There seems to be a strong bias against Sandforce SSDs in this forum with almost all recommendations going to Intel and Marvell.
The fastest SSDs I've owned, an OCZ revo3x2 and an ADATA XM-11 are both Sandforce-based. I've never had a problem with either.
I'm aware that there were some firmware issues last year but isn't that ancient history?
There's been some reported reliability issues as well. AkG currently tends to recommend the Intel 520 (Intel firmware on SF hardware) over the Marvell based drives, and both those over the run of the mill Sandforce ones. When our SSD reviewer says stuff like this, I tend to listen.
I only find it to be a little bit here and there all my ssd right now are sandforce 2281 and they work wicked all 6 of them so i am sticking with the sandbox for now not that intel drives aren't great
Well I think it's also the cost difference. There's a lot of "cheap" SF drives, compared to "expensive" Intel ones. Obviously corners get cut when the price is less than alternatives, namely with the quality of NAND used.
That being said though, I have a whole suite of OCZ drives (Vertex, Onyx, Vertex 2, and Petrol), all of which have been working fine. Onyx and Petrol are the value-class SSD's too and they seem to be fine thus far.
I think there is also the fact that ITGC (for non trim environements) is not that strong for the SF hardware.
Sandforce had a persistent, uncorrected error in their third-generation controllers for months. About 8 months, if I remember correctly. The result was a failure rate several times that of drives using Intel or Marvell controllers. While faster, having your drive cause BSOD repeatedly without explanation more than offsets the relatively small gains in speed.
Intel and Marvell did each have issues with their controllers, but there were two key differences. One was that the problems were not as widespread, but the other much more important factor was the speed with which a solution was acknowledged and released. Sandforce and its manufacturers denied a problem existed, then when forced by sheer volume of failures to acknowledge the problem could not fix it. Intel and Marvell, in comparison, offered immediate recognition, customer service (e.g. recalls/exchanges/refunds), and firmware fixes within days. Sandforce also does not have a good track record for correcting such issues -- it's never figured out the random disappearing drive bug in its second-generation hardware, which was so common and reproducible for some customers than manufacturers are refunding retail prices just to stop the RMA cycle.
Saying my Sandforce drives work perfectly is akin to saying I never had a fire or transmission problem with my Pinto. It may not have been as common as perceived, but it occurred at an unacceptable frequency.
Didn't LSI recently buy Sandforce? Perhaps support will improve eventually.
my vertex 3 locks up from time to time to make it worse, it goes undetected after the reboot. Then the only thing i can do is wait... Don't know if i'll buy sandforce again cause of this.
While I got a Crucial M4, I wouldn't think twice to get a OCZ Vertex 3 or other SF-2281 based hard drive other than the Intel 520 if the price is right. To me, the hardware and firmware has been out long enough that it should be good enough for the average user. If I have problems with the SSD, I always got another 3 laptops to use lol. Plus you generally don't store important data on your SSD anyways. Well for me I won't. The SSD will be used for mainly OS.
And I'm not a hardcore gamer like you guys are so I don't mind waiting a min for load times. Rather use my SSD for like 20 years then 10 :haha:
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 PM.|