The SSD Megathread - Don't buy OCZ/Toshiba, Kingston, or Crucial drives, read the OP

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The SSD Megathread - Don't buy OCZ/Toshiba, Kingston, or Crucial drives, read the OP

«‹›7 »

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

TwoKnives posted:

The successor to the 320 is being released on the 13th of this month, with reportedly almost double the performance.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/03/intel_330_ssd/

This makes me happy, especially considering the prices they're suggesting. $150 for a 120GB Intel? Yes, please! I would like confirmation that it's not a SandForce drive, though. If it is, I might have to pick up something else: my Corsair Force 3 just pulled a permanent disappearing act yesterday. Between this and a Agility 2 doing the same thing 6 months ago, I'm giving up on SandForce drives entirely.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2012 02:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:39

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

krooj posted:

I was going to say it's an Intel controller, but the overview by Anandtech says the controller is currently unknown. In any case, Intel Sandforce drives have been solid, and you know Intel isn't going to gently caress you on RMAs.

True, though I have to say the RMA for both the OCZ and the Crucial was pretty painless. It's mostly just not wanting to deal with the hassle of replacing a main drive every 6 months--even if I did learn the first time and set nightly backups to a NAS.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2012 04:29

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

D. Ebdrup posted:

If it comes to Denmark before 15/5, I will have to choose between three drives rather than two. drat it, choice is hard!

Just remember the pedigree that you're getting with OCZ. Back your poo poo up. Preferably image the SSD to another drive regularly.

e; Interesting to see it's not a SF drive, but one of their in-house Indilinx ones. Wonder what that'll mean for reliability.

DrDork fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Apr 4, 2012

# ¿ Apr 4, 2012 16:04

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

z16bitsega posted:

I remember a few years ago my mom had a crappy netbook with a 16gb SSD, and it was cripplingly slow with XP installed. Was this due to lack of TRIM, some flaw in XP that's hopefully been corrected by now, or just because it was a crappy netbook?

Probably a mix. Lack of TRIM hurts once you start filling the drive up, XP may or may not have aligned itself correctly on instal, and netbooks are inherently pretty low on the performance side of the house. Also you're looking at literally the slowest of all possible SSDs on the market: SSDs get a lot of their speed by utilizing parallel NAND chips. The lower the capacity, the fewer the number of physical chips, and the lower the performance. At 16GB you're talking one, maybe two chips, where as larger ones can have 32 or even 64.

But yes, even for all that it should be faster than a 4200RPM drive. Look up a guide for aligning a XP install, and enjoy better performance.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2012 04:11

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

tngffl posted:

I was looking at this too. Why is this $550 yet the Samsung 830 is like 800 bucks? The 256gb versions of each are within like 10 bucks of each other.

Is there a reason I shouldn't pick this up?

The M4's downside is (comparatively) slow writes. While the M4 tops out around 260MBps, the Samsung 830 claims to do upwards of 400MBps. Whether or not that's worth the extra cost is, of course, your call. But if it were me, and I wasn't running a datacenter off it or something, I'd save my money and go with the M4. Or, if I had any amount of patience (I don't), I'd wait another week or two for the Vertex 4 and Intel 330 to push prices down a bit more.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2012 04:04

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Alereon posted:

So remember when OCZ launched the new Indilinx Everest controller, and people were impressed because it actually seemed to have reasonable performance? Well, it was all a lie.

This is...really curious. Mostly because I don't see what they were trying to gain by rebadging the controller: the Marvell ones are already widely regarded as superior in reliability to SandForce-based ones, and the extra clockspeed and custom firmware clearly have upped the performance in certain scenarios. I'd think consumers would be more willing to trust a modified version of a proven Marvell chip than a brand new (and very quickly developed) Indilinx chip.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2012 03:01

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Alereon posted:

I think it was intended as a way to avoid admitting the failure of the Everest project and that their Indilinx acquisition was a colossal mistake.

Yeah, I could kinda see that from one perspective, but the only people that could possibly be aimed at would be investors/stockholders. And those people, I'd imagine, would be happier with a product that sold well because it was screaming fast and based on a proven chip. Instead, they've got a product that came out of the gate with people looking sideways at it because of its heritage and development questions, and now is getting hammered over trying to fake the chipset. Then again, it's OCZ, and sometimes I just don't get them. :iiam:

# ¿ Apr 12, 2012 04:23

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

olaf2022 posted:

I had two OCZ SSD's suddenly fail, unable to be recognized in BIOS, while the little LED's were still green. It's most likely dead.

A'yup. I had an Agility 2 fail on me the same way. The little green LED just shows that it's getting power, I think. It certainly doesn't seem to indicate that it's functioning properly, at any rate.

Personally, I'd RMA it, and when they send you the replacement, drop it on eBay: they still sell pretty close to retail on there. Take the money from that and use it to pay for a drive from a better lineup. I went Agility 2 -> Corsair Force 3 -> Samsung 830 because gently caress SandForce's chips at this point.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2012 04:52

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Factory Factory posted:

I don't see any reason the 330 couldn't be a consumer drive the way a ThinkPad is a consumer laptop. Hell, Intel SSDs are a specific option on ThinkPads.

Sure, but I think Intel's outlook is that SSD's will quickly become a commodity product like HDDs, where the margins are razor thin and everyone is slitting each other's throats: not really a market that Intel feels like investing too heavily in, or staying in too long. Hence the exit from the controller game, and the eventual exit from the market entirely.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2012 04:36

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Kween posted:

I'm upgrading from an Intel G2 80GB to something with a bit more space and I've narrowed it down to 3 drives.

Either the 180GB Corsair Force 3 for �165, 240GB Mushkin Chronos for �170 or 256GB Samsung 830 for �205.

I'm currently leaning towards the Samsung due to size/reliabilty. Any thoughts?

Samsung 830 all the way. Not only is it the largest of your options, but none of the others (including the new Vertex 4 and Intel 330) are all that much faster in normal workloads. Samnsung's reliability has also been top-notch since day 1. There's really no downsides to it, other than being a little more than your other options.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2012 16:14

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Just remember that there are a lot of games that do not noticeably benefit from being on a SSD. The best games to put on a SSD are actually MMOs (due to their highly unpredictable loading structure), and the worst are your rail-shooter games where the game has a ton of time to load up the next batch of files because it knows exactly where you're going next. This includes pretty much every single game that's been ported from/co-developed for the XBox/PS3. Also, games like CivV, where as long as you have enough VRAM, it'll just load everything it needs on startup and never bother loading anything else for the entire game.

There are a lot of people (myself included) who opted to stay with a faster, smaller drive for Windows and common apps (and games that actually benefit from a SSD), and run a larger normal HDD for mass-storage and games that do not benefit much from better read speeds. So don't feel that you NEED to spring for a 200+GB drive in order to fit all your games on it.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2012 00:19

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Bob Morales posted:

It's a last-gen SandForce part (SF-1222)

...

Would it be reliable?

In the last two years, between myself and two friends, we've had 4 Vertex 3's fail, a Corsair Force 3, and an Agility 2. Not one of them lasted more than 11 months, and this was over 4 different computers, so it wasn't a single "killer PSU/mobo" or something.

You do the math.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2012 06:27

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Ash1138 posted:

True, but I personally can't go back to HDD loading times. I don't even bother symlinking the Steam games I have on my HDD anymore. Any game that isn't on my 256gb Samsung 830 is a game that I'm simply not playing.

Yeah, it's really just a question of whether you want to take the 30 seconds of effort to symlink a game to a HDD and deal with the extra 2 seconds of loading, or take the extra 30 seconds and uninstall a game and risk having to reinstall if you want to play it again. Personal preference, either way.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2012 23:21

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

AG3 posted:

Are the ones on the forums just a minority, or do the Sandforce drives fail/hiccup semi-regularly still?

It's hard to get a real accurate idea of failure rates since no one releases that information, but there has been enough anecdotal evidence for high failure rates with SD-based drives that I stopped buying them and would no recommend them to anyone who didn't run without some sort of robust backup plan (like a daily/weekly image or something). I'd be willing to give the Intel 330 a temporary pass, because their products have always been pretty damned stable, regardless of chipset.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2012 14:18

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Strike Anywhere posted:

For those of you with 60GBs in the enterprise, have you used any particular tricks to keep the 60GB drives from filling up? Besides urging users to keep docs on the network shares, I'm thinking about putting together some automatic scripts or settings pushed from group policy to do disk cleanup or whatever.

The solution my office uses to push everyone to storing their poo poo on network shares is to simply give everyone a disk quota on the local drive. It's not particularly elegant, but it is effective.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2012 01:25

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Bob Morales posted:

Didn't the SF-1200's have just as many issues as the current drives?

Yup. Firmware updates fixed some of them, but there's still a lot of random unexplained drive panics and disconnects. Stupidly fast, mind you, but unreliable over time.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2012 00:52

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

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?

Intel drives have been pretty reliable, overall. This is their first one with this particular SF chip, though, so the jury is still out on it. But chances are a lot better that it'll be a-ok than from any of the other SF vendors, so there's that.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2012 20:09

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

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?

There's not much that a diagnostic tool would tell you, anyhow. It's extremely unlikely that there's a problem with the underlying flash chips, which is what the tool would check. The problems typically come from the firmware bugs and the SF chip freaking out and entering panic states--something diagnostic tools don't really catch.

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

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Nate RFB posted:

Anything? I'm about to start the system imaging. It seems like there are conflicting reports in this thread, some that seem to indicate that going W7 on a SSD to W7 on another SSD can be done with no problems (IEatBabies' post), and otherw that say you need to use 3rd party tools.

Re-imaging to another SSD will not induce any new issues for you. So, assuming you set it up properly the first time (ie, did a clean instal and let Win7 set the partition up, or when you cloned over your HDD partition you ensured proper offsets), you should be able to simply clone over to your new SSD without any further fuckery. Mind you, some of the more simplistic imaging tools may not pay attention to the new drive being larger than the old one, and you may end up with a 120GB partition on your new 240GB drive, leaving the remaining 120GB as a separate partition, rather than as one large 240GB partition. Whether this is desirable or not is up to you, and I know a bunch of imaging tools (Norton Ghost is the only one I've used personally) will let you set things up however you want.

In any case, yeah, you should be fine.

# ¿ May 4, 2012 22:36

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

PUNCHITCHEWIE posted:

Theoretically this is true, but in reality not so much.
...
If this is the sort of that annoys you it's very worth the money, it helps in many more situations than just load times.

Shooters do not really give much of a poo poo about how much system RAM you have, as long as it's not embarrassingly small. Your description of small stuttering and whatnot sounds a lot more like you've run out of VRAM, and the only way you're going to fix that is by getting a video card with more VRAM or by playing with less demanding options turned on. Will having a SSD help cover for your too-small video-card? A little. But you're just trying to fix the symptoms while ignoring the root problem. Buying a SSD to put non-MMO games on won't benefit them enough to justify the price, with the exception of BF3 simply because loading first lets you be a dick and steal the aircraft.

You're right about indy games and other poorly managed applications, though. Their saving grace is usually that their loads are so small that as long as you're not really killing your HDD with other activity, the loads will still be quite fast. You do occasionally run into those outliers, though, which for whatever reason just hate loading intelligently. In such cases, by all means, toss them on a SSD.

# ¿ May 5, 2012 19:11

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

LittleBob posted:

Someone suggested using them for specific folders, so I might just use them for torrents or Steam games unless there's a better use.

Torrents and Steam games is probably the worst thing you could use them for.

# ¿ May 5, 2012 19:14

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Alereon posted:

It's a little silly to just throw a $200 SSD in the machine without even checking to see what the problem is. There's no reason a 7200rpm HDD that isn't failing should slow a machine down, so you're likely not addressing the issue. At best there might be a system issue causing excessive I/O load that an SSD could mask, but the system is still not going to perform like one that doesn't have the problem.

This man is correct. An 8GB quad-core should not be having any issues with wordprocessing and web-browsing, even with a lot of tabs. Now, if you're really talking a lot of tabs, one thing that may be helpful (it certainly was for me) was to move off the normal FireFox version (you aren't letting her use IE, are you?) and on to FireFox x64, AKA Minefield. It's a lot better about how it does memory management with tabs, which may very well do more about the issue than a new drive would. A few plugins don't work on x64, but unless it's something she specifically needs, it's certainly worth a look.

You have checked her computer for viruses, spyware, maleware, etc., right?

# ¿ May 8, 2012 00:31

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

I generally run with anywhere from one to three dozen tabs open at a given time for various reasons. Switching from the standard x32 to the x64 version of FF substantially improved its abilities to handle numerous large pages at once. The JS engine is a bit slower, yes, but in actual use that seems to have a pretty ignorable impact.

# ¿ May 8, 2012 00:48

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Kairos posted:

I run a goddamned assload of tabs (we're talking hundreds here) in Firefox and I still don't get anywehre near the 32-bit memory addressing limit. If you run lots of tabs, the main thing you need to do with Firefox is set 'browser.sessionstore.max_concurrent_tabs' in about :config to 0. This will make Firefox load a tab into memory only when you click on it.

The issue is not running out of addressable memory, per-se, but how FireFox handles the paging of tabs. The x64 version is quite a bit speedier in my experience in swapping around between a bunch of tabs. I am not sure of the low-level mechanics of why this is, but I tried playing with various settings in the x32 version as well, and it just never measured up.

# ¿ May 8, 2012 02:00

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

foundtomorrow posted:

I am also wondering this exact question and what monitor can handle showing that many in rows while still seeing the tab title?

FF doesn't use rows of tabs: if you get that many open, it lets you scroll left/right to see more. That way you never lose visual space. If you need to, you can also keep a few different FF windows open, each with their own set of tabs, for organization.

Personally, I don't get to hundreds, but I have 20-30 open at any point in time. A bunch are for different email/other accounts, a few for forums, a bunch for network and machine monitoring, and then a few for whatever else I'm loving around with right at the moment. FF x64 and 8GB of RAM makes it pretty much a non-issue keeping that many open. Three monitors also help, since I can just dedicate one entirely to FF and not feel bad about it.

# ¿ May 8, 2012 03:30

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

DoctorOfLawls posted:

I have a 160gb SSD and I want to upgrade to a bigger one. Is there a way to mirror the contents of my current SSD to the new one so that I do not have to reinstall everything? What should I do to accomplish that?

This is easily accomplished with pretty much any modern imaging tool. CloneZilla, Norton Ghost, etc., will all happily let you move everything over to your new drive. Just make sure to tick the "make bootable" or whatever similar option is presented, or it'll still try to boot off the old SSD first.

# ¿ May 10, 2012 04:01

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

If you want to see the fastest benchmark numbers, make sure you set it to using all 0's or all 1's, rather than random data.

# ¿ May 11, 2012 05:44

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Vertigus posted:

Given these numbers:

can someone tell me if it's still worth using the SSD or should I just switch back to my HDD until Nvidia gets its head out of its rear end or Mushkin releases a patch like OCZ did?

Kinda depends on what you think about it all. It's certainly posting better numbers than a normal HDD, particularly on random read/writes. Whether or not that's enough to justify its cost is up to you. I wouldn't hold your breath on nVidia updating the chipset, though.

# ¿ May 12, 2012 06:30

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Alereon posted:

There's no good reason to avoid Sandforce-based drives, OCZ drives are poo poo because OCZ makes them, not because some of them had Sandforce in them.

While OCZ's are obviously the worst of the bunch, even with fully updated firmware the current batches SandForce still have more issues and a higher chance of spontaneously failing than some of the others, like the Samsung or M4. Because of that, unless I was really concerned about price, I'd generally spring for one of those instead of a SandForce drive. I might give Intel a shot because I trust that they can actually write solid firmware for the chip, whereas I have substantially lower confidence for the other SandForce vendors.

# ¿ May 13, 2012 03:27

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

redeyes posted:

I think its far more likely that a lot of vendors were using substandard NAND in order to undercut prices.

Entirely possible--I don't think anyone really bothered to check up on that sort of thing except in OCZ's case. Either way, the M4, 830, and Intel's old series all have a better track record for reliability than any SandForce drive. Intel's new SandForce drives may very well be up to that level of reliability, but only time will tell.

# ¿ May 13, 2012 05:56

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Bob Morales posted:

That Intel 311 is $119 for 20GB?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167062

I know it's SLC instead of MLC but drat.

Well yeah. It's an Enterprise drive that's intended to be used as a cache-drive for high-end business servers or whatnot where it'll get read/written to continuously. In a high-volume production setting, the SLC vs MLC thing can actually have meaning. I mean, it's still expensive and all, but check out what happens to HDD prices when you slap "Enterprise" or "RAID edition" onto them; poo poo gets crazy!

# ¿ May 16, 2012 04:58

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

balakadaka posted:

I can't help but think you'd regret not spending that money on a consumer product.

It's not intended for people interested in buying consumer-grade products. It is an Enterprise drive, aimed at businesses, who aren't going to bat an eye at the price. This is also the target demographic for the $300-$400 Enterprise/RAID-Edition 2TB HDDs that no normal consumer in their right mind would bother with.

But yeah, for a normal person there's no reason to even consider using it.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 00:46

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Endymion FRS MK1 posted:

http://vr-zone.com/articles/runcore-intros-invincible-ssd-with-physical-self-destruct-feature/15892.html

Now this is interesting. A self-destructing SSD that overvolts the NAND and fries it, getting rid of "sensitive" material. Wonder if they realize what 99% of their market is going to become though?

If the price-point on those was competitive, the military would be all over those things. And not just for the super-secret stuff, either; disposal of any drive that might have had any sort of sensitive data or personal data (medical records, etc, which ends up being just about every drive ever) is supposed to get shipped off to a disposal facility so they can ensure proper destruction--at quite a cost. Being able to fry the drive and call it good would noticeably simplify that disposal process.

# ¿ May 17, 2012 15:28

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Space Gopher posted:

If they were actually selling it on the arms market, they'd qualify it for military standards ("the case looks like it can take a bit of a beating" means precisely jack poo poo), have a way to keep unauthorized users from frying the drive, and have it made in the user's country (both for national-security reasons and so the right people can get the right generous kickbacks).

Unless you're actually dealing with classified material and/or the SIPRNet, there really aren't any particular requirements for generic computer hardware. Even most of the SIPRNet hardware I've seen is pretty generic stuff, just air-gapped from anything with a normal internet connection.

I can 100% guarantee you that virtually all office computers in the military and other government branches comprise of whatever Dell or HP (or for laptops, also Panasonic, Sony, or Lenovo) happened to have an attractive price on when the bid order went out. They all have specific requirements for how the drives/storage material is to be disposed of, though. As a bonus, I don't think there's any US-made hard drives even available, so I'm not sure where you were getting that "made in the user's country" bit from.

# ¿ May 18, 2012 00:25

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Space Gopher posted:

And, for all the standard office machines, there's already methods in place to ensure secure data destruction when it's necessary, so there's not really any reason to purchase this in that role.

Right, thus the "if the price point is right." If it only adds $5 or something to the normal cost, then it would be a net gain to go with self-destruction, rather than paying shipping + destruction costs. If it's $100 extra or whatever, then yeah, pretty much pointless. And, yeah, all the PYQ stuff is custom-built, which this sort of thing clearly isn't ever gonna edge in on. Of course, that's how we end up with $30,000 radios that don't even work as well as the little hand-held walkie-talkies you can get from Walmart for $50 :psyduck:

DrDork fucked around with this message at 02:08 on May 18, 2012

# ¿ May 18, 2012 02:05

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

I would sell that bitch in an instant. You can apparently still get close to $100 for them on eBay, which is stupid, but good for you.

# ¿ May 18, 2012 06:51

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Anywhere close to two years is at least a year longer than the 6 OCZ drives my friends and I have gone through.

# ¿ May 23, 2012 04:49

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

fletcher posted:

why do people keep supporting this company?

When you combine cheapest and fastest you're always gonna get people who are willing to risk reliability. Hell, you still get them when it's just cheapest or fastest. At least their experiences can serve as warnings to everyone else!

# ¿ May 24, 2012 01:00

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

movax posted:

I supported them with like five drives

They don't count if they're all RMAs off the same original drive :colbert:

# ¿ May 24, 2012 04:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:39

DrDork: Dec 29, 2003; commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Boten Anna posted:

In my limited experience, OCZ drives tend to be about $20 cheaper than roughly equivalent Crucial ones in the US. It's tempting when SSD price per gigabyte is so high compared to disk drives, but it's really not worth it to get something that, you know, probably won't work.

Pretty much this. While it's true that for X risk, a discount of Y makes it worth it, the numbers don't match up well for OCZ. At release, OCZ was usually undercutting their competition only by $10-$20 or so on $200-$300 drives, so the discount was pretty minimal. The discount hasn't really gotten any larger as all the drives have slid down the price-scale, either. When you consider that most people don't take the time or effort to do a backup disk image (or backup at all, sadly), the cost of a disk failure is quite large. And now that the M4 and Samsung 830's are regularly taking sale-dips down into OCZ price territory, it's even harder to excuse buying them.

So, in conclusion, gently caress OCZ.

# ¿ May 25, 2012 02:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The SSD Megathread - Don't buy OCZ/Toshiba, Kingston, or Crucial drives, read the OP

«‹›7 »