SSD vs HDD speed

[Puddle Jumper]

When you consider all the different models and sizes of SSD's that OCZ offers and sells, they have very good reliability. When you sell more drives than a competitor it only makes sense that you have a few more returns.

I've tested numerous OCZ drives and I haven't had a single problem plus OCZ will give you the fastest drive at the best price.

How does different models and sizes excuse poor quality? Besides I would image Intel's total sales are equivalent to OCZ's anyways. Also you do realize the number of drives they sell has zero impact on the failure rate right?

If you visit any of the major forums with active storage sections (Anandtech for example) you will see a lot of people refuse to own anything Sandforce based due to the long list of firmware problems that have plagued both generations of their controllers.

The reason OCZ drives have dropped in price while Intel and Crucial have not is due to these quality issues, it's a case of you get what you pay for. I've owned 3 OCZ and 2 Intel drives too so it's not like I am a fanboy either.

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

Honestly, we still have years before anyone can truly say an SSD is proven to be more reliable than anything, I don't care what you people think, or say about HDD vs SSD in terms of reliability, I have drives that are 10+ years old now, and most all them still work. I have dealt with more SSD issues from crap firmware than anything else, including the impossibility of updating the firmware on some systems because of the lack of a proper controller card.

I still vote that multiple hard drives in RAID 0 can match SSD performance in the end, considering my RAID array is only ~100mb/s off of my SSD, and I feel literally no difference between that array and the SSD in a lot of things.

 

[Slaymate]

If you look at Newegg, OCZ has 88 different drives available for sale, Intel only offers 36 different drives. OCZ sells a lot more SSD's than Intel, you can tell just by looking at the number of reviews ( it will give you a rough idea of the general numbers). Poor Quality is is why Intel SSD sales are down not OCZ sales.

When you sell 100 drives and your competitor sells 25 and you have 10 returns and your competitor only has 5 returns it doesn't mean your competitor has a more reliable drive. It just means your competitor needs to sell more. Intel drives are plagued by problems and they charge you more for it.

I could care less what the fanboys at Anandtech have to say.

The price of OCZ drives are lower because they sell more drives and they don't rely on SandForce for technical support. Thats also why they release firmware updates before other companies using SandForce controllers.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Honestly, we still have years before anyone can truly say an SSD is proven to be more reliable than anything, I don't care what you people think, or say about HDD vs SSD in terms of reliability, I have drives that are 10+ years old now, and most all them still work. I have dealt with more SSD issues from crap firmware than anything else, including the impossibility of updating the firmware on some systems because of the lack of a proper controller card.

I still vote that multiple hard drives in RAID 0 can match SSD performance in the end, considering my RAID array is only ~100mb/s off of my SSD, and I feel literally no difference between that array and the SSD in a lot of things.

Would the SSD with firmware problems happen to be Sandforce?

I disagree that RAID 0 can ever match a SSD. Even if you used the best 15k RPM SAS disks and a top of the line RAID controller you will still have an order of magnitude higher latency than a low end SSD. Ultimately that low latency and the resulting excelent Random IO an SSD is capable of will always give them a performance edge over mechanical drives.

Just the other day I was working on a system with dual Velociraptors in RAID 0 and I found it to be perceptably slower than the Intel 320 Series in my laptop. The RAID steup probably even equalled the seqential performance of the SSD but that dosn't matter, random IO and latency are what really matter.

What system are you comparing the SSD to RAID on? I suspect there must be some bottleneck if the SSD doesn't feel faster.

If you look at Newegg, OCZ has 88 different drives available for sale, Intel only offers 36 different drives. OCZ sells a lot more SSD's than Intel, you can tell just by looking at the number of reviews ( it will give you a rough idea of the general numbers). Poor Quality is is why Intel SSD sales are down not OCZ sales.

When you sell 100 drives and your competitor sells 25 and you have 10 returns and your competitor only has 5 returns it doesn't mean your competitor has a more reliable drive. It just means your competitor needs to sell more. Intel drives are plagued by problems and they charge you more for it.

I could care less what the fanboys at Anandtech have to say.

The price of OCZ drives are lower because they sell more drives and they don't rely on SandForce for technical support. Thats also why they release firmware updates before other companies using SandForce controllers.

Failure rate is not affected by the number of drives sold.

Intel had one firmware bug, one. OCZ would be lucky if they only had five times that. The fact that you have used a small handful of OCZ SSDs that have not died is meaningless.

So all of the people at Anandtech are fanboys even though many of them have owned OCZ drives? have you even used a Intel SSD much less purchased one?

Also I don't know where you are getting the idea Intel sales are down. OCZ's high sales are easy to explain though, they are cheap.

 

[Mazurati]

Great information guys. Thanks for the responses
new here and already feel I'm going to love it.

I'm trying to build my 1st computer and just trying to learn about this stuff. I'm interested in putting an SSD as my main drive that holds the OS and my main programs (Warcraft, Star Wars, League of Legends & video editing programs) then put everything else on a HDD.

 

[Slaymate]

Failure rate is not affected by the number of drives sold.

Maybe not in your world but in the real world it most definitely is. When the majority of the drives manufactured by a company are still sitting on the shelf we have no way of knowing what its failure rate actually is.

Intel had one firmware bug, one. OCZ would be lucky if they only had five times that. The fact that you have used a small handful of OCZ SSDs that have not died is meaningless.

I have used, bought and installed numerous SSD for myself and many other people. I have had no problems with any OCZ drives, but I have had to return (3) Intel drives and (1) G.Skill drive. OCZ manufactures and sells more drives than both of these companies yet in my personal experience OCZ has the best reliably or quality.

So all of the people at Anandtech are fanboys even though many of them have owned OCZ drives? have you even used a Intel SSD much less purchased one?

I never said all of the people at Anandtech were fanboys, but like most large forums I know a large number of them are. I've used and played with more computer components than anybody else I, personally, know.

Also I don't know where you are getting the idea Intel sales are down. OCZ's high sales are easy to explain though, they are cheap

OCZ makes and sells economical drives as well as enthusiast and enterprise drives. Some of these drives use lower quality parts to make them more affordable and some of them use high quality parts to make them more dependable. Yet overall, even considering the more economical models, OCZ drives still last and perform as well or better than all the other competitors.

A simple web search reveals a lot if you look at sites not overrun by fanboys.

Source