Which SSD to choose?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fritingo said:
And too bad you didn't detail those exact differences that I did in _any_ of your "its more expensive because its higher quality" misleading posts (besides the warranty).
Click to expand...

I apologize for not spending my time writing out a detailed explanation to educate you and dispel your confusion.

I'll help you out now, though. You need to read more carefully. I did not write what you claim above. In order to help the oblivious, I will again repeat the simple points I have already stated:

1) The Plextor SSDs are better than the Crucial SSDs, in quality and performance.

2) The only reason to choose a Crucial SSD over a Plextor SSD is if you can find the Crucial for a significantly lower price
 
Last edited:
Mr.Dospod said:
where are the statistics behind the crucial vs plextor as far as quality goes????
Click to expand...

Your question has already been addressed in this thread. You may not agree with what was written, but that is your prerogative.
 
Last edited:
JoeComp said:
I apologize for not spending my time writing out a detailed explanation to educate you and dispel your confusion.

I'll help you out now, though. You need to read more carefully. I did not write what you claim above. In order to help the oblivious, I will again repeat the simple points I have already stated...
Click to expand...

Cute again. I won't stoop to that personal attack level as you have been keen on doing (am very tempted to bring up "company shill"..., but I won't), but I will refute that "I did not write what you claim....".

On the contrary, your original unverifiable claim of "better quality" based on Plextor's website marketing is why I entered this thread in the first place and pointed out that it is just marketing.

People can determine for themselves if that unverifiable website marketing combined with your constant posting of "bettterrrr quallllittyyyy..." has hard data behind it or not (it doesn't) and consequently, if it has any bearing on their future purchases or not.
 
Fritingo said:
I entered this thread in the first place and pointed out that it is just marketing
Click to expand...

Just marketing? No.

The fact is that Plextor has listed their SSD qualification test and production test criteria on their website, for anyone to see. That is not "just marketing". It is also engineering, manufacturing, and quality control. It also shows that people at Plextor believe that quality is important enough to receive a prominent mention in their product description.

Apparently other SSD companies do not think quality control is important enough to be worth mentioning their criteria. Or perhaps they believe that people who will buy their SSDs do not care about quality. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Plextor is the only consumer SSD company to detail their qualification test and production test criteria on their website. Furthermore, the tests they describe are good tests. Anyone familiar with SSDs and quality control can see that Plextor is doing a good job ensuring the quality of their SSDs.
 
JoeComp said:
The Plextor SSDs are better than the Crucial SSDs, in quality and performance.
Click to expand...

LOL!

You do realize the older Plextor SSD's are the EXACT same as the older Crucial's, right? Both made by Micron.

This guy is out of his mind. When I told him that the Comay Venus Pro uses Intel 25nm MLC flash, he went on about telling me that Intel doesn't make sync flash as if the nanometer of a flash has anything to do with whether it's sync or Async... :rolleyes:
 
johnnydoe said:
You do realize the older Plextor SSD's are the EXACT same as the older Crucial's, right? Both made by Micron.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Crucial-branded SSDs are made by Micron. Plextor SSDs are made by Lite-On. Furthermore, Plextor SSDs use toggle-flash, while Crucial and Micron SSDs use ONFI flash (not to mention the difference in firmware, circuit board, manufacturing procedures, etc).

I'm not sure why you are so confused about different types of flash, but I did not state anything that was incorrect. If you disagree, please quote what I wrote that you believe is incorrect.
 
I'm still quite happy with my Kingston 64GB SSD that I bought 2 years ago for $100. They actually went up in price for 2 months then held their value for over a year. Not sure what they are selling for now but surely cheaper than the ones you mentioned if you can deal with the smaller size. Might even be worth buying 2.
 
JoeComp said:
That is incorrect. Crucial-branded SSDs are made by Micron. Plextor SSDs are made by Lite-On. Furthermore, Plextor SSDs use toggle-flash, while Crucial and Micron SSDs use ONFI flash (not to mention the difference in firmware, circuit board, manufacturing procedures, etc).

I'm not sure why you are so confused about different types of flash, but I did not state anything that was incorrect. If you disagree, please quote what I wrote that you believe is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused about anything. You know what, I'm trying hard to resist on not insulting you.

The Plextor M5P uses the Marvell controller and is a great drive.

And I was referring to the older Plextor's.

And you, on an older thread, DID state that Intel doesn't make Sync flash when I said that Intel makes 25nm MLC flash. What the hell does the two have to do with each other?

You didn't state anything incorrect? You, just on the previous page, stated that people still buy OCZ SSD's - referring OCZ SSD's as shit as if they're any different than what anyone else puts out.

What a fucking joke.
 
johnnydoe said:
And you, on an older thread, DID state that Intel doesn't make Sync flash
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. I said no such thing. Intel (more specifically, Intel-Micron-Flash-Technologies) does make synchronous ONFI flash.

I am not sure why you are so confused.

As for Plextor SSDs, I was referring to the M2P, M3P, and M5P models, none of which are made by Micron.
 
JoeComp said:
That is incorrect. I said no such thing. Intel (more specifically, Intel-Micron-Flash-Technologies) does make synchronous ONFI flash.

I am not sure why you are so confused.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused. YOU are. Do you have any clinical reports?

When I said, the Comay Venus Pro uses Intel 25 NANOMETER FLASH (is that clear enough for you to understand?) you went on talking about Sync or Async flashes as if they have anything to do with the Nanometer of flash.

I think they should just boot you off the SSD section so that people don't have to put up with your retarded shit.
 
johnnydoe said:
referring OCZ SSD's as shit as if they're any different than what anyone else puts out.

What a fucking joke.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with the other guy on this one. There was a line of OCZ that would brick after 2 months, and it is what put them out of business if I remember correctly.
 
johnnydoe said:
When I said, the Comay Venus Pro uses Intel 25 NANOMETER FLASH (is that clear enough for you to understand?) you went on talking about Sync or Async flashes as if they have anything to do with the Nanometer of flash.
Click to expand...

I did not state anything that was incorrect about flash memory. I think the problem is that you are confused about flash so you did not understand what I wrote. Unfortunately, you seem to be getting upset about this. I recommend you try to calm down and go back and carefully read what I wrote and think about it so that you can understand. If you find anything that you believe is incorrect, please quote my exact words and I will try to help you to understand.
 
joe7dust said:
I have to agree with the other guy on this one. There was a line of OCZ that would brick after 2 months, and it is what put them out of business if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

Haha. Second account?

JoeComp said:
I did not state anything that was incorrect about flash memory. I think the problem is that you are confused about flash so you did not understand what I wrote. Unfortunately, you seem to be getting upset about this. I recommend you try to calm down and go back and carefully read what I wrote and think about it so that you can understand. If you find anything that you believe is incorrect, please quote my exact words and I will try to help you to understand.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not confused about flash. So let me get it straight, Toshiba makes Sync flash for some drives, while Intel makes Async flash for most SandForce SF-2281 drives.

And so I said, the Comay Venus Pro uses Intel 25nm flash, and what does this look like?

http://.com/our-reviews/sata-3/coma...-ups-overload-protection-and-top-performance/

You have issues.
 
johnnydoe said:
So let me get it straight, Toshiba makes Sync flash for some drives, while Intel makes Async flash for most SandForce SF-2281 drives.
Click to expand...

Toshiba makes toggle-mode flash, which is inherently asynchronous. IMFT makes ONFI flash, which comes in both synchronous and asynchronous varieties.

As far as I know, Toshiba does not make any ONFI synchronous flash.

johnnydoe said:
...and what does this look like?
Click to expand...

Looks like a broken link. hardforum.com filters out a lot of URLs.
 
JoeComp said:
Toshiba makes toggle-mode flash, which is inherently asynchronous. IMFT makes ONFI flash, which comes in both synchronous and asynchronous varieties.

As far as I know, Toshiba does not make any ONFI synchronous flash.
Click to expand...

Toshiba used to make ONFI sync flash for some older SSD's IIRC, but I may be wrong. There're some OEM Toshiba drives around. Though, most are toggle mode and not ONFI.

You're right about that.

JoeComp said:
Looks like a broken link. hardforum.com filters out a lot of URLs.
Click to expand...

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4996/comay_venus_pro_3_240gb_ssd_review/index4.html
 
johnnydoe said:
Toshiba used to make ONFI sync flash for some older SSD's IIRC, but I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong about that, unless you are talking about something pre-2006 (but the devices we know today as SSDs weren't around in their current form before 2006). When the first ONFI standard was drafted in 2006, the notable holdouts were Toshiba and Samsung, who advocated the toggle-mode interface instead. And I think history has proved them correct, since toggle-mode flash beats ONFI flash in both performance and low power usage.
 
Low power usage...? Don't tell me you really care about a watt or two of difference. Come on. Eh.

And well, yeah Toogle Mode is better than ONFI. By a long shot.

But what really matters is the controller and not the flash on the first place.
 
The OCZ Vertex 4 drives seem like great performers although I really prefer the tried and true Marvell controller to the SF-2281. On a real-world scale you wouldn't know the difference.
 
You guys really sound like you know your stuff when it comes to SSDs. Anyone know about SAS spinning drives? Got a thread about 1 that hasn't been answered yet.
 
JoeComp said:
In my ultrabook, yes, I certainly do care.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's plugged in to your ultrabook, or notebook or desktop or palmtop or whatever... you're comparing what? 1-2W of difference? Dude, are you nuts or are you serious?
 
JoeComp said:
Just marketing? No.

The fact is that Plextor has listed their SSD qualification test and production test criteria on their website, for anyone to see. That is not "just marketing".
Click to expand...

On and on we go. Repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more valid.

Sorry, but there are no actual test results available on the web site that I could find. Its only marketing telling you they do a few things. Why is it marketing? Because as I first mentioned, don't think that Intel, Samsung, Micron and the like don't do similar testing during & after development.

JoeComp said:
Crucial-branded SSDs are made by Micron. Plextor SSDs are made by Lite-On.
Click to expand...

Yep, Plextor drives are currently made by Lite-On...heh.

Crucial/Micron also makes the SLC NAND P300 SSD (more info here). SLC has a higher write endurance than any other NAND being made (increasingly rare & expensive, though). Beat that, eh? ;)
 
Maybe they do similar testing, but I wouldn't consider it equal. Intels first Sandforce SSD was tested for much longer than similar offerings from competitors. That tells me all I need to know.
 
Fritingo said:
Because as I first mentioned, don't think that Intel, Samsung, Micron and the like don't do similar testing during & after development.
Click to expand...

Since you went on and on about proof, I would like to see your proof of this claim.
 
JoeComp said:
Since you went on and on about proof, I would like to see your proof of this claim.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: No I didn't go on and on about it. Since I originally was responding to your original "quality" claim, I'd like to see your proof first. I'll be here waiting.

While I'm waiting, I won't be spending time on looking up proof of my claim that other drive makers do quality testing as well. Because there isn't any accessible to the average person. That's the whole point!

But if you think that any SSD or computer component manufacturer designs hardware without testing, you are living in a fantasy land. They wouldn't get UL, FCC Class B and other certifications without it. And they couldn't program firmware (the only thing end-user sellers of OEM SSD drives--like Plextor, Corsair and the like--actually physically adds to the product) without such testing. And they wouldn't be able to offer warranties of various lengths without risk assessments done about testing failure rates within assumed usage periods. And power consumption ratings, OS compatibility and on and on and on.

There are a couple of outliers to this (OCZ drives using Sandforce controllers being notoriously poor quality in the past, etc.), but among the makers previously mentioned throughout this thread (Samsung, Intel, Micron, Plextor), major quality differences simply aren't present in the same class of drives. Performance differences? Yes. Price differences? Yes. "Quality" differences? No.

Some manufacturers use "quality" claims more than others in their marketing of consumer-level drives, though. Such as with your precious Plextors. Some use it more in their enterprise drive marketing than consumer (i.e. Micron & Intel). Some make mention of it briefly for in marketing for all their drives (Samsung) and so on. But its the facts behind the claims that counts. As in: type of NAND used (SLC & "HET" MLC have proven endurance beyond other types; whether that matters to a typical non-enterprise consumer is another matter), firmware & drive controller quality (Sandforce controllers & OCZ drives have had a notorious rep for that; the only companies among those mentioned that you can clearly say is/has had lower quality than others) and the like.

What are typical buying points to a typical consumer in SSD drives: price for capacity, performance, the ability for it to perform without issues through its warranty period (& potentially beyond) and for some, reliability (very connected to the prior point). Fancy marketing claims about any of the above mean absolutely nothing. It won't change reliability or performance or price over what they actually are. Unless you like buying things based on how warm and fuzzy the marketing makes you feel. The rubber meets the road.

KENNYB said:
Maybe they do similar testing, but I wouldn't consider it equal. Intels first Sandforce SSD was tested for much longer than similar offerings from competitors. That tells me all I need to know.
Click to expand...

Well yes in terms of the notoriously unreliable Sandforce controllers currently used on Intel consumer drives; OCZ is a good example of problems. Intel had to work for a very long time to develop firmware to resolve/workaround Sandforce silicon bugs before they validated them for their consumer drives. OCZ didn't/was unable to work as well to resolve those bugs. Samsung controllers (on Samsung drives), Marvell controllers (Crucial & Plextor, among others) & Intel controllers (only on their enterprise DC S3700 model currently; formerly on all their drives) have had a much better record.

As was said in The Godfather: "Show me the road rubber, Sonny" ;)
 
Fritingo said:
Since I originally was responding to your original "quality" claim, I'd like to see your proof first. I'll be here waiting.
Click to expand...

I already linked to Plextor's web page which gives their qualification test and production test criteria, and I quoted those criteria in this thread. That is evidence of Plextor's quality control procedures.

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence at all to your dubious claim that other SSD manufacturers have quality control tests as strenuous as Plextor's. For someone who loudly demands absolute proof for anyone who disagrees with you, it is quite odd that you make such claims yourself without a shred of evidence to back them up.

Since other SSD companies could easily put their own quality control procedures on their web pages and white papers -- but they obviously choose not to -- a cautious SSD consumer can only conclude that other SSD companies are likely to have less strenuous quality procedures than Plextor, and/or the other companies want to leave themselves wiggle room to reduce any quality procedures that they have, so they avoid publicizing what they do have.

The fact is that Plextor is the only consumer SSD company that publicizes their qualification and production test criteria.
 
JoeComp said:
I already linked to Plextor's web page which gives their qualification test and production test criteria, and I quoted those criteria in this thread. That is evidence of Plextor's quality control procedures.
Click to expand...

No, its evidence of rose-colored glasses. You just can't accept that 1.5 paragraphs & 1 image of marketing-speak on a web page simply does not equal proof of your continued wheezing about "better quality". This is getting old.

Don't forget, its Lite-On that makes those drives, not Plextor. "Neither Plextor or Corsair manufactures the drives they sell. Both companies buy their drives from Lite-On...". Which makes your claim of Plextor extra specialness even more dubious.

And your dubious claim that "a cautious SSD consumer can only conclude that other SSD companies are likely to have less strenuous quality procedures than Plextor, and/or the other companies want to leave themselves wiggle room to reduce any quality procedures that they have, so they avoid publicizing what they do have" is absolutely absurd. A "cautious SSD consumer" can only conclude that that is a snake oil statement.

Again, to believe that no other drive maker does extensive testing/validation on their drives (with one or two outliers, as I brought up before) is to live in a fairy land. Even moreso if you have any consumer product manufacturing experience at all. No company (including Lite-On's Plextors) provides publicly accessible SSD "validation" test reports on the web. If you (or other people) want actual proof that most companies do extensive testing on SSD drives, I'd suggest calling or writing them and asking for copies of test reports that they can release to the public (Intel & Micron's head offices are in the US; likely a better chance at speaking to a real engineer if calling in North America).

"A cautious SSD consumer" will do their homework, look at respectable reviews and look out to see if any major issues are either currently or historically in evidence for a drive. A cautious, well versed consumer will not believe marketing claims at face value, no matter how impressive they look.

JoeComp said:
For someone who loudly demands absolute proof for anyone who disagrees with you, it is quite odd that you make such claims yourself without a shred of evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

You were almost banned from this forum for another thread where you were fighting with some other members about Sandforce controllers (although having followed the history of those things at the time, I actually agree with your position there...heh). Your responses here don't help matters.

And no, I originally just pointed out (as I continue to do for the benefit of potential buyers) that those Plextor claims are just marketing (even though you are unable to see that). I didn't "demand" anything and nothing to do with "disagrees with me".

Also, my non-shred of evidence=your non-shred of evidence. Like I have said (but you conveniently overlook), that's the whole point. As a marketing war example, look at the following link for the Crucial M4: "From the extensive research and development that led to its ultimate design, to the hours of testing and validation spent on each NAND component, to rigorous compatibility testing in the Crucial Performance Labs to ensure component functionality, the Crucial m4 SSD is built to last.". Exact same sort of marketing (with slightly less detail) as Plextor does with their Lite-On drives. Not to say, of course, that companies don't ever do what they claim to. But when putting such info on a web page promoting a drive to potential purchasers, its still marketing.

People are free to imagine, as you do, that Plextor's marketing claims about their Lite-On drives somehow magically impart (with magical fairies) superior quality over what other makers have. Or they can read the reviews, look out for noted problems, contact the manufactures about their test procedures if interested and make their purchasing decisions based things other than marketing.

I'm done wasting time with you that could be better used helping others with computer problems, etc.. I don't care to be dragged down any further into a gutter fight with the potential of being banned, as you have been before. I'd say normally say "good luck", but don't feel like offering you any goodwill at this point.
 
Fritingo said:
Crucial/Micron also makes the SLC NAND P300 SSD (more info here). SLC has a higher write endurance than any other NAND being made (increasingly rare & expensive, though). Beat that, eh? ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, the P300 isn't all that good of a SLC drive.

It was the first SLC SATA3 drive that came out in 2010. Writes are slow for this time and date, it's still too expensive and it lacks power back-up, forcing you to go on without write cache.

Reference SF-2581 drives are much better than that. And with better endurance as well. AFAIK, the P300 is only good for a few PetaBytes. With Intel 25nm SLC, you're looking for 10's of PB's.
 
(snipped all the speculation and rambling with no facts or evidence, as well as lies about me being "almost banned")

Fritingo said:
I'm done wasting time with you that could be better used helping others with computer problems, etc..
Click to expand...

Translation: You have not a single solitary bit of evidence to support your claim that other SSD manufacturers have qualification and production test criteria which are as strenuous as the documented criteria that Plextor uses.

My original statement stands -- Plextor SSDs are better than Crucial SSDs in both quality and performance, and the only reason to choose Crucial over Plextor is if you can find an equivalent Crucial SSD selling for much less than Plextor.
 
JoeComp said:
(snipped all the speculation and rambling with no facts or evidence, as well as lies about me being "almost banned")
Click to expand...

Ever wonder why? I mean, just why? Your posts always seem to end up in a retarded manner. You just throw the blame on something else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top