SSD suggestion - Samsung vs. Lexar

DarkMilla

DarkMilla

New Member
Reaction score
1
Location
Germany
I’m looking for an M.2 2280 SSD, and I’m torn between the budget-friendly Lexar EQ790 2TB M.2 2280 PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe 1.4 SSD and the Samsung 990 PRO 2TB M.2 PCIe 4.0 V-NAND MLC NVMe.

The price difference is significant, and Amazon is heavily promoting Lexar, a brand I honestly haven’t heard much about. The few negative reviews I’ve seen worry me.

Does anyone have experience with this?

I would use it as an internal SSD for my projects throughout the day—not heavy usage, but I’m concerned about reliability and potential failure.

I’d appreciate any feedback or personal experiences!
 
SSDs as a whole are mighty darned reliable, and the ones that do fail "frequently" (which isn't frequently, really) are documented by Backblaze.

Here's what Perplexity has to say about Lexar: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/who-makes-lexar-ssds-RKEzN9oNQTe2Bnfh2QvAXQ

The Lexar SSD you refer to has the following ratings profile on Amazon:
1738266166232.png

It is mighty darned rare, regardless of product, to have 90% 5-star ratings with over 1700 total reviews. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to purchase that device if you want something on more of a budget than the Samsung one.

I have yet to have any SSD except a single Adata unit fail, and I've never been brand loyal. I've used Adata, Crucial, Silicon Power, PNY, and at least one more. All are functioning, whether in my own machines or those of clients, long after they were initially installed.
 
I asked Perplexity, which I find does a good job with such questions. It's conclusion:

While Lexar SSDs may offer competitive speeds and capacities at lower prices, the higher failure rates and performance inconsistencies suggest that Samsung SSDs are more reliable overall. For users prioritizing data integrity and long-term reliability, Samsung appears to be the better choice.

Given the low chance of recovering data from any SSD, I'd pick the Samsung. Just yesterday, I managed to recover a user's data from a Lexar SSD external drive that looked quite new. The customer bought a Samsung as a replacement.
 
Indeed, my concerns stem from user reports stating that after a variable period ranging from a week to a year, these SSDs suddenly stop working.
It seems to happen without any warning signs. The price difference with discounts is €179 vs. €124, but if they fail after a year, my gray hairs tell me that there won’t be any refund, and lost data is lost forever.
The only reassuring aspect is that Lexar was acquired by Micron (a reliable company) and that Amazon is heavily promoting it.
However… when it comes to data, there’s no room for risks. So, begrudgingly, I’ll have to spend a bit more and go for the classic Samsung, which has never given me issues with SATA drives.
Thank you all for your support.
 
I sell both Samsung and Lexar Drives - among others. I've been happy with Lexar - no problems to report and no returns or known failures for over a year.

SSD's, when they die, usually die immediately - so I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to Lexar drives alone.

The drives I've been selling are the Lexar NS100 2.5" series.
 
DarkMilla said:
The only reassuring aspect is that Lexar was acquired by Micron (a reliable company) and that Amazon is heavily promoting it.
Click to expand...
I don't think I would be reassured by that. I've seen plenty of failed Micron SSDs and Amazon promotes whatever brings high margins. I tend to rely more on Amazon user ratings, if there are a lot of them.
 
phaZed said:
SSD's, when they die, usually die immediately - so I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to Lexar drives alone.
Click to expand...

Thank you. This cannot be emphasized enough. Every SSD failure I've dealt with was truly sudden death in every sense. You do NOT get behavioral warnings like you did from HDDs in the earlier stages of failure. SSDs in my experience act like they're controlled by a light switch. They either come online and work perfectly, or they just don't work at all, and you cannot predict when any given one might fail.

This is why having backups in the age of SSDs is, in my opinion, far more critical than it was in the age of HDDs. The cost of recovery was much lower and the probability of recovery was much higher with HDDs than it is with SSDs (or thumb drives, or SD cards). One of the reasons I still favor HDDs as backup & recovery media is that you generally get ample warning that "somethings off" and have a chance to replace when needed before failure.
 
britechguy said:
Thank you. This cannot be emphasized enough. Every SSD failure I've dealt with was truly sudden death in every sense. You do NOT get behavioral warnings like you did from HDDs in the earlier stages of failure. SSDs in my experience act like they're controlled by a light switch. They either come online and work perfectly, or they just don't work at all, and you cannot predict when any given one might fail.

This is why having backups in the age of SSDs is, in my opinion, far more critical than it was in the age of HDDs. The cost of recovery was much lower and the probability of recovery was much higher with HDDs than it is with SSDs (or thumb drives, or SD cards). One of the reasons I still favor HDDs as backup & recovery media is that you generally get ample warning that "somethings off" and have a chance to replace when needed before failure.
Click to expand...

Yep I tell everyone that same exact thing. Newer stuff can't be trusted as much as the older stuff no doubt about it.
 
I just want to mention that "fake reviews" can be purchased from several overseas vendors, They are dirt cheap and indistinguishable from real reviews.
The internet is awash with them now.
Take any review with a grin of salt.
 
Just a heads up, the Samsung 990 Pro line has had firmware design issues, causing premature failure. Although, some people report a firmware update helped, other struggled with being able to execute the firmware update with Magician software.
Search online and you will see.

Again, SSDs, along with anything else flash chips based (e.g. USB flash drive, SD and Micro SD Cards, etc) have a limited amount of write cycles, therefore guaranteed to fail.

In general, unless there is a firmware design issue, cheap materials are used where they get bent through mishandling (e.g. flash chips disconnect from the main board), overheating causing cold solder joints and so on (e.g. common in SanDisk and WD portable drives), an SSD can last a long time if minimal writing activity takes place.

General rule of thumb: the cheaper an SSD, the higher the likelihood it uses lower quality flash chips, problematic controller chips (e.g. SandForce), outsourced firmware, etc.

With that in mind, in the last few years I get the impression that some of the "less quality cheaper perceived manufacturers" have improved on quality, while some of the "better/best quality pricier perceived manufacturers" have lowered their quality. With covid impacting supply chains, economic/profit adjustments, there has been a lot of adjusting by manufacturers.

Samsung is the only manufacturer, that designs their chips and firmware in SSDs. And somehow still manages to have mishaps.
 
I have used Silicon Power SSDs, having deployed a significant number of them. To the best of my knowledge, none have failed.

In the past, I worked with budget-conscious customers who preferred cost-effective solutions over premium products. As a result, I have used SSDs from a wide range of brands. Despite this, I have not encountered failures, and some of these drives have remained in service since SSDs first became widely available.

I have a PC equipped with a 128GB Samsung SSD that has been in continuous operation for maybe ten years now. It handles frequent read/write operations and runs 24/7, only being powered down for Windows updates, power outages, or similar interruptions.

I just tested this SSD using CrystalDiskInfo, and it still reports as being in "Good" condition. I have never updated its firmware, though I suspect firmware updates for a drive of this age may no longer be available.
 
GTP said:
I worked with budget-conscious customers who preferred cost-effective solutions over premium products.
Click to expand...

As do I, and I consider myself one of them.

My own experience with budget versus premium SSDs makes me hold the firm belief that it's "six of one, half a dozen of the other."

I've yet to have one fail from having become "worn out" and most folks have replaced their computers long before the SSD was anything near to kaput.
 
As always, backups are essential. But, what about the clients who refuse to backup their data?
  • Generic brand SSDs, like SP, Crucial, KingFast and the likes, may have a higher failure rate, but they also have a much higher success rate with data recovery
  • Major brand SSDs like Samsung, Intel and Western Digital may have a lower failure rate, but the chances of data recovery are next to zero
That said, it really depends on the type of failure.
  • Failing NAND (aka bad sectors), similar results either way
  • Firmware issues, generic brand recoverable, major brands impossible due to firmware encryption and customizations
  • Deleted data or formatted drive, almost never recoverable due to TRIM being enabled
At the end of the day, all SSDs are prone to corrupt firmware due to poor quality NAND where both the data and the firmware resides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Compatibility: What is your experience with PCIe NVMe enclosures and Samsung SSD drives?
Replies
4
Views
802
YeOldeStonecat
YeOldeStonecat
Moltuae
Samsung releases the world’s fastest gumstick SSD
Replies
2
Views
946
phaZed
phaZed
Back
Top