Test evaluates the durability of SSDs of various brands; check the result
jorge dorlando
Posts: 1,157
The models evaluated are the Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB Intel 335 Series 240GB, SSDs Samsung 840 Series 250GB and 256GB 840 Pro, plus two variations of Kingston HyperX 3K, both with 240GB capacity. The test consists, basically, in recording data at constant intervals, overwriting byte by byte until the discs begin to fail.
The idea therefore is to know how long each device in extreme test. The end result is potentially more severe for all models compared with the household, but it is compared.
700 TB
Failures do not occur in any model up to the mark of 700 TB of data recorded. From there, the Intel 335 Series and one of Kingston began to accuse the first problems. While continuing to write and read information from relatively normal way in the next gigabytes, the data began to introduce inconsistency to the point of getting the Intel SSD in read-only mode without allowing more storage.
According to Intel itself heard on the site Tech Report, the read-only mode is intentional and serves to ensure that consumers know that it is time to replace the SSD. Therefore, it is unclear to what extent the equipment would continue to write, even with low reliability.
Kingston HyperX 3K've had it up to 728 TB, when finally stopped support write any data in memory.
900 TB
The third test was the victim of Samsung 840 Series. Despite having begun to reallocate memory from 200 TB of recording, the SSD continued in full operation until the mark of 900 TB. Experts say big help came from software embedded in equipment, able to keep it "healthy" for longer than expected.
The mark of Petabyte
Only half of SSDs placed under observation reached 1 PB of data written successfully. Corsair Neutron GTX, Samsung Pro 840, and the second Kingston HyperX 3K survived this incredible brand and they have not failed completely after the battery of tests.
The model of Kingston, however, is in third place due to a drastic reduction of its lifetime - about 10% after 1 PB of data recorded. Then, Samsung showed much integer having only 2.7 GB of wasted space due to failures. The first, the model of Neutron showed impressive performance, designing absurdities three petabytes of data supported until it can no longer be used graph.
Although there are clear distinctions in three performance stages, the experts at Tech Report claim that all SSDs outperformed their factory specifications, which gives a perspective at least optimistic for home users. After all, unless someone has a test lab at home, can not write so much data in such a short time using an ordinary PC.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Taking into account that most of us even reaches the mark of 10TB per year (downloading files, installing / uninstalling 3d libraries, formatting the pc etc ...)
That would take about 70 years for the ssd starts showing flaws.
wow, I was looking at the Neutron. This test shows things are not as bad as I thought they were. For home use, or web page servers, I thoroughly agree with there results. After all what percentage of disk activity is reads with windows, lol.
Things are allot better now then they were ten years ago, when I was exclaiming MRAM, why not MRAM instead of that cr@*&#. You don't need to do wright wear leveling with MRAM, just put it in a MuMetal box and forget about it. lol.
Thanks for the heads up on this.
It is
I have a 120gb ssd for the Sandisk, but I'm going to buy a new ssd here some two weeks at least,
and this time I intend to buy a 250gb sansung 840 evo (because this is a reasonable price in Brazil)
This ssd 250gb want to install the operating system over the programs and libraries 3d and let run without the fear of burning cells.
I did something similar years ago for performance reasons, 36GB raptors. One for the OS, a second one for the Programs folder. then four more bigger drives for all "my documents", music & vids, Cad objects, etc.
I also created a RAM disk, and tossed all the temp stuff there, made allot of stuff much faster.
You'll be pleasantly surprised how that second SATA interface bandwidth makes all kinds of stuff faster, even without RAID.
Thanks for digging this out and posting it - something to point people at when they get all up-tight about DIM writing all over their SSD C: drive. :-)
And also a notification for those who intend to buy the Kingston V300 SSD
avoid buying SSDs new revision "506A"
Kingston is selling the new SSD V300 with Asynchronous NAND memories. The asynchronous memories are much cheaper and slower than synchronous NAND memories. Ie Kingston sends to companies reviews on the net the first "takes" of SSDs with synchronous memories. The consumer buys thinking it was buying an SSD with good cost / benefit, then they change the SSD NAND memories for a bottom.
Kingston solvent used in memories to hinder the identification of the problem.
Good SSDs are the 505A.
505A - THESE ARE MEMORIES SYNCHRONOUS
http://en.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1vfbrw/discussionupdate_on_the_psa_about_the_kingston/
http://www.overclock.net/t/1457629/psa-about-the-kingston-v300-ssd-probable-foul-play-by-kingston
There is another endurance test going on over at The Tech Report. Similar results; SSDs are by and large very reliable. By the time any of us get to the data volume showing up in these tests, we'll all be as old as a dead Pharaoh.
For most of us (aside from the occasional bad factory unit), we'll replace our SSDs before failure for reasons other than "I wore out the write-endurance".
#1 reason for replacing an SSD: I need more space and I only have so many SATA ports available.
makes me feel better
yes the continuous DIM updates WERE worrying me
I've had a Kingston HyperX SH100S3/120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III going on 3 years now and I love it. I've only had to do 1 firmware update on it due to bsod's after a year or so, but it's been smooth since. It's only my OS drive, so I don't run any apps/games off of it though, except drivers and antivirus/antimalware.
My other drives are hdds and not ssds.
I have four SSDs in my rendering machine; one for OS, and three others for apps and content. About the only thing I still use spinning disks for are backups and my rather massive downloads folder.
Still have spinning disks in my laptop, but that's only because capacities over a terabyte aren't available in 2.5" form factor SSDs. Yet.
You can rest easy. DIM updates aren't even NEARLY considered "high write".
I even have my Paging, SWAP, and hibernate files in the default place; my root directory of my C: partition. SSDs are IDEAL for the type of reads and writes the OS does from and to these files, and like I said, I'll be a mummified corpse by the time my SSDs wear out. If they ever do, that is. I'll probably replace them with higher capacity drives in the next few years, and put the old ones into a "hand-me-down" system. :D
nice writeup, now lets hope I have some way of retaining all this info!
thanks Jorge!
The other more technical problem is with allot of newer power-supplies. Heard drives need 5V, lots of Heard drives need lots of 5V in terms of Amps. SSD drives are a lot better on that front, however if your thinking of tossing four platter drives in a computer with lots of USB stuff on the other end, your going to need allot of 5V amps. The newer ATX two-dot-whatever power-supplies dump lots of Amps into the 12V for GPU and CPU at the sacrifice of the 5V side. Just because a Power-supply gloats some-hundred watts peak capacity, implies diddly squat when you need them 5V Amps consistently (amps continuous).
I am referring to when, you already have that OS drive and a CD-ROM, and now you want to dump four or more platter-drives into the mix without there own dedicated power-supply. 23A peak on the 5V rail probably wont cut it, lol.
I'm a good example with a lot of devices. 4 SSDs, 2 HDDs, a blueray burner, a GPU driving 5 monitors, i7 Processor, 64 GB RAM, and upwards of 20+ devices attached to my system via Firewire and USB. No problems here getting ample clean power. I suggest you stick with a better brand such as Corsair or Thermaltake PSUs and you'll be fine. The more stuff you have plugged in, the higher the power needs will be. I'm using a 1200 watt unit now.
I was not going to pony up the funds for a PSU (Power Supply) with that kind of watt rating, lol. I did find a solution, I just never finished the page for it. This gets very technical, and non artistic.
http://www.zarcondeegrissom.org/comps/OSWpsu.html
some day I'll get around to finishing that history page of sorts, lol.
The warning was more for others, as I had difficulty finding a PSU before the kilowatt units were even on the market. That was way back in 2004 about. I am more interested in an efficient PSU, rather that one of the kilowatt monsters.
The power-supply that came with that (whatever brand) preassembled computer, may not be able to handle any more then what the computer came with.
I follow you, but I would highly suggest that anybody buying a system for rendering should consider replacing the preassembled PSU, especially if it's a cheap no-name type. Unless they are a good brand (and in preassembled systems they usually are not), they could be the cause of Blue Screens and other issues. Dodgy or inconsistent power can also degrade the life-expectancy of your components within.
Newegg easily has 800+ watt PSUs for under $200 US, which would be good for people with reasonably powerful CPU and GPU. These are the most efficient, 80-Platinum. If you have a lower-power system, you can get 500-600 watt models. If efficiency is your overriding principle, then get them also 80-Platinum, for just around $120-$130. Any of these would be both efficient AND financially smart in the long run.
I can also make the case that the "kilowatt monsters" as you call them, are actually quite efficient and ultimately economical for people who might be running multiple CPUs and/or more than one graphic card, but I won't belabor the point. Also, be aware that just because a PSU says 1200 watts on it, that doesn't mean that it's going to immediately draw 1200 watts from the wall. If your system only needs 850 watts, that's what it will draw. Having some overhead power supply capability is always a good thing, because you never know when you might decide to add a second graphic card, etc.
Hmm, I guess I just did belabor the point after all... Oh well! :coolsmile:
The other more technical problem is with allot of newer power-supplies. Heard drives need 5V, lots of Heard drives need lots of 5V in terms of Amps. SSD drives are a lot better on that front, however if your thinking of tossing four platter drives in a computer with lots of USB stuff on the other end, your going to need allot of 5V amps. The newer ATX two-dot-whatever power-supplies dump lots of Amps into the 12V for GPU and CPU at the sacrifice of the 5V side. Just because a Power-supply gloats some-hundred watts peak capacity, implies diddly squat when you need them 5V Amps consistently (amps continuous).
I am referring to when, you already have that OS drive and a CD-ROM, and now you want to dump four or more platter-drives into the mix without there own dedicated power-supply. 23A peak on the 5V rail probably wont cut it, lol.
You can use this calculator to get an idea of how its components require:
http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp
For those who wish to know how much has already been written / used on your SSD:
You will know how much has been written on your ssd, using this software: "SSDLife"
http://www.ssd-life.com/