• Last Updated:
  • Aug 25th, 2020 10:06 am
Tags:
[OP]
Penalty Box
Apr 15, 2011
5157 posts
1887 upvotes
Scarborough

SSD failures

does anyone else notice that SSDs are more prone to failure than mechanical hard drive. I have 2 older SSDs and both of them don't work anymore. I would say they are less than 5 years old. Even a new SSD started to show symptoms of failure. On the other hand, I have never had a single issue with the numerous mechanical hard drives I've owned over the years. They might have been slow but they would reliably last the life of the computer if not longer.

This nonsense about SSDs being reliable is just marketing nonsense in my eyes. The drives all seem to be trash, designed for obsolescence in order for the manufacturers to make a profit. Scumbags.
11 replies
Deal Addict
Jul 14, 2010
2398 posts
397 upvotes
I have three intel SSD's and four Samsung SSD's and none of them have failed. The oldest one has been my boot drive since 2012.
Deal Guru
Feb 11, 2007
10254 posts
4521 upvotes
It depends. The Samsung EVO Pro SSDs I use have been very reliable.
The main advantage of SSDs are the faster boot up times.

If you have a laptop that you move around or carry while it is powered on, a regular mechanical hard drive will break easily in those situations.
SSDs will be fine.

Brand reputation matters but i also have a Samsung USB flash drive that randomly corrupts files or does not copy over files correctly.
[OP]
Penalty Box
Apr 15, 2011
5157 posts
1887 upvotes
Scarborough
Ascott wrote: I have three intel SSD's and four Samsung SSD's and none of them have failed. The oldest one has been my boot drive since 2012.
I've been mainly using kingston, adata, ocz and some other scrub SSDs. Maybe thats the reason for the crazy failures ive been experiencing.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
6134 posts
6443 upvotes
GTA
It's all relative. Having been into computing since what feels like forever, I have gone through many mechanical HDD failures, and no SSD failures.
But I am not saying SSDs fail less, or HDDs fail more. You should consider many specific factors in your situation such as: The drive's brand, model and revision; amount of usage; situation used for; device used in; as examples to determine what might be your bigger issue.

And the most important lesson to anyone who relies on any form of media to place data on - if it holds any form of value to you, back that s*** up.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 23, 2005
24420 posts
196184 upvotes
GTA
blaznazn22 wrote: I've been mainly using kingston, adata, ocz and some other scrub SSDs. Maybe thats the reason for the crazy failures ive been experiencing.
Quite possibly brand reputation *could* be the issue there. I have been using SSDs over the past number of years (I would say at least 8+ years) and I have not had a failure yet. Brands that I have had at one point or another include the Intel X-25 M (think that was the first one I owned), Micron, Crucial, Samsung EVO 860, and whatever model was in my MacBook (think it may have been a Samsung as well).
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 7, 2016
2532 posts
1447 upvotes
Ontario
I've got at least a dozen+ SSDs in the past 10 years and all are still working. Gone through a couple mech HDDs in that time that have failed, so...
·Ï¢årµ§·
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
10767 posts
2612 upvotes
Victoria
I'm the opposite. I was always under the impression that SSD's had a limited lifespan (a finite amount of reads/writes)? I had one laptop SSD that developed a few bad sectors years back. Every other SSD I've owned has outlived it's own usefulness (IE lasted long enough that I upgraded before it died).
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 14, 2009
1032 posts
489 upvotes
Windsor, Ont.
zod wrote: I'm the opposite. I was always under the impression that SSD's had a limited lifespan (a finite amount of reads/writes)?
While that is true, the limited lifespan was something that was overblown. In order to reach the read/write limit of an SSD, it would take years and years of usage. I remember some tech sites set up test rigs to continually write to SSDs (basically a completely unrealistic use case). I think they found that it would take like 10 years before a user would run into problems. Most traditional mechanical hard drives fail mechanically before 10 years.

And, as you did, I expect most people will upgrade before they'd reach any limit. I still have my first 64GB SSD sitting on a shelf, and another 128GB sitting around. They could easily be used as an OS drive, especially if using Linux. But there just isn't a whole lot of reason to keep using them, when you can get a 512GB drive for under $100. And a few years from now, we'll probably be saying the same thing about 512GB drives when 2+TB drives become cheaper.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
29038 posts
4715 upvotes
Montreal
In no particular order I have, and still use:

Intel x25-m
Samsung 840 non Evo

Samsung 840 Evo

Crucial Mx100 (2 of them)

Intel 730

These are all over 5 years old and run like a charm.

The only ones I have had systematically fail on me are OCZ sandforce drives. And yet they lasted longer than their parent company.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 24, 2002
3426 posts
1167 upvotes
BC
blaznazn22 wrote: I've been mainly using kingston, adata, ocz and some other scrub SSDs. Maybe thats the reason for the crazy failures ive been experiencing.
Checks out. I’ve been using nothing but intel and the Samsung pro series for over a decade and I have never had one fail. I did have a really shitty refurb crucial in the very early days that sucked, but I converted it to a read only volume and it works wonder on a Wii with load time over USB to this day.
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
9097 posts
4392 upvotes
I had a Crucial MX100 die a few years ago. Reading still worked perfectly but the write cells were exhausted. Triggered a Windows error dialog with full info and alerted me to transition to another drive. Totally graceful death, I rarely got that lucky with mechanicals.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)