Whats the status of your SSD?


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Just got my SSD - a Kingston SSDNow V+180 64GB. Checked with SSDlife and as expected it shows 2020 as the life expectancy so i'll test it out for the next few days and see how it fairs then.

Scores a 7.1 on WEI (coming from a 5.1 for my Toshiba 1.8" 5400RPM drive).

CrystalMark gives it a 183MB/s Seq READ though, i've seen other people posting 230MB/s. Writes are where they should be at 173-179MB/s according to the specs.

(Got it for free, beggers can't be choosers :D)

  • 1 month later...

Only had mine 4 months :/

Bought my Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB SSD in September 2010.

January 2011 (when I originally posted the following results in this topic)

SSD was 4 months old

Health was 85%

Work time: 2 months, 6 days

Powered on: 229 times

September 2011

SSD is 12 months old

Health is 62%

Work time: 6 months, 1 day

Powered on: 578 times

Things are not looking good, it seems? Although the program says "Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is August 2020."

Bought my Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB SSD in September 2010.

*snip*

Things are not looking good, it seems? Although the program says "Your drive health is in good condition and according to current use, estimated lifetime is August 2020."

that doesn't look good at all, it sound it would just a bit after the warranty expire

sucks to be in that situation (my HD4870X2 died a month or two after warranty expired :( )

  • 1 month later...

An honest question is why does this thread exists? Is they any proof that the numbers reported by SMART and this tool are reliable? I have encountered VERY few HDDs in my computing life that have failed and weren't reported "great" by SMART.

Although HDDs have more room for failure than SSDs I have also had countless USB flash drives just fail out of the blue as well (and they share the no moving parts SSD features).

So why are people posting screenshots to a tool that tells them their drive will last them decades when there is no proof that those numbers are even close to accurate? (although if such a reliability study does exist I would love to read it)

An honest question is why does this thread exists? Is they any proof that the numbers reported by SMART and this tool are reliable? I have encountered VERY few HDDs in my computing life that have failed and weren't reported "great" by SMART.

Although HDDs have more room for failure than SSDs I have also had countless USB flash drives just fail out of the blue as well (and they share the no moving parts SSD features).

So why are people posting screenshots to a tool that tells them their drive will last them decades when there is no proof that those numbers are even close to accurate? (although if such a reliability study does exist I would love to read it)

Who cares? If you still don't believe what the program predicts, then that's your own fault.

Common sense would say that a mechanical HDD will be less reliable than a SSD. And common sense would also say that there will be failures in both areas no matter what.

The only proof you need is the testimonial of people like me that have had SSD's for years and years without a single failure. Most people don't buy an SSD for the reliability either. The shear speed is the attraction.

Who cares? If you still don't believe what the program predicts, then that's your own fault.

Common sense would say that a mechanical HDD will be less reliable than a SSD. And common sense would also say that there will be failures in both areas no matter what.

The only proof you need is the testimonial of people like me that have had SSD's for years and years without a single failure. Most people don't buy an SSD for the reliability either. The shear speed is the attraction.

I am sure the attraction to SSDs isn't their reliability, but their speed. I am not questioning the attraction to SSDs, but merely this topic. The point of posting reliability estimates would be to challenge those who see SSDs as less reliable than HDDs, otherwise why do it?

I have had more flash media die on me than anything other than Floppy Disks in my 13 years using PCs. This makes me wonder about the reliability of SSDs. As a result, looking at this thread aims to counter that, but offers nothing in the way of proof. I can find many people who are still running HDDs from over 5 years ago. A matter of fact, I have ones nearing 10 years old in use right now and they are still spinning fine. That doesn't mean HDDs never die. But if I told you my HDDs was going to last me another "3 years, 2 months, and 9 days" I should be showing why that number is so accurate and isn't just pulled out of someone backside.

Again, this isn't an attack on SSDs, but an inquiring as to what the point of posting the "status" of your SSD if the status is hogwash.

I am sure the attraction to SSDs isn't their speed, but their reliability.

I can honestly say, of all the people I know with SSD's, all would have drawn a blank of why they got a SSD if you didn't count speed. Reliability simply has not been a factor for most.

I can honestly say, of all the people I know with SSD's, all would have drawn a blank of why they got a SSD if you didn't count speed. Reliability simply has not been a factor for most.

Edited. Thanks. I said that inverted. Next time I should proof read before I hit submit :|

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Valve finally confirms Steam Machine prices, starts at $1049 for 512GB option by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe The $1,428 option The Steam Hardware lineup that Valve announced last year is slowly starting to roll out. Following the recent Steam Controller launch, Valve has now confirmed the price of the Steam Machine, its all-in-one console-like solution for PC gaming in the living room. There are currently four variants being presented, with only the storage and the included controller being the biggest differences. All of the Steam Machines have the same internals consisting of a semi-custom AMD Zen 4 CPU with six cores and 12 threads, an RDNA 3 28CU GPU, 16GB of DDR5 memory, and 8GB of GDDR6 VRAM, all inside the familiar box Valve has been showing off for months now. The Steam Machine base model starts at $1,049. This has a 512GB NVMe SSD but does not come with a Steam Controller. Keep in mind that storage can be expanded with the microSD card slot too. Next, the $1,128 model has the exact same storage as the previous one but it does come with the new Steam Controller. If you need the Steam Machine to have more storage for games and apps than that, then the 2TB tiers are also available. The $1,349 Steam Machine has no controller once again, but it does ship with two extra faceplates (red fabric and solid walnut) to replace the standard black one. The final option costs $1,428, and it adds the controller back into the bundle. The Steam Machine ships with the Linux-based SteamOS. The box has a 1 Gigabit Ethernet port, DisplayPort 1.4, and HDMI 2.0, as well as one USB-C and four USB-A ports. Keep in mind that when purchasing standalone, the Steam Controller has a $100 price tag. With the above bundles, that drops to $80. It's a rather expensive machine for the internals it is touting, though the design and small form factor do help it somewhat. However, at the same time, the lack of upgradability hurts it. Valve says the ongoing parts shortages and massive price hikes for memory were the leading causes for this price. "The overall effect is that our original goal for the price of Steam Machine is no longer viable," added the company. "So the prices we're sharing today reflect the state of the world for manufacturing; or, more accurately, it reflects the price of the components as we've secured them over the past 6 months." Valve wants interested gamers to reserve it now to get the chance to pre-order a Steam Machine starting June 25, with shipping starting on June 29. Head here to sign up. The invites to buy it will be sent in a randomized order.
    • What the press release doesn’t mention, however, is how much water the natural gas plant itself will consume, Natural gas plants use about 2,803 gallons of water per megawatt-hour produced, which is significantly less than coal-fired plants that use around 19,185 gallons per megawatt-hour. Overall, natural gas plants are more water-efficient, using 584% less water than traditional power plants on average. AI generated
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      mnsgroup earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      516
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      203
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      97
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      82
    5. 5
      neufuse
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!