|
I think my SF-1200 Corsair might be dying. Once a week it won't boot up properly, requires a reboot to get Windows
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
gggiiimmmppp posted:The next generation wasn't objectively bad I don't think compared to comparable sandforce drives but then they pulled that shady business with the 25nm NAND with the Vertex 2 Even before that, the 2nd generation drives had some manufacturing issues that compounded OCZ's apparently poor QC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
I am the only human with successful OCZ drives apparently. 5 for 5. 2 Vertex 1s, 2 Vertex 2s and 1 Vertex 3. I must be the 1%.  (I don't know if I'll buy another OCZ drive still)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Just got a Samsung 830 128 GB to hold my gamez while my 120 GB G2 X25 holds Windows + programs. CrystalDiskMark says the Samsung is between two and eight times faster than the Intel drive depending on the benchmark. Almost seems excessive, but I'm pretty happy about it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
512GB drives for $300 next summer? 240/256GB drives can be found for $200 now, and 120GB drives were a steal at $200 last year. And 80GB drives were $200 the year before that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Didn't the SF-1200's have just as many issues as the current drives?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Baby Proof posted:My Vertex 2 lasted almost a year before it started crashing on me. Luckily it still would run long enough to image over to an Intel SSD. Yeah I had an Agility 2 that fortunately I had replaced and passed on to someone else crap out after a year. He had unluckily used it to replace HIS failing Agility 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
I didn't realize there were so many issues with the second gen as well, I thought it was mostly just the same generic sandforce issues that everyone had. In any case I had a pair of 60gb Agility 1s in RAID0 for the better part of 2 years and only replaced them because I needed to free a SATA port. I've never had a hiccup out of either of them; now one is a cache and one is secondary to the 64gb 830 I just put in my laptop. Now, the circumstances that required me to free a SATA port also required me to buy two replacement 1.5tb hard drives at fuckoff thai flood prices, so I was pretty desperate for a good deal on 120 gigs of SSD to replace the RAID. Against all of the advice, I got a 120 gig Agility 3 when they hit $90 or something on newegg. It's a non-critical machine (gaming/media pc) and I back it up to a mechanical every night, and so far it's been fine but I'm not going to hold my breath indefinitely. Once SSD prices drop a bit more I look forward to replacing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
as someone that is about to purchase his very first SSD in the form of a 120gb Intel 330, is there any indication from intel's track record that my drive will go to poo poo like so many of you have experienced?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:as someone that is about to purchase his very first SSD in the form of a 120gb Intel 330, is there any indication from intel's track record that my drive will go to poo poo like so many of you have experienced?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
My poor iMac only has SATA 2.0  Otherwise it looks inline with other numbers for similar drives on un-compressible data Mushkin Chronos 240GB
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:as someone that is about to purchase his very first SSD in the form of a 120gb Intel 330, is there any indication from intel's track record that my drive will go to poo poo like so many of you have experienced?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
japtor posted:There's not much track record with Intel + SF other than the 530. In general Intel has been one of the more solid ones though, barring some bugs with early firmware updates for the G1 and G2, and that 8MB bug that still seems to be hitting some people even after the fix...but overall statistically they're still good afaik. Samsung's the only other one with a similar track record I think (other than slower performance with their old drives). In terms of reliability, remember that Intel was the first company to offer a 5 year warranty on their SSDs, with their 320s. I don't know for certain, but I don't think any other company has matched that since.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
unpronounceable posted:In terms of reliability, remember that Intel was the first company to offer a 5 year warranty on their SSDs, with their 320s. I don't know for certain, but I don't think any other company has matched that since. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
Last night I grabbed the SanDisk Ultra 120GB SSD since it's cheap and on the recommended list of the system building thread. This morning I decided to read some of the reviews, and there are people saying it died on them within 3-4 months from being repeatedly put into sleep mode. Is this actually a real thing? I'm putting it in a desktop (which will never sleep/hibernate), but now it is making me wonder if there are any other concerns with this particular product? e: That might be a firmware issue, which I'll be updating as soon as I get the machine built. Tsurupettan fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Apr 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
Tsurupettan posted:Last night I grabbed the SanDisk Ultra 120GB SSD since it's cheap and on the recommended list of the system building thread. This morning I decided to read some of the reviews, and there are people saying it died on them within 3-4 months from being repeatedly put into sleep mode. Is this actually a real thing? I'm putting it in a desktop (which will never sleep/hibernate), but now it is making me wonder if there are any other concerns with this particular product? Every SSD will have a bunch of people out there reporting that it died on them 2 months after they bought it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
quote:SSD vendors set to trigger price war to force out smaller peers This looks like excellent news for us, if it's credible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Crossposting from the Windows thread: I have Windows 7 on one out of three partitions on my main disk. I've bought an SSD and want to move my OS to it. The only guides I've found deal with copying the entire disk to the SSD, and my SSD isn't big enough for that. I tried using CloneZilla, but it gave me a couple of errors and didn't clone the boot section. How do I do this the best way?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Boz0r posted:Crossposting from the Windows thread: Hm I'm not sure about best, but there are a few ways to do it if the disk is MBR and not GPT. If your W7 boot partition is the first on the disk, and smaller than your SSD, you can always do a straight dd/ddrescue across in some kind of linux boot disk. Afterwards go in with fdisk or whichever and delete the partition table entries for the non-system reserved, non-boot partitions. Keep in mind that the disk signature may be changed on your newly cloned drive and you may need to make some funky registry edits to fix the system up so that it boots from the correct drive. One other way is to again go in with linux, dd the MBR (if=/dev/sdX# of=/dev/sdY# bs=448 count=1), then on the ssd create your NTFS partition and either make it the same size as your boot drive, or just fill the disk if it's larger. Then ntfsclone it over, and then ntfsresize it. There's probably Ghost or Acronis ways to do this part, too, but I don't think a partition clone in them will get that boot sector from the start. Again you'll need to keep in mind that blog article. Probably the easiest way if you need to keep your settings is to just do a Windows Easy Transfer, then do a clean install on the new SSD and transfer your profile back that way. You'll need to reinstall your programs but I doubt you need everything you currently have installed; I never have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
You Am I posted:I think my SF-1200 Corsair might be dying. Once a week it won't boot up properly, requires a reboot to get Windows As a follow up to that, it is now doing this each time I boot up my PC. Are there any SSD diagnostic tools out there for me to check the drive (Corsair) or should I not bother and just get a new SSD immediately?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
You Am I posted:As a follow up to that, it is now doing this each time I boot up my PC. Are there any SSD diagnostic tools out there for me to check the drive (Corsair) or should I not bother and just get a new SSD immediately? I would immediately back up all your data. If you can make a drive image, that's probably the best (and easiest, albeit not fastest) option. You can then try secure-erasing the drive and re-imaging/reinstalling and seeing if that fixes anything. If so, great. If not, RMA it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
Here's a blog post from OWC about why you should avoid OCZ drives: http://blog.macsales.com/9438-not-all-ssd%92s-are-created-equal-the-story-continues quote:As you can see from the screen shot above, this OCZ SSD ordered Wednesday from a major retailer and received yesterday is still advertised as 120GB, yet is actually a 115GB version. quote:When we took the cover off of this third, direct from OCZ SSD, we found a ‘S’ stamped over Micron logo on all the flash devices (see the image to the left). This indicates the device is “off spec” product because it failed some parameter of Micron’s full performance and/or quality specification testing. “Off spec” memory is typically used in low-level applications such as toys, offering considerable cost savings over Tier 1 level to an SSD manufacturer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
All in favor of the thread title being renamed to "gently caress OCZ" again? Aye.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Hahaha, does anyone else remember way back when OCZ's main product was OverClockerZ RAM with useless go-faster heatsinks glued on? The dimms didn't generate enough heat to warrant heatsinks, but it did serve to obscure what sort of sub-par chips they were using.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:All in favor of the thread title being renamed to "gently caress OCZ" again? Aye.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
I don't think it'll help since it was already bold and at the top of the OP, but there we go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
That reminds me of this from way back: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/4quote:By writing less to flash SandForce also believes its controllers allow SSD makers to use lower grade flash. Most MLC NAND flash on the market today is built for USB sticks or CF/SD cards. These applications have very minimal write cycle requirements. Toss some of this flash into an SSD and you’ll eventually start losing data.  ...by shipping to customers instead of testing on their own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
wow.. so what about other manufactures that use sandforce controllers?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
japtor posted:That reminds me of this from way back: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/4 The SF220 controllers made RAISE optional so they probably didn't add in the spare chip needed to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Ok, so, I grabbed the SanDisk Ultra SDSSDH-120G-G25 2.5" 120GB SATA II the other night, because Newegg had a special going on where I could pop in a promo code and get it for like $99 as opposed to $129. That was a spur of the moment thing, which, after reading this thread, I'm sorta regretting a little. My question is simple: Should I stick with this drive, and if so what do I need to know/do to lower the chances of it up and failing on me? I'd be using it in a desktop, which will never go into sleep mode. I COULD potentially get a better drive, I suppose, though I would have to go through the Newegg return thing; which may not allow me to return it for any more than a replacement. Sandisk doesn't appear to offer firmware upgrades, either. Basically, what should I do and what should I expect?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 10:15
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Here's a blog post from OWC about why you should avoid OCZ drives: This is just so sketchy on the part of OCZ, and what's worse is that you have no idea whether you get first or second grade flash. It's a total coin toss. Also loling a SpecTek. I didn't know Micron was still running that racket. Just to give frame of reference: SpecTek RAM chips usually end up in $300~$400 budget desktops where the motherboard is some all-in-one piece of poo poo made by ECS. krooj fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 13:40
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:All in favor of the thread title being renamed to "gently caress OCZ" again? Aye. Makes enough sense to me, if they're still up to shady tricks. It is sketchy if they really are using poo poo-tier NAND chips that are intended for cheap USB flash drives and so on. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
To be clear, that article is a year old, it was linked to demonstrate why we hate them. Whether they've changed their ways is anyone's guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
Tunga, judging by the legions of people coming out of the woodwork to defend OCZ, I think everybody is erring on the side of caution by calling OCZ "the worst".
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
When I used to have to deal with hardware vendors OCZ was consistently was the worst in terms of RMAs and returns. They had the highest return rate on PSUs, easily two to three times higher than even the no-name Chinese crap we had to sell to turn a profit. I eventually stopped stocking them and one of their regional guys threw a tantrum with my suppliers. They were only just getting into the first gen Sandforce stuff when I sold the business but if its anything like their other product lines then expect the worst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
japtor posted:That reminds me of this from way back: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/4 How do we know they didn't test on their own? I mean, I know OCZ is shady as gently caress, but I'm just wondering if I missed something, or if you're just making a joke, or if I didn't miss anything, and you're making assumptions...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Kurui Reiten posted:Ok, so, I grabbed the SanDisk Ultra SDSSDH-120G-G25 2.5" 120GB SATA II... It's not the fastest, but you wouldn't notice the difference with the fastest with desktop use. It's not the most reliable, but it's about up there with Corsair and other good SandForce SSDs. It's no OCZ. It's a fine budget drive. quote:what do I need to know/do to lower the chances of it up and failing on me? There's nothing you can do, and it's almost impossible to predict an SSD failure, unfortunately. If it lasts 6 months, it'll probably last until you feel like replacing it. quote:Sandisk doesn't appear to offer firmware upgrades, either. SanDisk Ultra is based on an older SandForce controller; there's no further development for it, and thus no firmware updating o be had for ANY drive of that era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Went for a 256 Samsung 830..Doing a new build, hopefully I don't run into any weird problems..
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:Went for a 256 Samsung 830..Doing a new build, hopefully I don't run into any weird problems.. You should be fine. I was between that and a 520 for my build (ordering once IB comes out). Ended up going intel but the 830 is largely recommended, and fairly fast. e: my buddy just got a samsung 256 put in his work laptop not too long ago, and loving loves it. Runs circles around his sata2 ssd device at home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Thermopyle posted:How do we know they didn't test on their own? I mean, I know OCZ is shady as gently caress, but I'm just wondering if I missed something, or if you're just making a joke, or if I didn't miss anything, and you're making assumptions...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 23:25
|
|