Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OWC SSD's Die Fast?
- Thread starter CountlovE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Time out for a reality check.
The OP posits a conceit based on rumour and panic in the world of storage. Then asks a leading question on a very narrow band of personal knowledge. Different forum members rush to defend the honour of SSD tech and OWC or deride it. Automatic gainsaying of each others arguments ensues.
This is normal human behaviour when egos outweigh intelligence, now a common occurrence in modern society. Twitter and Facebook have dumbed down the internet to the point where opinions are like arseholes, we all have one and everyone wants to show you their one because it's bigger or better or shinier.
Please remember that we are (or should be) adults and capable of agreeing to differ or respect opinions held by others while countering arguments with clear, rational, fact based thought.
Arguing about SSD reliability while the biggest mechanical HDD manufacturer is still pumping sea water out of his factory is amusing at best, divisive at worst. Kinda like arguing about which brand of car is better when they are all made out of the same materials and have the same engines. It is just personal preference after the tests have shown that they are all fast, all expensive and all have a modest failure rate for an emergent technology.
Rant over, back to calling each other names.
Oh yeah, to answer the OP's leading question: OWC 120 GB SSD 3G Mercury installed as boot drive in Mac Pro at 14:58 on 21.10.10, perfect behaviour every day since and as fast as I could wish on a 2008 mobo. Yup that is a +1 for OWC reliability for what it is worth (very little). Mind, I would buy another manufacturer's SSD in the blink of an eye if it was significantly cheaper.
The OP posits a conceit based on rumour and panic in the world of storage. Then asks a leading question on a very narrow band of personal knowledge. Different forum members rush to defend the honour of SSD tech and OWC or deride it. Automatic gainsaying of each others arguments ensues.
This is normal human behaviour when egos outweigh intelligence, now a common occurrence in modern society. Twitter and Facebook have dumbed down the internet to the point where opinions are like arseholes, we all have one and everyone wants to show you their one because it's bigger or better or shinier.
Please remember that we are (or should be) adults and capable of agreeing to differ or respect opinions held by others while countering arguments with clear, rational, fact based thought.
Arguing about SSD reliability while the biggest mechanical HDD manufacturer is still pumping sea water out of his factory is amusing at best, divisive at worst. Kinda like arguing about which brand of car is better when they are all made out of the same materials and have the same engines. It is just personal preference after the tests have shown that they are all fast, all expensive and all have a modest failure rate for an emergent technology.
Rant over, back to calling each other names.
Oh yeah, to answer the OP's leading question: OWC 120 GB SSD 3G Mercury installed as boot drive in Mac Pro at 14:58 on 21.10.10, perfect behaviour every day since and as fast as I could wish on a 2008 mobo. Yup that is a +1 for OWC reliability for what it is worth (very little). Mind, I would buy another manufacturer's SSD in the blink of an eye if it was significantly cheaper.
Last edited:
OWC is still a victim of SandForce and all its issues. No matter what reviewers say about quality and everything, the controller is no better than the ones used in products mentioned by Weaselboy.
I guess nothing ever changes, tech companies never improve and never solve problems. Oh yeah, they're all the same.
Hell is right. OWC sales will tell you it is "special". When you get a tech on the phone and press them and convince them you know what you are talking about they will agree that their parts are no different. Their firmwares not "tweaked" enough to overcome the primary problems of sandforce. They absolutely do not re-write the faulty firmware.
from Guru 3d
t was in a way too late in Q3 when the firmware bug finally got identified and fixed despite numerous fixes and updates. So though the SandForce 2281 based SSDs run fast as heck and are stable now, the reputation damage was done. SandForce products are no longer the #1 choice for end users.
Read the next sentence as well. You don't want to buy a car that has been in an accident either, even though it looks completely fine but you know that it has gone through some rough times. Besides, the firmware updates don't affect drives that die or arrive DOA, it's only for fixing the BSODs.
You just keep beating a dead horse. Its now a non issue in reality, as several professional reviewers have noted.
c'mon dude? Firmware fix had NOTHING to do with dying SSD's. It was an entirely separate issue and was publicized as the BSOD in windows. In OS X it was the "wake from sleep freeze". Like patched Video games with time, it is now better, but saying their problems are behind them will need to take even more time. I just replaced my 6G with a 3G because if "new" firmware issue with 2008 Macbook Pro's negotiating to only 1.5Gb/s. Called OWC and they said yes, sorry. It was sandforce's fault. Maybe there will be a fix or maybe not. Wait till you get some drama. You'll change your tune. Admittedly I do have another 240GB 6G in MAc Pro that has been flawless on OG firmware. Mobo's apparently play a great part in your SF based SSD's lifespan and performance.
Could be your problem is old computers. My 2011 has been flawless from day one. 2008 Mac is 5 generations old.
Yeah that's it.
SATAII is SATAII. No matter what age your computer is. My 2010 Mac Pro is SATAII. My MBP 2008 is SATAII. Only difference is in the host controllers.
Yeah that's it.
SATAII is SATAII. No matter what age your computer is. My 2010 Mac Pro is SATAII. My MBP 2008 is SATAII. Only difference is in the host controllers.
Good luck with that.
Reviews mean nothing. Reviewers get only one review sample. That's one single SSD, they can't say a word about the lifetime of the SSD in general. This thread is already a good example that OWC SSDs may die only after months of use.
...after reading this thread, I'm glad I went with Intel, Crucial, Corsair and Western Digital for my win7 and Mac machines = these SSD's have all been running for between 8 months and 2 years so far depending on what machine they currently reside in...
...not to mention the Intel, Crucial and WD SSD's are all on their second machine they've been installed into
...not to mention the Intel, Crucial and WD SSD's are all on their second machine they've been installed into
SATA II is a standard. If the SSD does not work correctly within the standards set out for SATA II then it is the SSDs controllers fault. If every other SSD and HDD works absolutely fine with that controller, then it is clearly the SSD...
Plain and simple.
Got my warranty replacement 115 OWC SSD today and to my dismay, the Geekbench 64bit results are lower(not by much) than those with my Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB hard drive
I even reinstalled Lion, to no avail.....so much for the SSD speed!
I even reinstalled Lion, to no avail.....so much for the SSD speed!
Got my warranty replacement 115 OWC SSD today and to my dismay, the Geekbench 64bit results are lower(not by much) than those with my Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB hard drive
I even reinstalled Lion, to no avail.....so much for the SSD speed!
GeekBench doesn't test disk speed so most likely you had more processes open now than you had before. Reboot and don't open anything but GB and try again.
Got my warranty replacement 115 OWC SSD today and to my dismay, the Geekbench 64bit results are lower(not by much) than those with my Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB hard drive
I even reinstalled Lion, to no avail.....so much for the SSD speed!
Try http://novabench.com/ it might be a more relevant test.
Xbench is very old but includes extensive Hard Drive sampling: http://xbench.com/.
Um. Your SSD is 3-5 times faster than the Spinpoint no matter what a test that does not even test Hard Drives says.
But if you think ANY SSD is slower than a 1TB spinpoint F1, someone will trade you.
Um. Your SSD is 3-5 times faster than the Spinpoint no matter what a test that does not even test Hard Drives says.
But if you think ANY SSD is slower than a 1TB spinpoint F1, someone will trade you.
I have received sand force ssds that ran at half speed.
i have owned 3 corsair 3 patriot and 3 ocz vertex ssd's .
all were pairs for raid.
all raids failed in under 1 month.
in each case 1 drive had to be rma'd ocz and patriot were really slow corsair sent it back quickly.
Since that time I have run 5 different raids with intel and 3 different ones with samsung all work after a year. while the sample is not huge it is more then the average person.
I won't buy from ocz or patriot mostly due to really slow rma's.
geekbench tests CPU and memory performance, neither of which is affected by an ssd. the fact that the geekbench score changed is most likely due to some other factor on your system. check activity monitor to see if any processes are using unusual amounts of CPU or memory.