The "Let's Settle This..." article is IMO not biased towards forgiving Kingston for the most part
, but one of the most basic issues that is the root cause of the controversy is to simply dismissed as no big deal. To quote from the article:"In talking with Kingston, it was stated that the company felt they did "nothing wrong" by switching NAND suppliers -- and I'd agree with that at a top-level. It happens regularly in the industry, it's just supply and demand; one supply dries up, is depleted, or gets too expensive, and you've got to keep your existing product lines alive. Kingston also stated, however, that they've learned to be more vocal and public about such changes in the future. It was the relative silence of the change that made purchasers feel somehow violated or otherwise left with an inferior product. That is also an agreeable feeling. Purchasers were likely referencing professional benchmarks conducted on the original V300 SSD -- a device that performs significantly better in some applications than the current model of the same name and appearance -- and were expecting very similar results."
Addressing the statement I underlined, would it then be fine for Intel to change the type of NAND used in their 520 and 530 SSDs, which is said to be "cherry picked" MLC NAND from the NAND they manufacture
(for the best longevity and performance), with lower grade NAND, or NAND from another manufacture?
How about an enterprise type SSD, that is specified to use SLC or eMLC NAND (much more expensive), but is changed to use standard MLC NAND to keep the product line alive
, without disclosing that to the customer?
To be fair, Kingston does not specify the type of NAND used in the datasheet or other formal specifications of the V300 AFAIK. The V300's datasheet is a two page pdf document, while the Intel 530's datasheet is a 24 page pdf document, that clearly states it uses 20nm MLC NAND. The datasheets of the V300 and 530 describe the drive's performance in benchmarks, the 530 with Iometer, the V300 with ATTO.
The 530's datasheet describes performance in great detail, with both compressible and incompressible data. The V300's performance is now described (the 2014 document update) with ATTO, AS SSD, and CrystalDiskMark, Iometer, and PC Mark Vantage HDD Suite. The performance specs for the V300 now match what users get with the async NAND models:http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/sv300s3_us.pdf
It can be said that the V300's performance specs in this datasheet now
matches the async versions performance. It's also true that Kingston never specified the type of NAND used in the V300. I'm not trying to defend Kingston
, simply conveying the facts... Please do not shoot the messenger.
The devil is in the details, and this is a perfect example of that. The lack of details is easily overlooked, and we take things for granted all the time. Sometimes that does not turn out well for us.