SATA SSD drives

BO Terry

Active Member
Reaction score
112
Location
NC
I just checked pricing on the Samsung 870 EVO (1TB SATA) and it seems there was a significant price jump recently. Has anyone else seen this? I'm seeing the 1tb at $170. I just bought a 500GB last week for $65 and it's $95 today. Checking on Amazon, CDW, & BestBuy they are all $170. Ingram is slightly cheaper but is about the same once you pay shipping.

What are your reliable alternatives with comparable specs, performance, life expectancy, and warranty?
 
I've had good luck with PNY, Crucial, and Adata (yes, Adata).

Given the nature of what an SSD is, I'd imagine that the failure rates would be largely similar. But what "comes with" in terms of data transfer and drive management software is not.
 
What are your reliable alternatives with comparable specs, performance, life expectancy, and warranty?
There have been multiple threads on this subject.
I like Crucial, TEAM, Kingston and Adata. Never had an issue with any of them.
WD Green and Blue are ok too.
I had a few OCZ fail in a short time so never used them again.
1TB drives here are from $65~$90+
 
I bought 1TB drives on Amazon yesterday. SanDisk Ultra were $109 and Samsung Evo 970 were $169.
 
I use Kingston A400 most of the time. Never had a failure and they are on the cheaper end of the scale. I've got a TEAM one in a prebuilt i bought for my office use and that also works well.
The 960GB Kingston A400 i can currently get for £63.50 +VAT, the Samsung 870 EVO you mentioned is currently £82.57 +VAT here. Both prices are from distributors as that's where i buy all my stuff. I think the Kingston is a little slower than the Samsung, but i doubt its a very noticeable difference to the average user.
 
I have only ever had 1 failure...........Crucial.
I've used pretty much all the above, but have noticed Samsung and WD Blue as having the best speeds.
The others are still way faster than a platter, but I've settled on WD Blue then Samsung.
I just price accordingly.
Your mileage may vary.
 
I have only ever had 1 failure...........Crucial.
I've used pretty much all the above, but have noticed Samsung and WD Blue as having the best speeds.
The others are still way faster than a platter, but I've settled on WD Blue then Samsung.
I just price accordingly.
Your mileage may vary.

I've only ever had 1 Adata 250gb ssd fail. WD Blue and Samsung seem pretty close when I've used either one. The kingstons and adata seemed a step below but still worked really well. I still prefer the Samsung Pro for business machines. WD Blue or Samsung evo for everything else. With prices rising might have to stock some kingstons again.
 
Walmart is the only place locally within 2 hours that sells SSDs so I have the choice of PNY (no DRAM) or WD Blue. The WD Blue drives do the trick and are reasonably priced when I need an SSD right away.
 
I own one Samsung Evo drive.. (I think a 950) and have probably purchased, used, deployed... blah blah around 60 SSD's by now.

I've only ever had two fail, or at least what I've called "failed". One Crucial drive (BX I think) and IIRC one Adata drive.

The majority of the drives I've deployed we're either Adata or Crucial. So... a failure here or there out of a two dozen or better of each. Not bad. Both were probably within 16 to 24 months of deployment.

I've done the odd SanDisk, Western Digital Blue, Silicon Power and Kingston.
 
I just checked pricing on the Samsung 870 EVO (1TB SATA) and it seems there was a significant price jump recently. Has anyone else seen this? I'm seeing the 1tb at $170. I just bought a 500GB last week for $65 and it's $95 today. Checking on Amazon, CDW, & BestBuy they are all $170. Ingram is slightly cheaper but is about the same once you pay shipping.

What are your reliable alternatives with comparable specs, performance, life expectancy, and warranty?
Insane what happened with Samsung prices, seemingly overnight. I think the last price I paid for a couple of 500GB 970's was 51.99 at NewEgg on sale, a few weeks ago - I usually buy 2-3 at a time when I find them at a good price, and install one or two a week. I really prefer the Samsung drives because their migration software from large to small (usually 1TB spinner to 500gb SSD) is so easy and just plain old works. However, if Samsungs are too expensive I buy WD Blue drives and use their free Acronis. Have had failures from other brands including PNY and Sandisk, Samsung and WD Blue seem pretty solid.
 
Just based on all the offerings here, I'm willing to say that it really comes close to "a SSD, is an SSD, is an SSD," as far as probability of failure if it comes from any of the major brands.

We have reports of isolated failures for all of them, and that the majority of them are doing just fine. The brands certain people hate are ones that have worked just fine for others, and over long periods of time.

We all know that in this business if something is consistently slipshod over even a not so long period of time the maker of said thing is likely to go belly up, fast. We also know that even the top shelf makers of specific components have been known to produce "lemon runs" whether those are within an otherwise perfectly successful product line or just a bum model.

I've now got machines, whether my own or belonging to clients, using Adata, Crucial, PNY, and Samsung. None have, as of yet, failed. And I have no way of predicting whether any of them ever will (or at least whether they will prematurely).

As this topic has progressed I've been inclined to become less and less brand loyal, not more and more, at least from a reliability perspective. What "comes with" as far as utilities or length of warranty or ease of dealing with customer service are all critically important, too, but separate issues.
 
FYI - Backblaze is just starting to report on SSDs but not yet by model -

And they do a very nice job of noting all the caveats involved for the limited data still available and the age differences involved between their HDD and SSD comparison samples.

It really will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. It will also be interesting to see how the data recovery industry changes to handle SSD failures for the same sort of flat rates as currently exist for HDDs, as that's got to eventually happen.
 
And they do a very nice job of noting all the caveats involved for the limited data still available and the age differences involved between their HDD and SSD comparison samples.

It really will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. It will also be interesting to see how the data recovery industry changes to handle SSD failures for the same sort of flat rates as currently exist for HDDs, as that's got to eventually happen.
Eliminating the scammers, just about all data recovery companies charge flat fees on SSD work. At least everybody here on the forum on behalf of a data recovery company is charging flat fees.

If you meant to say why there is a wider price range between the lowest and highest flat price for SSDs compared to HDDs, it is because of the difficulty in assessing the type of problem(s) the SSD may have without having in the hands to test thoroughly.

For example: an SSD could have an electronic failure, a firmware problem, or a degradation issue (often the last two combined is a common occurrence), where all three scenarios exhibit the same behavior when testing with basic tools: no activity of any kind, basically like many errenously describe "it is dead".

Furthermore, since there so many SSD manufacturers and, subsequently, a handful of different models under one manufacturer, the recovery solutions for various problems vary. Consequently, the price may vary, too. Also, flash technology and standards have changed frequently in the last 10 years, further exacerbating the difficulty in committing toa simple pricing scheme.
 
Back
Top