[Newegg] Kingston SSD Now 120GB for $55

[Smeyer40]

This SSD is in Neweggs Shell Shocker deal for $55. Good Deal

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820721107

[The Crazed Child]

Too bad it has a shitty controller and NAND.

[shujin]

Too bad I boycott kingston

[Polyvalent]

I've got one of these as a games drive.  I don't really trust it.  It's faster than a hard drive and thats all its got going for it.  I wouldn't make this thing a boot drive if you paid me to.  

[acidydragon]

I've got one of these as a games drive.  I don't really trust it.  It's faster than a hard drive and thats all its got going for it.  I wouldn't make this thing a boot drive if you paid me to.  

Why?

Kingston is a very trustworthy brand, and I've used one of these as a boot drive for a little over a year now.

Sure, they changed the NAND flash, but that just makes it a tad slower... Not less reliable.

 

For a budget, this is an awesome deal, even if it's not the best SSD.

[StofPCs]

Why?

Kingston is a very trustworthy brand, and I've used one of these as a boot drive for a little over a year now.

Sure, they changed the NAND flash, but that just makes it a tad slower... Not less reliable.

 

For a budget, this is an awesome deal, even if it's not the best SSD.

They stealthy changed the flash without telling people and it went from 400+ read/writes down to less than 150 reads/writes which is almost HDD speed.  I know I was transferring DATA via USB 3 on an external and I was getting 140MB/s.

[acidydragon]

They stealthy changed the flash without telling people and it went from 400+ read/writes down to less than 150 reads/writes which is almost HDD speed.  I know I was transferring DATA via USB 3 on an external and I was getting 140MB/s.

Give me some evidence of that speed decrease.

I agree it decreased, but it's not that low...

Thats a sensationalist number.

 

I agree that it's bull that they changed the Flash without a product name change or a note or something... But they're still SSD's, they still go much faster than a HDD...

 

If you're going to post things like that, you need to quote a source please.

[StofPCs]

Give me some evidence of that speed decrease.

I agree it decreased, but it's not that low...

Thats a sensationalist number.

 

I agree that it's bull that they changed the Flash without a product name change or a note or something... But they're still SSD's, they still go much faster than a HDD...

 

If you're going to post things like that, you need to quote a source please.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1380526/kingston-v300-help

 

175 reads 132 writes.  I was getting 140MB/s writes on a USB 3.0 external drive to an internal SATA 3 HDD.

[acidydragon]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1380526/kingston-v300-help

 

175 reads 132 writes.  I was getting 140MB/s writes on a USB 3.0 external drive to an internal SATA 3 HDD.

Read the comments...

People are talking about having to RMA, and getting much better speeds.

 

Lemons exist. 140mb/s speeds on an SSD, would literally be worse than some Flash Drives...

140mb/s isn't the proper speed of this drive, if you're getting that speed, you need to RMA.

 

Once RMA'd, people are reporting greater than 400mb/s.

[StofPCs]

Read the comments...

People are talking about having to RMA, and getting much better speeds.

 

Lemons exist. 140mb/s speeds on an SSD, would literally be worse than some Flash Drives...

140mb/s isn't the proper speed of this drive, if you're getting that speed, you need to RMA.

 

Once RMA'd, people are reporting greater than 400mb/s.

They got lucky on the RMA to get an older model.  Pretty much from now on they all use the new flash.

[acidydragon]

They got lucky on the RMA to get an older model.  Pretty much from now on they all use the new flash.

If that's true, then I guess I'm on your side.

Don't use this SSD if you're not going to get over 200mb/s... That's just balls.

[StofPCs]

If that's true, then I guess I'm on your side.

Don't use this SSD if you're not going to get over 200mb/s... That's just balls.

Yes, I've poked around a little and there is no way 50% of their drives have a read/write issue.  Also looking at this here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1457629/psa-about-the-kingston-v300-ssd-probable-foul-play-by-kingston , the SSD is fine at compressed data, but uncompressed data it falls on it's face which is the tests we seem to run and they are more "real world" tests than compressed data tests.

[shayned1997]

They stealthy changed the flash without telling people and it went from 400+ read/writes down to less than 150 reads/writes which is almost HDD speed.  I know I was transferring DATA via USB 3 on an external and I was getting 140MB/s.

 

 

Give me some evidence of that speed decrease.

I agree it decreased, but it's not that low...

Thats a sensationalist number.

 

I agree that it's bull that they changed the Flash without a product name change or a note or something... But they're still SSD's, they still go much faster than a HDD...

 

If you're going to post things like that, you need to quote a source please.

 

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1380526/kingston-v300-help

 

175 reads 132 writes.  I was getting 140MB/s writes on a USB 3.0 external drive to an internal SATA 3 HDD.

 

 

Read the comments...

People are talking about having to RMA, and getting much better speeds.

 

Lemons exist. 140mb/s speeds on an SSD, would literally be worse than some Flash Drives...

140mb/s isn't the proper speed of this drive, if you're getting that speed, you need to RMA.

 

Once RMA'd, people are reporting greater than 400mb/s.

 

 

If that's true, then I guess I'm on your side.

Don't use this SSD if you're not going to get over 200mb/s... That's just balls.

I have that exact drive and got this -----------------------------------------------------------------------

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 © 2007-2013 hiyohiyo

                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

 

           Sequential Read :   445.950 MB/s

          Sequential Write :   145.798 MB/s

         Random Read 512KB :   401.285 MB/s

        Random Write 512KB :   135.166 MB/s

    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :    22.928 MB/s [  5597.7 IOPS]

   Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :   108.060 MB/s [ 26381.8 IOPS]

   Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :   102.799 MB/s [ 25097.3 IOPS]

  Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :    79.909 MB/s [ 19508.9 IOPS]

 

  Test : 1000 MB [C: 76.3% (85.2/111.7 GB)] (x5)

  Date : 2014/08/04 10:27:40

    OS : Windows 8.1 Pro [6.3 Build 9600] (x64)

[StofPCs]

 

I have that exact drive and got this -----------------------------------------------------------------------

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 © 2007-2013 hiyohiyo

                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

 

           Sequential Read :   445.950 MB/s

          Sequential Write :   145.798 MB/s

         Random Read 512KB :   401.285 MB/s

        Random Write 512KB :   135.166 MB/s

    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :    22.928 MB/s [  5597.7 IOPS]

   Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :   108.060 MB/s [ 26381.8 IOPS]

   Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :   102.799 MB/s [ 25097.3 IOPS]

  Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :    79.909 MB/s [ 19508.9 IOPS]

 

  Test : 1000 MB [C: 76.3% (85.2/111.7 GB)] (x5)

  Date : 2014/08/04 10:27:40

    OS : Windows 8.1 Pro [6.3 Build 9600] (x64)

 

What version do you have?  5.05 or 5.06?

[shayned1997]

What version do you have?  5.05 or 5.06?

no idea where that would be lol. this is the exact one that i bought http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A1ZTZOG/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[TooSchoolForCool]

THIS CONTROVERSY IS KILLING ME. NOW I DONT KNOW IF I WANNA BUY THIS!

[SLOWION]

Can you run two of these in RAID 0 for "normal" speeds? lol

[imthewalrus]

Just because they changed the nand and Linus does not like it does not mean it is a shitty drive. It still has a long warranty, longer than most hard drives. 

[79wjd]

Just because they changed the nand and Linus does not like it does not mean it is a shitty drive. It still has a long warranty, longer than most hard drives.

who wants to support a company that pulls this kind of shit....especially when there are plenty of BETTER alternatives.

[imthewalrus]

who wants to support a company that pulls this kind of shit....especially when there are plenty of BETTER alternatives.

 

For $55? Tell me who. People are freaking out because Kingston changed their nand controller, and they don't even know a thing about SSDs. You probably won't even notice the difference between the two unless you do a synthetic benchmark. 

[Smeyer40]

This is just a post about a deal. Not a thread where we should argue on out preferences on nand. I understand it is not top of the line, but it is still a deal and I personally would buy if I had the money to do so, but I am broke. If you don't like it oh well just move on.

[PaulKolby]

Time to copy linus's raid 0 personal rig

[daemonowner]

#BanAnyoneWhoPostsAboutTheV300

Stop recommending products from companies who pull shady crap like this. I don't care if the speeds are only marginally worse. It's really not that hard to call it the V301.

[Smeyer40]

#BanAnyoneWhoPostsAboutTheV300

Stop recommending products from companies who pull shady crap like this. I don't care if the speeds are only marginally worse. It's really not that hard to call it the V301.

 

I do not see it in the rules..... And I like kingston and have an SSD from them and other flash storage and never had an issue. Until I personally have an issue I will like the company

[SLOWION]

Just in case anyone happens to search this thread just thought I'd mention that I grabbed one for $55 and the results are...

 

437 MB/s read and 157 MB/s write per AS SSD

 

So it's basically hitting typical budget SSD numbers...not bad for $55 but I wouldn't pay $100 for it.

 

Video proof if you happen to care >