How reliable are SSDs vs. standart Hard Drives?
I'm considering using a 128GB Crucial M4 SSD as my system drive on my new computer built but from what I hear SSDs are still new technology and more prone to crashing, bugs, and BSODs. I've had a standard 7200 RPM Hard Drive from Western Digital for the past 6 years and it has had no problems to date but from what I hear SSDs slow down over time and are less reliable even though they have no moving parts. Can anyone confirm whether SSDs are reliable and how much so?
VistaVendetta said:I'm considering using a 128GB Crucial M4 SSD as my system drive on my new computer built but from what I hear SSDs are still new technology and more prone to crashing, bugs, and BSODs. I've had a standard 7200 RPM Hard Drive from Western Digital for the past 6 years and it has had no problems to date but from what I hear SSDs slow down over time and are less reliable even though they have no moving parts. Can anyone confirm whether SSDs are reliable and how much so?
SSD's deteriorate. Hard drives typically are DOA (dead on arrival.) My personal experience with hard drives is they are less reliable. But I haven't had that many SSD's. MY suggestion is you buy an SSD for a boot drive and use an HDD as a storage drive. SSD's crash because of controller issues. Basically incompatibilities with the SATA controllers on you MOBO. All those kinks were worked out of HDD's years ago. But, I'll say it again: SSD for boot drive, HDD for mass storage.
As far as just failing out of the blue, I'd say get the one with the best reviews (by pros not random people on newegg)
But what you have to remember is most of the kinks have been worked out (or well the potentially problematic ones have) They are as stable if not more so then hard drives if designed by a proper company
The crucial M4 has been tested time and time again to be reliable and trust worthy
Like the other poster said, SSD for OS + games then the HDD for everything else.
Edit: and as for slowing down over time, they do not to any noticeable degree.
Most of the crashing/BSODing were caused by a faulty sata controller that intel recalled and has since fixed (also the negatives about the OCZ SSD was just bad products I think they fixed most of the problems with that one but im not sure :P)
There's so much rumor and conjecture out there based upon "anectdotal evidence", and from readong posts "reading the internet". OCZ SSD's were trashed because of a BSOD issue (since fixed) with Crucial being recommended as the "reliable alternative" only to have crucial fall to a similar BSOD issue shortly thereafter ....also fixed by a firmware update.
THG addresses the reliability issue well here:
Intel was long recommended as the reliable alternative with the most common reason given being "It doesn't use a SandForce controller. But Intel has now switched to SF controllers.Quote:So, what's our lesson at the end of the day? When it comes to picking a 60 GB SandForce-based boot drive, NAND type is the biggest determinant of performance (although these drives are all significantly faster than anything with magnetic disks). And if you're worried about reliability, that difficult-to-quantify X factor, a vendor is only as good as its reputation. Some brands do better than others when it comes to supporting their products, so perhaps an exploration of rebate fulfillment, phone support, and RMA processing is in order next?
Here's an interesting article comparing SSD and HDD:
It's an old article but things should get even better over time...