and to initial buyers, you are baiting consumers to into thinking you are offering a lot of performance at a relatively low price. That's called value. If you change the product such that its performance is greatly reduced in relevant, real-world scenarios, and you do not change its model number, you are switching products. Get it? Bait with a better product, switch to an inferior product.

I bought and recommended Kingston products for years. I recommended their products when I wrote articles for AnandTech that were viewed by millions. I don't write for the main site anymore, but I definitely will NOT be buying Kingston products nor recommending them to others moving forward.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Agree with Gigantopithecus here. You can argue the legal nuances, but this is a textbook definition of bait and switch - create a market for a product, publicize it as top of the line performance, and then switch to inferior parts without giving any indication to the public that anything has changed.

You can read the claims on the package of the drive (the one I sent back last week). It says nothing about being the "value" line, or even the "better" vs "best" performance that some companies indicate, like Netgear puts on their middle range routers. Everything in their adverstisements claimed the opposite - you are supposedly getting top end performance. Then they manufacture the first batch and sell them, providing that top end performance and creating a market for them. You may have a personal knowledge about the history of Kingston v-series versus hyper-x, but that doesn't mean everyone should assume that v-series will never improve, never reach higher end performance (like the performance Kingston claimed and stopped delivering).

 

[gregor7777]

Without running benchmarks, what's the easiest way to tell which version I have?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Firmware 5.06 and higher are the inferior version. These appear to have entered the market by Black Friday, as the two I have that were bought on Black Friday are gimped.

 

[gregor7777]

Firmware 5.06 and higher are the inferior version. These appear to have entered the market by Black Friday, as the two I have that were bought on Black Friday are gimped.

Is that listed in Device Manager you think?

 

[Elixer]

Is that listed in Device Manager you think?

Install something like Crystaldiskinfo (free) to see firmware version.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

It's printed on a label that's affixed to the drive and is visible without even opening the packaging.

 

[Ranulf]

It's printed on a label that's affixed to the drive and is visible without even opening the packaging.

Yup, look on the lower right, the 505 part of 505ABBF0. Mine is a 521 version from two months ago.

 

[gregor7777]

Yeah I already have it installed. I found out about the downgrade after I bought it.

 

[alexruiz]

When you ship a product that performs at a high level to review sites and to initial buyers, you are baiting consumers to into thinking you are offering a lot of performance at a relatively low price. That's called value. If you change the product such that its performance is greatly reduced in relevant, real-world scenarios, and you do not change its model number, you are switching products. Get it? Bait with a better product, switch to an inferior product.

I bought and recommended Kingston products for years. I recommended their products when I wrote articles for AnandTech that were viewed by millions. I don't write for the main site anymore, but I definitely will NOT be buying Kingston products nor recommending them to others moving forward.

Agree with Gigantopithecus here. You can argue the legal nuances, but this is a textbook definition of bait and switch - create a market for a product, publicize it as top of the line performance, and then switch to inferior parts without giving any indication to the public that anything has changed.

You can read the claims on the package of the drive (the one I sent back last week). It says nothing about being the "value" line, or even the "better" vs "best" performance that some companies indicate, like Netgear puts on their middle range routers. Everything in their adverstisements claimed the opposite - you are supposedly getting top end performance. Then they manufacture the first batch and sell them, providing that top end performance and creating a market for them. You may have a personal knowledge about the history of Kingston v-series versus hyper-x, but that doesn't mean everyone should assume that v-series will never improve, never reach higher end performance (like the performance Kingston claimed and stopped delivering).

I am sorry, but you guys are both wrong in here. Unless the package clearly says "sync NAND", there is nothing that guarantees what you are getting. Furthermore, don't all the packages always say "specifications subject to change without notice"?

Gigathopitecus, more in my favor, if you wrote for Anandtech, you know that many users rely on the tech sites to uncover all the details of the products, and it is the obligation of the reputable tech sites to ask those tricky questions. If I, as end customer, knew quite well the difference between the V series and the hyper-X, shouldn't one of the tech sites reviewing the V300 notice the sync nand, and furthermore, ask the question to Kingston if the indeed it was changing the V series to sync nand, and how that would play with the hyper-x? The tech sites failed to ask it.

Rio Rebel, why do you think that the intention was to deliberate change from sync to async? What if the final product was always intended to be async, but because of product development delays (validation, firmware, etc) it wasn't ready for sale at the target date, so the solution to not delay the launch was to just take a hyper-x and put it in a V series shell? Bait ans switch would be that the initial intention was to have sync, then they changed to async, but I would bet that the final objective was always async. Oh, and the hyper-x itself has been subject of changes. the initial hyper-x had 5k sync nand, later replaced by the hyper-x 3k, and in that case, even the box says in big letters "hyper-x 3k".

Was Kingston sneaky on omitting that plan (async for mass production) to the reviewers? Absolutely! But as far as giving you an inferior product that what was intended for production, that is not the case. The product was always intended to be a low performer to compete in price, some people just lucked out that the initial batch was a better performer than intended.

 

[infoiltrator]

Check the introduction and on line review dates, then the first on line threads of poor performance, the (lack) of Kingston response(carefully worded). Shirley, when directly asked about performance not matching review samples (sent out by Kingston!), then doing the Jedi mind trick, then admitting 6 months later NAND change. And still selling under same label. Is shell game.
If there was no significance to change why hide it, minimize it, and continue to label it in a confusing manner?
Performance "up to" is limited to one benchmark.
I seem to recall when OCZ tried this (to a much milder extent) Kingston declared foul and shame.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Alex, I am not arguing the legal point (as I was indicating earlier about "legal nuances"), so it's not a question of whether there was a clear cut case of fraud. There was not, imo.

But "bait and switch" as an ethical model is not just a question of strict legality. I believe this is bait and switch because of three distinct elements, none of which would be definitive by themselves, but taken collectively, cast a looming shadow of doubt:
1. Product advertises performance that it does not meet
2. Early versions of the product came reasonably close to claimed performance, establishing a reputation that increased market share, and later versions replaced specific initial components with cheaper, lower performance components.
3. No indication was made through even the slightest change to the model number - as in, V330, V250, or V300e.

All three of those factors together are damning, as I see it.

 

[Turab]

They've offered me a KC100 as a replacement. I think that's a good trade...

I'll look deeper into it later but any advise would be welcome.

Thanks

Is there any news about replacement of V300 ?

 

[semo]

Is there any news about replacement of V300 ?

Yes, sorry about the late reply. I do have the KC100 now. As mentioned, I used their own literature against them. You can clearly see a disparity between the old and new versions

http://media.kingston.com/support/downloads/V300_Benchmark_Brief_MKF_586.pdf

They do downplay the non compressible benchmark results. I buy components based on specification and pay little attention to the marketing blurbs (don't care about value and super extra extreme ranges). As far as I'm concerned, you can change as many of the internal components as you like, as long as the spec sheet remains the same. If the spec sheet changes, the model number/revision should change accordingly.

I encourage anyone who's bought a recent V300 to complain and either get their money back or get a suitable replacement that meets or exceeds the more favorable benchmark results in the document above.