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

    • And Microsoft got walloped on here for what they were charging for the new Surface book. Not looking as bad now. This was inevitable as they have to maintain those Apple margins.
    • Now 8GB of ram looks even worse in the Neo. I'm so happy I purchased 128GB of DDR 4 when I did.... paid $174. Upgraded my parents laptop to 32GB around the same time for $48. Luckily I have a TON of spare laptops. So i'm good on laptops for a while. I also have a lot of desktops too that I could use if i had to. Lets just hope nothing happens to my main 4 monitor couch workstation.
    • I will keep my current devices for several years... no planning in upgrading until these devices stop working. Too pricey.
    • Apple raises MacBook and iPad prices as memory costs surge by Karthik Mudaliar Apple has raised the U.S. prices of several MacBook and iPad models, including the MacBook Neo, which it launched for $599 less than four months ago. The company’s cheapest laptop now starts at $699, while some MacBook Pro configurations have increased by $300. The changes affect the MacBook Neo, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iPad Air, and iPad Pro. Apple has not changed the hardware or storage included with these models, so customers are simply paying more for the same configurations. Here is how the new US pricing compares with the previous starting prices: Product Previous price New price Increase MacBook Neo $599 $699 $100 13-inch MacBook Air, 512GB $1,099 $1,299 $200 14-inch MacBook Pro, 1TB $1,699 $1,999 $300 16-inch MacBook Pro $2,699 $2,999 $300 11-inch iPad Air, 128GB $599 $749 $150 13-inch iPad Air, 128GB $799 $949 $150 11-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $999 $1,199 $200 13-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $1,299 $1,499 $200 The updated prices are already appearing on Apple’s U.S. online store. The MacBook Neo increase will probably attract the most attention. Apple introduced the laptop in March for $599, pitching it as a more affordable Mac for students and buyers considering Windows laptops or Chromebooks. It uses an A18 Pro processor and originally undercut Dell’s new $699 XPS 13 by $100. Following the increase, the two laptops now have the same starting price. The M5 MacBook Air has also lost the price Apple promoted when it launched in March. The 13-inch model arrived with 512GB of storage for $1,099, while Apple’s store now lists the MacBook Air range as starting at $1,299. The 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M5 chip and 1TB of storage has gone from $1,699 to $1,999. Apple has made similar changes to its iPads. The recently released M4 iPad Air, which launched at the same $599 starting price as its predecessor, now starts at $749 for the 11-inch version. The 13-inch version has risen from $799 to $949. The iPad Pro increases are larger in dollar terms. Apple’s 11-inch M5 iPad Pro now starts at $1,199, up from $999, while the 13-inch version has moved from $1,299 to $1,499. Both base models still include 256GB of storage. Apple blamed the increases on the rapidly rising cost of DRAM and NAND flash, which provide system memory and device storage. The company told Reuters that it had tried to shield customers from the increases but could no longer absorb them. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly,” Apple said. Tim Cook had already warned that price increases were coming. Cook said Apple’s existing component inventory had softened the immediate impact, but that higher memory costs would increasingly affect the company after the June quarter. Much of the pressure comes from the construction of AI data centers. Memory manufacturers are directing more production toward high-margin server products, leaving PC, tablet, and smartphone makers competing for the remaining supply. Apple has not said whether the new prices are temporary or whether further increases are planned. For now, the changes show that even Apple’s purchasing power has not been enough to keep the AI-driven memory shortage away from consumer devices.
    • Ventoy 1.1.16 is out.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      453
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      169
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      134
    4. 4
      Xenon
      77
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!