SSD return rates statistics, May 2011

john4200

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,537
BeHardware has updated their component return rate statistics as of May 2011, to include components returned before April, 2011.

Once again, Intel SSDs are the most reliable, with even lower return rate 0.3% than 6 months ago (0.6%). And once again, OCZ is the worst, with return rates increasing from 2.9% to 3.5% this period.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/831-7/components-returns-rates.html

- Intel 0.3% (against 0.6%)
- Kingston 1.2% (against 2.4%)
- Crucial 1.9% (against 2.2%)
- Corsair 2.7% (against 2.2%)
- OCZ 3.5% (against 2.9%)

Sign of the times, this time SSDs have their own page in our classification report. Intel stands out once again with an even lower returns rate than last time! The others are far behind, though Crucial and above all Kingston have improved their rates. In fact, if you look at Crucial’s figures more closely, you can see that the M225 range, now being phased out, is bringing the average down. The C300s have a returns rate of just 1.0% over the period.

In contrast, Corsair and OCZ haven’t done as well as last time. Focussing in a bit more, the Vertex 2s, OCZ’s most recent range, have a rate of 3.6%, which is a long way behind Intel.
 

zeroARMY

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
1,183
Hated OCZ drives ever since one of theirs died on me after a few weeks of usage a little while ago...
 

Brahmzy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
4,955
I've had 2 intel G2 SSD's die on me - one in about 4hrs, another in about 3 weeks... The other 10 or so are humming along after a year or so...

Failures happen to all SSDs, even intels.
 

Ross1

n00b
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
25
It would be nice if other hardware vendors would follow in behardwares footsteps and release their own return rate stats.

Having corroborating evidence (or conflicting evidence if thats what it was) would be very useful. Granted, the previous number given in brackets on behardware provides some comparison, and a lot of it seems quite close to what it was before (making it less likely they are skewed from small sampled).

A lot of the biggest changes seem to be among power supplies (in particular, note seasonic are 1.3% vs 3.3% previously). I cant imagine PSU's are bought an awful lot less than say motherboards, ram, or graphics cards. So to me it either means its just an oddity that say seasonic had a batch batch sent out last year (and thermaltake had one more recently, returns increasing by 0.9%), or maybe power supplies do have more variance when it comes to failing.
 

alienate

Gawd
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
601
And that's why Intel doesn't use Sandforce. Maybe the new versions will improve, but 3.5% is very high and it's no wonder OCZ fails to make money on their SSD's. I will say their unique Revo drives are probably to blame for propelling them over 3%, those are essentially two SSD's, so naturally will get twice the failures.
 

john4200

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,537
It would be nice if other hardware vendors would follow in behardwares footsteps and release their own return rate stats.

Intel has released statistics on return rates for their own IT department SSD usage, for a large consumer of Intel SSDs, and for all Intel SSDs. The numbers are similar to what BeHardware reports for Intel SSDs.
 

john4200

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
1,537
And that's why Intel doesn't use Sandforce. Maybe the new versions will improve, but 3.5% is very high and it's no wonder OCZ fails to make money on their SSD's. I will say their unique Revo drives are probably to blame for propelling them over 3%, those are essentially two SSD's, so naturally will get twice the failures.

Well, the Vertex 2 had a 3.6% return rate by itself, and I suspect the Vertex 2 outsells the Revo by a lot, so I'm not sure that the Revo is having a large effect on the overall statistics.
 
Top