Please vote on update to "recommended SSDs"

[Zap]

This is the recommended SSD list:
Which SSD should I buy?

There are some reports of drives with issues, such as the Intel 320 suddenly turning into an 8GB drive, or whatever problems plague OCZ and SandForce.

My question to all you guys is at what point should this affect recommendations? Obviously if the failure rate is really high then we wouldn't want to recommend the drives. However, if it is just a vocal minority and the actual percentage of failure is reasonable (no computer component failure rate will be zero) then the drives should still be recommended.

What says you all? Should we or should we not? If we should change recommendations, please reply with what drives you would want to see removed from being recommended, and why.

 

[thescreensavers]

Yes, or at least mention it.

I read your guide, and looked at tons of reviews for the OCZ Vertex 2 drive. If I would of read in the guide that they have a tendency to die I would of looked into it and or possibly avoided it.

You can be fast and be the top of the benchmarks but, a dead drive is not fast.

Mine died in a month, I would not just simply say "firmware bugs" in reality they "die"

 

[Zap]

Is there any site reporting on it? For instance: Intel investigates possible bug in SSD 320 drives

Ignore the fact that it is Macworld.

 

[RussianSensation]

In your "Which SSD Should I buy?" section you mention that people shouldn't buy new(er) SSDs due to potential problems that haven't been discovered. I think you should try to order the drivers that are recommended by their Release Date. For a casual user, there will be no way of knowing which drives are actually newer. I realize it would be very hard to find the actual release date. Perhaps you can put 2009, 2010, 2011 or if you have more specific data, Q1 2011, etc.

I think you also should be more specific in regard to your recommendations:

i.e. 1) SandForce controller is NOT to be recommended for those who will have a ton of non-compressible data on their OS drive (i.e., movies, pictures, MP3s, etc.)
2) Perhaps list Max Read and Write speeds for the drives too (because some drives won't ever get those speeds with SATA I/II connection. Maybe to make it easier on yourself, just split modern drives into SATA 3 vs. SATA 2. So you'd simply group all the modern drives under SATA III umbrella and all the "Not so good SSDs" under SATA II section. If you split the drives by Sata 2 vs. SATA 3 section, it will be immediate right away to a notice which drives are aimed at mainstream vs. performance. This way you may not have to worry about the Release Date even.

I also agree that if any Major problems are discovered, you can quickly provide an update on that drive. For example, until the 8mb issues with the Intel 320 series are fixed, it can't be recommended (even if it is in your recommended list based on "initial" speed and reliability).

Also, some reviews reveal serious weaknesses about current drives:
Corsair Force 3 Series.

The other aspect which would help A LOT is providing a warranty length for the drive in question.

So in summary:

SATAIII
OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS (3 Year Warranty) (Q1 2011). Max Read/Write: 550 MB/s / 500 MB/s. Random 4k Write: 75,000 IOPs.
OCZ Vertex 3 (3 Year Warranty) (Q1 2011). Max Read/Write: 550 MB/s / 520 MB/s. Random 4k Write: 60,000 IOPs.
OCZ Agility 3 (3 Year Warranty) (Q1 2011). Max Read/Write: 525 MB/s / 500 MB/s. Random 4k Write: 50,000 IOPs.
OCZ Solid 3 (3 Year Warranty) (Q1 2011). Max Read/Write: 500 MB/s / 450 MB/s. Random 4k Write: 20,000 IOPs.

You can have something like that going.

 

[corkyg]

Many of reported problems are the result of pressure to market hardware and firmware not yet ripe. These retailed "betas" often get fixed. Point is, any such list should be revised periodically to reflect OEM updates and/or revisions. Thanks, Zap.

 

[Zap]

[wall of text deleted, but I read it all]

That's probably beyond the scope of a quick buyer recommendation guide.

 

[Old Hippie]

My question to all you guys is at what point should this affect recommendations?

I would have no idea where to start but that's why you are a "Super Moderator".

I feel the Intel bug is way overrated and I've seen major discussions on other sites where the poster freely admits to the title "Don't by Intel Drives" was made to fan the flames.

I dunno where I'd draw the line.

Sorry.

As usual I'm of little help.

 

[Zap]

that's why you are a "Super Moderator".

I've always wondered how that happened.

 

[Voo]

Mine died in a month, I would not just simply say "firmware bugs" in reality they "die"

Pretty sure the drive just locked up. Hardly any SF drives "die" - it's all just firmware bugs with some (well a pretty large number of some though) hardware.

I'd mention both problems and also mention the different scopes: The intel bug seems to be a real firmware bug and independent of specific hardware, while the SF drives mostly have compatibility problems.

I think the consequences for that are clear: While the intel bug can concern everyone, it should be much easier to fix, than the SF problems. But if you have compatible hardware for your SF drive they're quite reliable.


Anyways I think the most important part is mentioning these problems so that the buyers can make more informed decisions - but obviously ever recommendation will weight heavily there.. balancing act that. We already mention that the most problem-free drives out there are the X25 G2 drives and I fear that'll stay true for the foreseeable future (ah who'd have thought that these drives would turn into such an awesome buy? )

 

[darckhart]

tbh, being the tech geek, i have done the reading of the reviews as they come out, i know what usage model fits me best, and i have a good idea of which drive i want. then i lurk and read about problems. this will either confirm my choice, or make me look again. the way i see it, the rec thread is just for those too lazy to do all that work and want a quick answer. which is totally fine too.

having just looked at the rec thread for the first time, here's the good: lists controller, then models (assumed ranked by performance). here's how i think it could be better: categorize it like the LCD rec thread. should there be mention of issues? yes, as footnotes to the recs. when they get big/bad enough, then yes, it should affect rank.

 

[PeeluckyDuckee]

All these issues plaguing SSD drives have me very weary of jumping ship into SSD territory. Nor do I think its at a good price point to GB ratio yet. Mechanical drives offer the best bang for the buck at the moment, and simply surfing the net with a few odd games here and there does not warrant an SSD for me anyways.

If anything though I'd still stick to big name Intel for support purposes.

 

[Old Hippie]

(ah who'd have thought that these drives would turn into such an awesome buy?

Me.

The Crucial 265GB C300 is in the same class.

 

[philosofool]

Our opinions about which drives are reliable is mostly a matter of which drives are purchased most. If drive A is purchased ten times as often as drive B and fails half as often as B, there will be five times as many reports of drive A failures as drive B failures. for that reason, anecdotal reports of failures should not be used to make recommendations.

 

[thescreensavers]

Pretty sure the drive just locked up. Hardly any SF drives "die" - it's all just firmware bugs with some (well a pretty large number of some though) hardware.

I bought my Vertex 2 in January, it was the one with the controversial new slower nand. I did not know about it until after I had gotten it and read about the negatives.

Drive locked up or died, regardless It had to be sent in to be fixed.

In my situation the bios was not detecting the drive any more, so even if I had the software to unlock it, it would of not worked.

 

[Elixer]

Isn't the #1 issue for SSD's firmware related issues ?

However, I am unsure how the end-user can know if it was a firmware issue, or something else that made them RMA the drive in the first place.

I also am not really sure how you can recommend some drives over others, since, most of the time, the only people that complain are the ones that have issues, the other people don't really bother saying the SSD works OK.
If you are going by what stores sell, the #1 seller is OCZ, but how many of those had to be RMAed? Since that is highly guarded info, everyone is just guessing that they have more failed units than other companies.

I think you need some inside sources from all companies to give you the scoop on what is going on.

That said, for a unscientific poll, just list all the SSDs in some thread, and have people vote up/down their experience with the unit. Perhaps that would be a bit more fair.

 

[jimmyzaas]

I think the best way to choose an SSD strictly for reliability is to take a look at which ones are chosen by OEM PC Makers. Obviously, they want less RMAs for their gear. I see that Samsung, Intel, Micron/Crucial and Toshiba are all used by these big companies like Apple, HP and Dell. However, I don't think I've ever seen Sandforce made any one's lists.

 

[nanaki333]

I see that Samsung, Intel, Micron/Crucial and Toshiba are all used by these big companies like Apple, HP and Dell. However, I don't think I've ever seen Sandforce made any one's lists.

good point. i never even thought or realized that (or really cared i guess since i buy hdd laptops and put my own in).

 

[Voo]

I think the best way to choose an SSD strictly for reliability is to take a look at which ones are chosen by OEM PC Makers.

There are many other reasons why OEM's go with one company instead of another and while reliability may contribute to it, I doubt it's that important - especially considering that those decisions were mostly made when the OEMs could have absolutely no idea how reliable one drive or another would be.