3 ms·
Given the difference in reputation between OCZ and not-OCZ I couldn't imagine buying them on anything other than a "way cheaper than everything else" basis. Un
by bcoates 14y ago
Given the difference in reputation between OCZ and not-OCZ I couldn't imagine buying them on anything other than a "way cheaper than everything else" basis.
Unremarkable benchmarks plus no cheaper than models that have been on the market for some time? Double-pass.
- sciurus 14y agoAre you saying OCZ has a bad reputation? I haven't followed things closely, but I used a Vertex 2 and now use a Vertex 3 based on their good reviews at http://www.anandtech.com/tag/storage http://www.anandtech.com/tag/storage
- weiran 14y agoThey're fast drives but in the past have had the highest failure rates and firmware problems. Anecdotally Samsung and Crucial drives are much more reliable, while the Intel drives are probably the best because of Intel's verification.
- bcoates 14y agoYeah, they're known for unreasonably high failure rates and terribly warranty service. SH/SC says "Do not buy drives from OCZ or last-generation (SATA300) models, they are not reliable." and refers people to this list: http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-rates-7.html http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-... It's possible that they're the entire cause of the "SSDs are less reliable than spinning disk" conventional wisdom.