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

    • Turbo Pascal was my first real programming experience more than 30 years ago at university. I mostly taught myself from the included examples and help documentation, because the university only taught the basic syntax and philosophy of Pascal, without going deeply into Turbo Pascal’s advanced features. I still remember when I discovered that I could embed assembly language directly into Pascal code, call BIOS functions, manipulate screen memory, use mouse interrupts, and control peripherals from my programs. That opened huge doors for me. Programming back then felt really fun, direct, and close to the machine. What I loved about Pascal was its readability and the almost instant compile time. Turbo Pascal was an amazing environment, but unfortunately Turbo Pascal for Windows 3 did not feel like it fully carried that legacy forward. Later, Delphi got things back on the right track after the messy transition to TP for Windows. Sadly, Delphi suffered from years of uncertainty as it moved from Borland to CodeGear and then to Embarcadero. That instability made many developers lose confidence in it, even though Delphi itself remained a powerful and productive tool. I still work with Delphi from time to time, but I definitely miss the old days of Turbo Pascal.
    • I hope this encodes in to AV1 or AV2 as currently tiktok uses h265 and h264.
    • Qualcomm reportedly in talks to build custom video chips for TikTok parent ByteDance by Karthik Mudaliar Qualcomm is reportedly in advanced discussions to provide custom chip-design services to Chinese tech giant ByteDance, the same company behind TikTok. According to a report from Reuters, Qualcomm could be involved in designing custom silicon tailored for ByteDance's massive data-center workloads. If it goes through, the deal would make ByteDance one of Qualcomm's early anchor customers for its fastly growing custom chip-design division, For years, Qualcomm was the king of making smartphone processors and modems. The company has also been moving into the PC ecosystem and other formats such as on-device AI for Android XR headsets. However, this particular deal is about Qualcomm's custom Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). For a platform like TikTok, ByteDance needs hardware that can help it ingest, process, and serve billions of short-form videos daily. Generalised hardware is no longer the most cost-effective and efficient route, which is why ByteDance is trying to develop custom Video Processing Units (VPUs). VPUs designed specifically for ByteDance’s algorithmic needs could drastically reduce data-center power consumption and improve encoding speeds at an unprecedented scale. The underlying tech behind these processors is actually from Qualcomm's recent acquisition of AlphaWave Semi, a high-speed connectivity specialist company. By combining AlphaWave’s high-bandwidth IP with Qualcomm’s architectural expertise, the company could begin mass production by the end of 2026, if the talks go through. All this also comes at a time when U.S.-China tech relations have dwindled. Escalating trade frictions between Washington and Beijing have severely impacted the export of high-end AI chips from U.S. firms like Nvidia, AMD, and Lam Research. Yet, the Qualcomm-ByteDance discussions show that U.S. tech companies are still actively seeking growth avenues and are open to doing business with China, where regulators still permit. Reuters notes that the outcome of this deal could be uncertain, and ByteDance might also seek partners other than Qualcomm. via Reuters | Image via DepositPhotos.com
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      DaviKar went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      456
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      117
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Xenon
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!