Read more.Quote:
Both these SATA SSD ranges use Samsung 64 layer V-NAND tech and the MJX controller.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Both these SATA SSD ranges use Samsung 64 layer V-NAND tech and the MJX controller.
"It backs up these figures by extending the warranties of the 860 SSDs to five years."
They are also lowering the Pro warranties to five years from ten.
Since the performance is so close now between the SATA Pro and Evo, there's very little to recommend the price premium for the Pro.
With the current support issues along with bad firmware releases I will no longer be buying Samsung SSD's especially after the last firmware promised hardware bitlocker and it turns out it's broken. I now have a drive locked in security mode and the best they can offer is an RMA as it isn't a priority fix. The 960 series is pretty much shagged with current firmwares, slow down's lock up's and the security issue all in the 3xxx firmware releases.
Only 5 years for the Pro? - the 850 pro has 10 years.
Which SSDs are you using now? I need one for a fairly mission critical system.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoNz0
Laptops got the 960 evo 1tb in it.
Thanks - I was looking for a 2.5" SATA drive.
So is the new 860 Pro less reliable than the old 850 Pro?
I have been looking for a reliable SSD recently after suffering an unexpected failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
My conclusion, is to buy an Intel one, because they appear to care much more than other makes about preventing data loss.
The Tech Report did a long term test of SSDs where they wrote data constantly until they wore out and died.
https://techreport.com/review/24841/...nce-experiment
https://techreport.com/review/27909/...heyre-all-dead
In that test, the Intel drive reported a wear-out remaining that steadily went down, and when it got to zero the drive went read-only to give you a chance to recover your data. (Though it then went inaccessible when it was power cycled).
The Samsung drive on the other hand continuously reported that everything was great, until it died without any warning whatsoever. To me this is a bad failure mode for a storage device.
That is like a HDD going read-only when you have owned it for the warranty period. The wear indicator is only a cycle counter.Quote:
Originally Posted by chrestomanci
Crucial are solid and have good support. Avoid Sandisk for the time-being. Intel used to be the gold standard but I have not kept up-to-date date with their latest SSD releases though.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
That's actually quite interesting to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by chrestomanci
*checks SMART status of SSDs*
Yes it was - interesting that the Samsung actually outperformed te other drives on longevity - but then crashed spectacularly after a bashing that it would be unlikely to receive in general use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iota
As you say - lesson is to keep an eye on the SMART data.
Any drive with DRAM cache is bad for your data. Once it stops trusting the DRAM cache your drive is toast. All drives that have a controller trusting an highly corruptible DRAM cache are prone to go nuts on you. RMAd 4 sandisk bitchz in 2 years. <admin edited>. Backup! Backup! Backup!
I thought the 860 came out years ago?
I bought an 830 (thinking the 860 was too expensive at the time). Though I could have been thinking of something else. Probably the 850
850 iirc.
I've an 830 240Gb model that has been bullet proof. Over 20 terabytes written to it. I'm now in the market for another SSD, so would naturally look at Samsung again, but after the debacle of the 840?? I'd be wary of choosing them again.