“Of particular interest is the fact that, in every other KingFast F3 Plus SSD, there are 16 packages of NAND flash memory contained, whereas there are only 8 within the counterfeit F3 Plus SSD that we received”.
which easily explains the lower speeds using incompressible data/random workloads moreso than the nand itself being inferior.
Am I reading that correctly? That would seem to blow out the water any credibility that this slipped past Kingfast’s QA.
I agree completely. I seem to recall some kind of "architecture switch" not all that long ago from another manufacturer. :whiste:
I doubt very much that OCZ has the capability to bin NAND, but in any case why brand defective NAND and then put it on the market?
What proof do you have that the remarketed nand was "defective"? There are many more modes of failure for an SSD which have nothing to do with the actual nand dies themselves. Such as: previously used/heavily written nand which may/should not be fit for reuse on a new PCB, bad solder joints in far more than one location, defective controller chips.. etc. I surely wouldn't be throwing away any chances at recouping some margin if it can be used elsewhere.
Mircon bin NAND and then brand and sell it accordingly in a different channel. This sounds very much like OCZ selling NAND from RMA’d drives to try and cover the losses of their industry record breaking RMA return percentage.
I don't mean to be nasty or offend.. but if you really actually think that all the other manufacturers just throw their nand in the trash bin to be incinerated while singing Kum By Yah as $$$ signs come out the smoke stack?.. I'm thinking you're possibly.. just maybe.. being a bit naive. That stuff ain't so cheap that they just write it off to the trashbin when any of the above mentioned issues resultantly crop up into RMA's. And if it's as much as you guys think it is?.. that would be a lot of wasted ching.
The sooner OCZ go bust the better.