Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Which ssd is more reliable?

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 3, 2012 4:28:48 PM

Patriot Torqx 2 or Ocz Agility 3? They are both on newegg for $65 after rebate. Im going to use it for my os drive and dont want it to fail.

More about : ssd reliable

a b G Storage
April 3, 2012 4:42:17 PM

Neither of those are well known for reliability. The OCZ Agility 3 might be slightly worse in reliability but the Torqx uses a Phison controller which can't complete with the Agility's SandForce 2281 controller. In short, the Torqx might be slightly more reliable but the Agility 3 is going to perform significantly better than the Torqx. I'd go with the Agility.

EDIT: For $20 more, you can get a 64GB Crucial M4 which is one of the most reliable drives on the market (up there with Intel and Samsung).
m
0
l
a c 99 G Storage
April 3, 2012 6:31:39 PM

Most reliable: Intel. 520 Series is new, but it's still Intel.

Of the 2, go with OCZ.

Yes, there have been issues with the SandForce controller, but a firmware upgrade will fix (most of) the issues. New drives should already have the latest version (2.15?). But check the fw before you install the OS to it.

In the 2 years or so I've had SSD, none have failed. I just get new ones due to faster/better tech. I did return OCZ Vertex 2, due to the drive throttling issue, but then found out how to combat it, with SSD tweaks.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a c 353 G Storage
April 3, 2012 6:33:10 PM

Reliability and User problems are often lump together.
Reliability - failure NOT caused by user, Not really quantified as the newer SSDs have not been out long enough:
So in MY oppion - Intel followed very closely By Samsung -> Curcial M4 -> OCZ
User Problems Can get a feel by looking at 1/2 egg vs 4/5 egg recommendations from users @ newegg.:
OCZ SF22xx based SSDs: their first 6->8 Months had about the worst track record, I think they have finally Ironed out most of the Bugs. And here againt user problems, from least to most is the same.

As to your choices.
I have 10 SSDs of which 2 are OCZ agility III and a first generation of the Torqx. As ALL my SSDs they are still working.
1) Agility IIIs are cheap for a reason. High dissatisfaction (mostly from initial release)., and they really are not that great on the performance end. Their performance is nearly the same when used on a SATA II port as when used on a SATA III port. (Ref a review on this using benchmark AS SSD and verified using on my system - Agillity III/i5-2500k system).
2) As I stated I have the orginal torqx, which used the Indilinx controller, bought in 2009 and still in use. I have no experience with SSDs using the Phison Controller.

My own feel:
** save a little longer and get a 90+ gig drive, preferably Intel, samsung, or curcial.
Reason for larger size.
A) while many buy, most will find that 64 gig is tough to live with.
B) Bear in mind that a 64 gig drive is really only going to give you around 50 gigs of space. You lose 4 gig because of the way space is calculated, manuf use base 10, computers use base 2. Then you must leave a MIN of 10% UNUSED so that trim and Garbage Collection (CG) can work.
C) as size goes up, so does performance, that is a (use my M4s) 128 gig M4 is faster than a 64 gig M4.
Share
April 4, 2012 1:06:19 AM

Is intel really worth the premium, i think i will go with crucial m4.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
April 4, 2012 2:16:54 AM

^ have 2 128 gig M4s - Work great, would buy more if I needed another one.
Also have the 128 gig Samsyng 830.
Have 2 Intel, both older versions the G1 and G2.
As to which I would buy - of the three, which ever is Cheapest at time of purchase. I feel they are close enough in performance and reliability I would not pay extra for either.

ENJOY.
m
0
l
April 5, 2012 4:34:02 AM

Best answer selected by darksilver.
m
0
l
April 5, 2012 4:40:55 AM

What is meant by reliability? It's not like it has any moving pieces to break. Unless your talking about SSD wear.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
April 5, 2012 12:51:30 PM

^ while that sounds very logical, and will probably end up true, it is not a proven fact. SSDs have only become afforable in the last 3 to 4 years (SLC SSDs have been around longer, but were, and still are, expensive. While they do not have the "Moving" parts they have had their share of problems, many probably user induced. User induced problems are more likely to be correctable with HDD, But then if you knock over bump a SSD - no biggy, but no so with HDD.

As far as longevity:
.. I'm still using some 2 and 8 Gig SCSI HDD drives that are almost 20+ years old. But I do not think the current generation of HDD will last 20 years.
.. I swapped out a 2 gig SCSI drive with a SLC IDE SSD in an old system and it have not had a problem with it (in use about 3 years). On the same token One of thes drives was put into another system at work and the user started developing problems and had to revert back to a HDD.
.. Most users here at Tom's probably will not keep either a HDD, or a SSD, over 10 years. Infact the advances within a five year period would make either one obsolete and be replaced. For a five year period, both should be in working order.
m
0
l
!