Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › PSA About the Kingston V300 SSD(Probable foul play by Kingston)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PSA About the Kingston V300 SSD(Probable foul play by Kingston) - Page 2

post #11 of 165
I bought one of these three days ago, the firmware number is 5.21. I get the same results as 5.06, further backing the claim that the hardware's at fault here.
http://i.imgur.com/KF2N2WT.png
You can only get better results with the 0-filled(Crystal) or uncompressed(ATTO) data sets, but for me, even that's just 400/250.
post #12 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ktk View Post

I bought one of these three days ago, the firmware number is 5.21. I get the same results as 5.06, further backing the claim that the hardware's at fault here.
http://i.imgur.com/KF2N2WT.png
You can only get better results with the 0-filled(Crystal) or uncompressed(ATTO) data sets, but for me, even that's just 400/250.
well you are also limitedby the marvell sata port you have the SSD connected to.
post #13 of 165
Absolutely true regarding the 400/250, but would that affect the other low benchmarks?
post #14 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ktk View Post

Absolutely true regarding the 400/250, but would that affect the other low benchmarks?

Of course, it will affect everything. First a Vertex 4 on a Marvell 9128:



Next same Vertex 4 on an Intel SATA III port:



All SandForce based SSDs do not do well in AS SSD, that is a given. But that is only in the write scores, they still have normal read speeds.

Any of the Marvell 91xx SATA chipsets are connected to one PCI-E 2.0 lane (hopefully PCI-E 2.0) whose speed is... 5Gb/s max. Is that the 6Gb/s of SATA III. No, the end.

Note the write speed access times on the Kingston SSD. If that does not say "asynchronous NAND", the rest of the results do. (I know the M4's later firmware has even worse write latency, but we know that's the firmware.)

Asynchronous NAND is Single data rate transfer at 66 MHz, while Synchronous NAND is Dual data rate transfer at 100, 133 or 200MHz.

Or Async is 66MHz effective transfer rate vs Sync at 200, 266, or 400MHz effect transfer rate.

66 x 3 = 198. 172 x 3 = 516. I'm sure you all can figure out where these numbers came from and what they mean.
post #15 of 165
I have a 5.0.5 and 5.0.6 version and am seeing the performance differences. After the third attempt to get a specific answer Kingston support verified in writing what you folks suspected.

"Hello [Scootcha],

We use NAND from various manufacturers both synchronous and asynchronous. The first revision you have is made with synchronous and the second asynchronous.

Both versions however conform to our specifications as stated in the datasheet and will enable a good user experience as expected from SSDs. Fast boot, fast application performance, improved battery life and much better random performance versus traditional HDD technology.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to reply to this e-mail with full email history. Thank you for using Kingston on-line technical support."
post #16 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scootcha View Post

I have a 5.0.5 and 5.0.6 version and am seeing the performance differences. After the third attempt to get a specific answer Kingston support verified in writing what you folks suspected.

"Hello [Scootcha],

We use NAND from various manufacturers both synchronous and asynchronous. The first revision you have is made with synchronous and the second asynchronous.

Both versions however conform to our specifications as stated in the datasheet and will enable a good user experience as expected from SSDs. Fast boot, fast application performance, improved battery life and much better random performance versus traditional HDD technology.

If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to reply to this e-mail with full email history. Thank you for using Kingston on-line technical support."

Nice work Scootcha! But some Kingston rep may be getting fired for revealing the truth, I hope not. Unfortunately the saying "you get what you pay for" applies in this case. Not that anyone had a clue about this, and didn't they kinda slip these in around the holidays when things are on sale?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Luger View Post

So, I opened my taiwan 128 gb 506 firmware v300 and the chips were wiped clean with solvent. There's no real information. Kingston then printed their label on top of the chips as if they actually make the chips themselves. I bet no other Sandforce SSD does this. If you are using quality NAND, they would be no reason to wipe off the original label.

Great work on your part Lex Luger! Thanks for doing that, we'd love a picture of that if possible.

Some SSD manufactures like OCZ will purchase raw, unpackaged NAND dies, and process it themselves into NAND chips. That allows them to label the chips as their own. Apparently that is cheaper overall too. NAND is also binned like DRAM chips, so this practice hides that as well as the source of the NAND dies (such as IMFT or Toshiba.)

While I don't know if any NAND die manufactures are still producing async NAND currently (could be used in cell phones, cheap tablet PCs, etc) perhaps they do. Or they found some new old stock async NAND dies. Kingston might be doing the same thing as OCZ, packaging the async NAND dies themselves.

Otherwise, I agree there is no reason to hide the type of NAND chips used if they are a good product. It's still possible the chips were wiped of their original labeling, and relabeled as Kingston. Given the current state of SSDs, going back to async NAND is really bad.
post #17 of 165
Thanks to you and okp11 for broaching the subject which put the bug in my bonnet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post

But some Kingston rep may be getting fired for revealing the truth, I hope not. Unfortunately the saying "you get what you pay for" applies in this case. Not that anyone had a clue about this, and didn't they kinda slip these in around the holidays when things are on sale?

I bought my 5.06 well before the holidays. The Kingston rep and management should know that my reply would be made public since he escalated it and I included a link back to the discussion here when I opened the original ticket with them. It did take a few attempts at asking the very specific question to get it out of them and I refused to discuss it of the phone when they tried that route.

My closing response to their trouble ticket expressed empathy for the support staff since I have been in their position and it is not fun. Also that I probably will not be buying any more of their products in the near future and hoping that Kingston was not being "OCZ'ed." Time will tell.
post #18 of 165
I see, I wasn't sure when the 5.06 models were available. Smart thinking to get it in writing!

Yes, the support staff gets to suffer while the decision to do that was done elsewhere.

Good comment about being OCZ'ed. OCZ seemed to back off after being caught on that SSD capacity difference, but who knows what else is hidden and undiscovered. When I read they were packaging their own chips from raw NAND dies, I did not see that as a benign thing. The user can detect async NAND quickly, but low grade sync NAND is not obvious in the short term. I'm NOT saying and DO NOT know if anything like that was done, pure speculation on my part.

As for Kingston, was it worth it to ruin your reputation among PC enthusiasts? Or are we to blame for not paying close attention to the fine print on the benchmark criteria for the specs? Even if it is the latter, most enthusiasts won't see it like that IMO.
post #19 of 165
I also have this issue to, I swear I got scammed out of money. I have the latest Amd Sata AHCI drivers, bios, and sata 3 6.0gbps ports enabled. I also have the 5.06 firmware. I really hope that Kingston just F'd up on there firmware.
Also one more thing, do I have the right Sata 3 AHCI driver for win8.1 64 pro? I have seen people with low scores like mine, but I don't know if I have drivers 100% correctly configured. Any Suggestions?

My system also froze in the Benchmark, around the Acc. Time.

COME ON KINGSTON GET YOUR GAME ON! WE DON'T PAY FOR *****.


Gamer Dragon 8000
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T@ 3.725ghz GA-870A-UD3 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Wintec Industries  
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
Wintec Industries  Wintec Industries  Wintec Industries  1tb 7200rpm sata-3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Kingston (KingS**T) SV300 5.06 dvd-rw samsung Windows 8 Pro 64-bit Dell 22" 1920x1080 and 1280x1024 AOC 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
old 2002 sony vaio keyboard (nice small keys) 700watt Xion Predator CM Storm Inferno 
Mouse PadAudio
stock Onboard Realtek 
  hide details  
Reply
Gamer Dragon 8000
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T@ 3.725ghz GA-870A-UD3 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Wintec Industries  
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
Wintec Industries  Wintec Industries  Wintec Industries  1tb 7200rpm sata-3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Kingston (KingS**T) SV300 5.06 dvd-rw samsung Windows 8 Pro 64-bit Dell 22" 1920x1080 and 1280x1024 AOC 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
old 2002 sony vaio keyboard (nice small keys) 700watt Xion Predator CM Storm Inferno 
Mouse PadAudio
stock Onboard Realtek 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 165
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fevanson View Post

I also have this issue to, I swear I got scammed out of money. I have the latest Amd Sata AHCI drivers, bios, and sata 3 6.0gbps ports enabled. I also have the 5.06 firmware. I really hope that Kingston just F'd up on there firmware.
Also one more thing, do I have the right Sata 3 AHCI driver for win8.1 64 pro? I have seen people with low scores like mine, but I don't know if I have drivers 100% correctly configured. Any Suggestions?

Its the NAND. Kingston confirmed it above in Scootcha's comment. They did in fact switch to asynchronous.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: SSD
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › PSA About the Kingston V300 SSD(Probable foul play by Kingston)