What is the most trusted SSD?

Ady2009

Ady2009

Ady2009

Associate
Joined
4 Feb 2009
Posts
110
Location
Derbyshire
It was time to upgrade my PC and after doing lots of reading I opted for a 1TB Crucial MX500. I thought I had made a good choice but after just 5 mins it failed! I was in the middle of doing a fresh installation of windows when I got errors appearing and when I checked in BIOS the drive had completely gone. After a couple of reboots the drive came back but when I ran crystal disk info on it, it has got a few uncorrectable errors and even a quick format failed to complete. This thing had got a 5-year warranty but didn't even manage to last 5 mins! Original HDD has been refitted and all is well again but I really do need to upgrade.

I thought Cruical was a good brand but it seems that there are lot of complaints about them now. I looked at the Samsung QVO but it seems that they are very slow and have failures as well. Any recommendations?

I am seriously thinking about sticking with mechanical HDD's for the main storage and just using a small SSD for the OS. I am loosing faith in SSD's considering I have still got HDD's from 2009 that have been used everyday and still do not have a single error on them! An old HDD had lasted 15+ years while a Crucial SSD could not even manage to last 5 mins!
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you got unlucky with the SSD and/or had a faulty connection.

Despite the issues with Samsung I'm yet to have one fail on me resulting in data loss even the 840 Evo with its cell voltage issues has lasted since 2013 and large amounts of writes. But overall Kingston has actually been the most reliable in my experience - I've seen far more failures with Crucial and even Western Digital, never mind brands like ADATA.
 
I've had experience with OCZ, Crucial, Corsair, and Samsung drives, and I've found all of them to be very reliable (fingers crossed).
AFAIK, Samsung are among the best, though I have to concede that I'm a bit out of touch with the latest where storage is concerned.

I think Seagate is another that tend to get a good rep.
 
Last edited:
With all my clients at work, I probably help manage the kit of about 100,000 people.

I've seen maybe 2-3 SSD fails in end user devices (not server hardware) in 7 years. Sounds like you just got unlucky!
 
On the mechanical drives side, I've had at least 5 drives give up on me at various points in their life in the last 15 years, including a data center grade drive that went during its warranty period.

The bathtub curve really is a lottery.

Edit: including work computers you add another 2 known to have failed and 3 more where I aren't sure and the disk was swapped as the fastest solution when it may well have been software over a little under 15 years.
 
Last edited:
Western Digital, Crucial, Seagate and Samsung.

SATA SSDs are now considered low effort drives now so companies seem to be cost cutting in a lot of them now. Hence many are going through reductions in specifications so older versions of the same model are better.
 
Last edited:
If i've read that correctly, you never went with a replacement MX500 and have been using a hard disk this whole time for the OS?

As long as you backup solid state drives are a no brainer for non heavy writing, the cost for small SSDs is near the same as HDDs.

My WD Blue HDD went kaput, but my WD NVMEs are fine, as are my others. Luck of the draw.
 
If you want a trusted SSD, looking at the like of Samsung's QVO drives is just a waste of time - they are pretty much scraping the barrel in my opinion.

Start by looking at the TBW figures. Generally speaking, the higher the better. The TBW figures tend to increase with quality and capacity of drives.

For example, the 1TB 870 QVO has TBW figure of 360, where the 1TB 870 EVO has a TBW figure of 600.

When my hard drive dies or I choose to replace it, I'll probably end up getting whatever Pro NVME drive Samsung have to offer. I'm not saying other drive brands aren't to be trusted, but I feel that Samsung are the safer bet when it comes to storage.
 
Ady2009 said:
I thought Cruical was a good brand but it seems that there are lot of complaints about them now.
Click to expand...
They're all bad, every manufacturer has had issues with failures and firmware at some point, even Samsung (Crucial's MX500 is included). I would just buy the cheapest comparable drive to the type you're looking for and make sure you have backups.

Ady2009 said:
I looked at the Samsung QVO but it seems that they are very slow and have failures as well. Any recommendations?
Click to expand...
The QVO line use QLC memory, so if you're desperate for a 'reliable' drive, one that uses QLC would not be my first choice. You could switch to the Evo line, but they've had more problems than the MX500, so you're playing a lottery there too.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
SATA SSDs are now considered low effort drives now so companies seem to be cost cutting in a lot of them now. Hence many are going through reductions in specifications so older versions of the same model are better.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they definitely are, the SA510 Blue is not a patch on the old WD 3D Blue, for example.
 
For reliability I'd look at finding an older used drive with no known issues like the Samsung 860 EVO, but just make sure it doesn't have a high number of writes.
 
Thanks all for your advice. Everyone seems to agree that SSD drives are risky and it is just a matter of trying to reduce the risk. What I have eventually opted for is to use two 500Gb SSD's instead of a single 1Tb drive. It did work out the same in terms of price but has the benefit of halving the risk. The idea is to but the OS on one drive and game files on the other. I could even set up an daily back-up of the non-replaceable files from the main OS drive to the game drive. It seems to be the most sensible solution.
 
Ady2009 said:
Thanks all for your advice. Everyone seems to agree that SSD drives are risky and it is just a matter of trying to reduce the risk. What I have eventually opted for is to use two 500Gb SSD's instead of a single 1Tb drive. It did work out the same in terms of price but has the benefit of halving the risk. The idea is to but the OS on one drive and game files on the other. I could even set up an daily back-up of the non-replaceable files from the main OS drive to the game drive. It seems to be the most sensible solution.
Click to expand...
2 wrong assumptions:
-SSDs are not risky, failure rate is much lower than HDD
-2x 500GB is TWICE the risk as 1 drive(unless you put them in raid 1, but then you will be left with 500gb total capacity)
 
Last edited:
Samsung and Corsair for me. Never had one fail in the years i've used them. I also have various makes of ssds in my crypto mining rigs and never seen a failure. I just think they are way more reliable than mechanical hdds. I remember when they first came out and everyone was highly suspicious of their long term reliability. Lol
 
Last edited:
Ady2009 said:
Thanks all for your advice. Everyone seems to agree that SSD drives are risky and it is just a matter of trying to reduce the risk. What I have eventually opted for is to use two 500Gb SSD's instead of a single 1Tb drive. It did work out the same in terms of price but has the benefit of halving the risk. The idea is to but the OS on one drive and game files on the other. I could even set up an daily back-up of the non-replaceable files from the main OS drive to the game drive. It seems to be the most sensible solution.
Click to expand...
They're not risky at all, just back up your stuff. Twice.
 
Samsung never failed on me, even the infamous 870QVO I have in my diy nas.
I have:
4x 850 evo
1x 870 qvo
1x 950 pro
1x 980 pro
1x 990 pro
and they all work like a dream :)
 
Ady2009 said:
Everyone seems to agree that SSD drives are risky and it is just a matter of trying to reduce the risk.
Click to expand...

That's not what everyone has said at all, they've said certain brands/models/types can be risky but overall SSDs are very reliable. It's much easier and cheaper to make low-cost, low-performance, low-reliability SSDs than it is HDDs so it's no surprise you'll see increased issues at the lower end of the SSD market.

You'd be better off getting as big an SSD as you need, partition 200GB or so for Windows and your apps to sit on and then the rest for games, storage etc. That way if you need to do a clean Windows install you aren't faced with having to move or reinstall your games and other files.

I've had various Crucial SATA SSDs over the years starting with a Crucial 128GB back in 2012, and have had no problems with any of them including one which was used in a PS4 for a few years (which is very write-intensive due to the constant game capture) and now lives in my PC. I've also had NVMe drives from Samsung and WD with no issues. I have had an HDD fail during that time though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom