Overclock.net banner

[BHardware] Components returns rates

6K views 70 replies 41 participants last post by  Brutuz 
#1 ·
Quote:
The one gap in our advice on purchasing of material is information on reliability. Sure, manufacturer reputation helps, but as reliability varies enormously from one model to another, even well-known manufacturers aren't immune to sending out doubtful products.

Even though, as the financial sector has taught us, we shouldn't rely on past results, today we're publishing some of the returns stats that we have available. Of course this type of stat is of relative value, especially as a good number of the products have become obsolete. The information is nevertheless useful and allows us to point out certain products or manufacturers that need to do better in the future.
Source

The article is from the end of last month, so it's a few weeks old. So sorry if it's a repost.
I found the results a bit surprising.
 
#2 ·
Very interesting.

I think the SSD numbers have been skewed a bit by the recent firmware issues but still interesting.
 
#3 ·
Kind of hit home for me. I've used this exact Gigabyte board in a few builds for friends, only to have 2 out of the 3 die after a few short months.
Quote:
The Gigabyte score is rather off-putting but is adversely affected by one model, the GA-P67A-UD3 with a returns rate of 7.51% for around 1/3 of sales
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaXxJaPxX View Post

interesting, but where is EVGA in all this?
Well the data came from one French e-tailer, so maybe they don't carry EVGA products.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by djriful View Post

I don't think this is reliable when a brand being x2-3 more popular and purchases than other brands.
10000 products sold will have more return rate than just 1000 products.
No they won't. Return rate is products returned per products sold. If Product A sold 10,000 units and 100 units were returned, and Product B sold 1,000 units and 10 were returned, both have a return rate of 1%. How does the number of products sold make a difference? Sure, it's a bigger sample size but that only tells us of the accuracy of the data not that it's skewed one way or the other.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Core2uu View Post

No they won't. Return rate is products returned per products sold. If Product A sold 10,000 units and 100 units were returned, and Product B sold 1,000 units and 10 were returned, both have a return rate of 1%. How does the number of products sold make a difference? Sure, it's a bigger sample size but that only tells us of the accuracy of the data not that it's skewed one way or the other.
Exactly.... and they explicitly state their dataset requirement to increase confidence:
Quote:
The statistics by brand are based on a minimum sample of 500 sales and those by model on a minimum sample of 100 sales, with the biggest volumes reaching tens of thousands of parts by brand and thousands of parts by model
 
#11 ·
Well that reassuring. My Mobo, PSU, and SSD are made by companies that had the lowest return rates.
 
#16 ·
I find it interesting that a cheapened venu like ASRock has such low return rates. I think I remember somebody on here saying they use poor/cheap components. I think I've recently seen them using some of the best components, even gold plated caps.... I wonder what's really going on. lol Cause I haven't been happier, though I kind of blew out my sound. =S Ops.
 
#18 ·
we see this list every year, it is always either some arab store or some European store which feels like their 1000 data points are reflective of the whole. In some cases they are, like the P67 GB boards had boot loops, which were eventually solved, but still off putting. In the end it isn't reflective at all of the build quality.

It also doesn't take into account units sold. In the scheme of things i saw once they gave OCZ the best rating even though 3 kits of OCZ i bought in the USA all were bad.

FYI asrock doesn't use the best components(only seen on GIGABYTE, ASUS, and EVGA boards) no one uses high-end components like those three i listed, MSi is second, and asrock does whatever it can to get away with it. They even used D-PAK mosfets on their Z77 extreme4 for the CPU VCore VRM, they covered it with big nice looking heatsinks so you'd never take them off. Their gold caps are spray painted gold and are not special at all, no maker sells gold caps as an actual product, you just ask to get them colored, just like the black caps asus has. if I wanted i could order black caps with purple writing, or white capacitors with black writing. Doesn't make the capacitors better.
 
#20 ·
Im suprised at the ASRock rate. Ive had nothing but trouble with ASRock boards ( 3 of them) but havent had any issues with my ASUS products.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sin0822 View Post

we see this list every year, it is always either some arab store or some European store which feels like their 1000 data points are reflective of the whole. In some cases they are, like the P67 GB boards had boot loops, which were eventually solved, but still off putting. In the end it isn't reflective at all of the build quality.
It also doesn't take into account units sold. In the scheme of things i saw once they gave OCZ the best rating even though 3 kits of OCZ i bought in the USA all were bad.
Yes, it does.... they have a minimum to be included.

Once a dataset is sufficiently large enough, the number of units sold does not matter on return rates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniflex View Post

Very limited list. No x79 boards, no AMD mobos, etc ...
"The returns rates given here concern the products sold between April 1st and October 1st 2011 for returns made before April 2012, namely after between 6 months and a year of use."
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sin0822 View Post

we see this list every year, it is always either some arab store or some European store which feels like their 1000 data points are reflective of the whole. In some cases they are, like the P67 GB boards had boot loops, which were eventually solved, but still off putting. In the end it isn't reflective at all of the build quality.
It also doesn't take into account units sold. In the scheme of things i saw once they gave OCZ the best rating even though 3 kits of OCZ i bought in the USA all were bad.
Yes, it does.... they have a minimum to be included.

Once a dataset is sufficiently large enough, the number of units sold does not matter on return rates.
Here are the sample sizes:
Quote:
The statistics by brand are based on a minimum sample of 500 sales and those by model on a minimum sample of 100 sales, with the biggest volumes reaching tens of thousands of parts by brand and thousands of parts by model.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
- Samsung 1.23% (as against 1.5%)
- Western 1.63% (as against 2.0%)
- Seagate 1.89% (as against 1.8%)
- Hitachi 3.95% (as against 3.0%)

Samsung keeps the top spot it gained last period, once again improving its returns rate while Hitachi's score has worsened. Western has improved its rate significantly, moving ahead of Seagate. Now that Hitachi Storage belongs to Western Digital, it's to be hoped that WD will resolve these issues.

Six drives have a rate of over 5%:

- 9.70% Seagate Barracuda XT 3 TB
- 8.94% Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 1.5 TB
- 7.53% Seagate Barracuda XT 2 TB
- 7.30% Hitachi Deskstar 7K2000 2 TB
- 5.78% Western Digital RE4-GP 2 TB
- 5.33% Western Digital Caviar Green 3 TB

If we look at the individual models we can see that Hitachi isn't alone in having high rates. The Barracuda XTs do particularly badly. What about the 2 TB drives overall?

- 7.53% Seagate Barracuda XT 2 TB SATA 6Gb/s
- 5.78% Western Digital RE4-GP 2 TB
- 4.53% Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 2 TB
- 3.18% Western Digital Caviar Black 2 TB
- 3.07% Western Digital AV-GP 2 TB
- 2.55% Seagate Barracuda LP 2 TB
- 2.31% Western Digital Caviar Green 2 TB WD20EARX
- 2.15% Western Digital Caviar Green 2 TB WD20EARS
- 1.80% Samsung SpinPoint F4 EcoGreen 2 TB
Interesting........................ I like this article a lot
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top