Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 39

Thread: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

  1. #17
    HEXUS.social member Agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    19,185
    Thanks
    739
    Thanked
    1,614 times in 1,050 posts

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    Quote Originally Posted by chrestomanci View Post
    I don't know about the Samsung, but one advantage Intel has over crucial is that it reports its wear via SMART.

    I recently set up a couple of servers at work each with 6x 480 gb SSD in raid 0. I contacted crucial, and asks them how to interpret the SMART numbers to get the wear, and just got some meaningless blather about average mtbf. Intel on the other hand document in detail what all the SMART fields mean, so it is easy to get early warning of most sorts of problems.
    http://www.micron.com/~/media/Docume...611tnfd03.ashx
    That document should allow you to pretty much work out anything you need to from SMART

    I've got to ask - what do you use the server for? That's one hell of a throughput!
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me.

  2. #18
    HEXUS.social member Agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    19,185
    Thanks
    739
    Thanked
    1,614 times in 1,050 posts

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    Quote Originally Posted by xhtml View Post
    Presumably you're aware that some people are experiencing freezes with the M4 SSDs?
    Quote Originally Posted by xhtml View Post
    When using the latest firmware (rev 000F).
    Almost exclusively Mac users. If you checkout the thread on the Crucial forum for the 000F firmware, I've not seen a PC user that's not solved any issues by doing the usual checking of settings / reseating cables and so on.

    Latest reports on there are suggesting that the latest OSX has fixed the issue - but I'm not a Mac user, so can't say for certain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me.

  3. #19
    Senior Member chrestomanci's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    1,614
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked
    96 times in 80 posts
    • chrestomanci's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus AMD AM4 Ryzen PRIME B350M
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 1600 @ stock clocks
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb DDR4 2666MHz
      • Storage:
      • 250Gb Samsung 960 Evo M.2 + 3Tb Western Digital Red
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Basic AMD GPU (OSS linux drivers)
      • PSU:
      • Novatech 500W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Sugo SG02
      • Operating System:
      • Linux - Latest Xubuntu
      • Monitor(s):
      • BenQ 24" LCD (Thanks: DDY)
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTTC

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    http://www.micron.com/~/media/Docume...611tnfd03.ashx
    That document should allow you to pretty much work out anything you need to from SMART

    I've got to ask - what do you use the server for? That's one hell of a throughput!
    Thanks for the link, as I recall, I looked at that document or a similar one when I was evaluating the Crucial M4 drive, but it did not match the SMART data I was getting back from the drive. I sent the link to the Crucial tech support rep, and was told that the doc was out of date, and there was not a similar doc available for the current M4 drives. The rep said that there was a propriety tool in the works, but it was not available yet, and would be windows only, which was no good to me.

    The server host a couple of high traffic databases running on Percona MySQL on Ubuntu Linux. I am using SSD drives for random access speed, not throughput, and I have them in RAID 0 in order to get enough capacity, and to spread the wear across all the drives, rather than for throughput.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samwood View Post
    @chrestimanci - Yea I agree, Intel have most of the bases covered as far as reliability. Only problem is the sandforce controller, change that & Intel would have got my money... but instead it went to Samsung.
    The way I see it, the reliability and performance of an SSD is from a combination of both the controller and the firmware. Intel where much slower to market with Sandforce SSDs than other makers, and apparently that is because they spent more time debugging and optimising their version of the firmware than others. Seeing as Intel have a reputation to protect, I don't think they would be selling a Sandforce based SSD unless they where confident they had got rid of all the bugs, especially considering the problems that other manufactures have suffered.

  4. Received thanks from:

    Agent (23-08-2012)

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked
    15 times in 14 posts
    • Samwood's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V
      • CPU:
      • 3770k @ 4.2Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Dominator @ 1800Mhz
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Samsung 830 + 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7,200.12
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX HD 6950
      • PSU:
      • XFX Pro 450W
      • Case:
      • Corsair Carbide 300R
      • Operating System:
      • Win 8
      • Monitor(s):
      • 23" Asus PA238Q + 22" LG Flatron

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    @chrestomanci - yes your right. Intel as always have spent more time than others ironing out the bugs & developing some good firmware, which IMO means its probably the best drive to use the sandforce controller.
    But you still cant fault Samsungs track record, both the 470 and 830 have consistently reported some of the lowest (if not THE lowest) fail rates.
    Both Samsung and Intel benefit from firmware like "garbage collection", and other various techniques that both improve reliability and reduce the performance drop-off as the drive ages. Intel set aside 8GB (on their 120GB drive, more on the larger ones) of unallocatable space specifically for garbage collection, Samsung just use free allocated space. Which is better, for reliability, probably the Intel, but not by much.
    As for performance - Samsung is pretty consistent in all areas, a little short of the Crucial M4 on 4k QD32 benchmarks. But has better performance than the Intel with incompressible data. This is basically the reason why I ranked them: M4 -> 830 -> 330 in order of performance earlier in this thread. But as Phage said, its probably not going to be noticeable, maybe in a monster RAID0 like above but not for the average user.

    All in all - the decision of 'which SSD to buy' is like choosing what to put on your toast... butter, marmite, jam etc... which is better? All depends on exactly what your looking for, there are some 'bad' ones to avoid, but at the end of the day a slice of toast is a slice of toast.

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    229
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • Wam7's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X79 Sabertooth
      • CPU:
      • I7 3930K @ 4.9 Ghz 24/7
      • Memory:
      • 24GB Corsair Vengeance
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 240 GB 2x 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia GTX670 & GT430
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster M2 Pro 1000W
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF-X
      • Operating System:
      • Win7 Ultimate x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Tri monitor - 27" Iiyama 2x Dell 19"
      • Internet:
      • VirginMedia 120Mb

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    I just purchased a Kingston V+200 which will probably just be for games. (Already have Crucial M4 for OS). It was a bit of an impulse buy as I realised it has the Sandforce controller but precisely what problems are still existent using this drive/version of the controller?

  7. #22
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    10 times in 7 posts

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    Quote Originally Posted by chrestomanci View Post
    Intel where much slower to market with Sandforce SSDs than other makers, and apparently that is because they spent more time debugging and optimising their version of the firmware than others. Seeing as Intel have a reputation to protect, I don't think they would be selling a Sandforce based SSD unless they where confident they had got rid of all the bugs, especially considering the problems that other manufactures have suffered.
    That is what I thought, mainly from reading Anandtech's review. So I went ahead and bought the 120gb 520 (~£150 back in April), only to get repeated (but not repeatable) BSODs of the F4/9F variety, characteristic of the 'Sandforce Bug'. After checking Intel's forums, I was not the only one - although most problems were with Macs and laptops (mine is a Z68/2500K desktop). I got no direct reply from Intel, but some forum users suggested disabling the power-saving features - hardly an ideal fix. Eventually I got an RMA ticket, but then Intel announced a full refund for 520 owners - due to borked AES-256 encryption inherent to the SF-2281 controller. Result - I now have a 256gb Samsung 830, performing faultlessly, and £12 change.

    I'm not saying the 520 is a bad drive, it's probably the best Sandforce drive around. But don't think that because it's Intel, there will be zero problems (I imagine the same applies to the 330 too). AFAIK Samsung is the only SSD to use in-house NAND/DRAM/controller/firmware (why did Intel stop using their own controllers???), and the Crucial M4 has a great reputation for reliability, compatibility and longevity too. Other non-Sandforce 6gbps drives are looking promising, but I'd stick to the tried and tested.


    tl;dr - Avoid Sandforce, even Intel can't polish a turd.

  8. #23
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • deano131's system
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 2500K
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD 7850 2GB
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    I own the M4 and has been a great drive, quick and no problems since purchase. Also heard lot of good things about the Samsung so think you'll be happy with either and in the real world you'll see no difference in performance.

    If price is the same then check out the warranty situation and make a decision based on that.

  9. #24
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    62
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • vettieboo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus M4A78TD-V Evo
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II 955 X4 BE
      • Memory:
      • 4 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Crucial M4 120 GB SSD and Seagate OEM 500GB Barracuda HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire HD5750 1 GB
      • PSU:
      • Huntkey Jumper 300G planet3dnow.de edition (300W)
      • Case:
      • Xigmatek Midgard II
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 64 bit
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre (40 GB)

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    Also have an M4 (128 GB) and it's been nothing but fantastic. No freezes, no crashes. I have latest firmware and I got it in sale otherwise I would have also gotten the Samsung. Both have been hailed as great so I'd probably just go for whatever is cheapest for you at the time you're buying one. I don't know about intel personally.

  10. #25
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    11,193
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked
    1,091 times in 833 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Mortar
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2700X (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Patriot Viper 2 @ 3466MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB WD Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus Gold 750W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    so many people with sandforce issues makes me weary of the Force GT in my main PC :/

    Its been fine so far but y'all make me nervous!

  11. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked
    15 times in 14 posts
    • Samwood's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V
      • CPU:
      • 3770k @ 4.2Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Dominator @ 1800Mhz
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Samsung 830 + 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7,200.12
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX HD 6950
      • PSU:
      • XFX Pro 450W
      • Case:
      • Corsair Carbide 300R
      • Operating System:
      • Win 8
      • Monitor(s):
      • 23" Asus PA238Q + 22" LG Flatron

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    From what i've seen failures are still sub-0.5% annually, so nothing to get that worked up about, its just slightly higher than Samsung's etc rates.

  12. #27
    HEXUS.social member Agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    19,185
    Thanks
    739
    Thanked
    1,614 times in 1,050 posts

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    Quote Originally Posted by Samwood View Post
    From what i've seen failures are still sub-0.5% annually, so nothing to get that worked up about, its just slightly higher than Samsung's etc rates.
    If you're talking about OCZ/ Sandforce based drives there then it's not even close to being sub 0.5%. It's closer to 3% if you take the figures from retailers : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/810-...omposants.html

    Now 3% still doesn't sound much (although still too high), but when you consider that these drives can be no where near their MTBF, it's a worrying figure.

    Where is your figure from?

    All the figures in the world don't make drawing conclusions any easier though with all the firmware updates.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me.

  13. #28
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    I own Samsung 830 and it would be my choice again.

    the only thing I would do differently is selling Norton Ghost on eBay, as that software is useless. And it would make the drive cheaper.

    m4 would be the second choice.

  14. #29
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    11,193
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked
    1,091 times in 833 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Mortar
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2700X (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Patriot Viper 2 @ 3466MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB WD Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus Gold 750W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20
    Quote Originally Posted by mtxd View Post
    I own Samsung 830 and it would be my choice again.

    the only thing I would do differently is selling Norton Ghost on eBay, as that software is useless. And it would make the drive cheaper.

    m4 would be the second choice.
    +1 on the Norton crap. Such a crippled version they give u its worthless

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    Having had an M4 causing blue screens out of the box, I would now stick to Samsung or Intel. Currently have a Samsung and it has not missed a beat. Delighted with it.

  16. #31
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    I got my M4 from ebuyer for £74 a couple months ago. Have not experienced anything odd. It has good track record isn't it?

  17. #32
    HEXUS.social member Agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    19,185
    Thanks
    739
    Thanked
    1,614 times in 1,050 posts

    Re: New SSD - Samsung, Intel or Crucial

    Quote Originally Posted by isabella View Post
    I got my M4 from ebuyer for £74 a couple months ago. Have not experienced anything odd. It has good track record isn't it?
    One of the best.
    Most M4 issues have been caused by people not knowing what they are doing with a SSD (as can be seen time and time again on the Crucial forums), or installing them on an older MacOS version.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •