Let's count Newegg customer reviews of current SSDs - Who will help?

[Cloudfire]

I was skimming through the 3 drives they have on Newegg. 2 failures of 151 reviews. One not detected in BIOS and one who died later on. 1.3% failure rate.

I could have missed something but lol that is some insane reliability right there

[Phil]

That looks very impressive.

If you want to have a good laugh check out the Agility 3 reviews...
Newegg.com - OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Can't believe Anand would actually claim that Sandforce has improved reliability.

[Tsunade_Hime]

Anandtech and Tom's Hardware have been biased for awhile..

Yet another reason why I will only buy Intel SSDs from now on..

[Phil]

Not quite following that... going by the Newegg numbers Samsung 470 looks more reliable than Intel.

[chimpanzee]

That looks very impressive.

If you want to have a good laugh check out the Agility 3 reviews...
Newegg.com - OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Can't believe Anand would actually claim that Sandforce has improved reliability.

Sounds like they have no clue of about the ACPI issue that has been there since SF 1XXX.

Hello, we are very sorry for the difficulties. It sounds as though your computer is going into sleep or hibernate, and that may be the cause of the issue. We recommend turning off the features, and visiting our support forums for more information. Thank you

I recommend that you don't use the SSD which would gurantee solve all the problems.

[Peon]

Can't believe Anand would actually claim that Sandforce has improved reliability.

It's not just Anand, everyone is giving OCZ/Sandforce special treatment these days. Even StorageReview, which used a strictly disapproving tone when it came to the 25nm fiasco, has said virtually nothing about reliability or compatibility issues when it comes to their reviews of SF-2xxx drives.

As for AT, his readers are attacking his recent SSD articles pretty harshly for this bias as well, to which he's simply responded that he hasn't personally come across the issue. So much for investigative journalism.

It'd be nice if one of the major hardware review sites would grow a spine and make use their clout and industry connections to get the SSD makers to divulge meaningful data on failure rates. An SSD article like that would certainly draw much higher reader rates than yet another SSD review.

[chimpanzee]

An informed SSD buyer show follow NBR for reliability, all the rest reviewers for fun and beauty graphs.

[Cloudfire]

Not quite following that... going by the Newegg numbers Samsung 470 looks more reliable than Intel.

One must take factory production in account Phil. All products have a certain degree of failure rate, even though the factory use state of the art equipment. And for the newest gen SSDs, Intel and Crucial stands pretty far away from the SF SSDs in terms of reliability. As for every SSDs, Samsung is probably the best, closely followed by X25-M and C300, and then we get a big bump up to this gen where the most reliable SSDs are pretty far away from last gen like Peon pointed out earlier in this thread. From single digit to double digit percentage

Wonder if it is the transision to 25nm that did it? M4 and Intel are using the same type of controller as C300 was using, and C300 had like 3% failure rate. But then again Intel 510 is 34 nm so I`m a bit confused.

And WOW @ the Agility 3 reviews. It is really bad. Almost like a temporary ban of SF controllers should be in place before they are allowed to enter the SSD market again. HDD/SSD failures is not fun to go through. Your laptop is pretty much useless without it.

@Tsunade: Congrats with the moderator status.

[Tsunade_Hime]

Not quite following that... going by the Newegg numbers Samsung 470 looks more reliable than Intel.

Not doubting Samsung's reliability, but very few places sell Samsung, and their amount sold are nowhere near the amount Intel sells (not counting OEM SSDs). The more SSDs you sell, obviously the higher failure rate you are going to have. Intel and Crucial have done a good job with the numbers they sell and their failure rates. Some places have Samsung SSDs more expensive than Intel, which probably further contributes to the less Samsung retail SSDs sold.

I can only assume people buy SF SATA 3 drives cause they are cheap, must be ignorant to the fact SF is...less reliable than other drives.

[Phil]

The more SSDs you sell, obviously the higher failure rate you are going to have.

I don't believe that to be quite true. I think that once there are more than ~ 150 reviews the spread should be relatively even.

What's more important is how long a drive has been selling.