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 9

post #81 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightCrystal View Post

Could you please describe the procedure you followed to get a replacement? Did you contacted seller or Kingston directly?
I am from Estonia and hope I could do something about it too.
I have even contacted the consumer protecting department here in Estonia, but they replied officially that I can do little if the drive is conforming the speeds according to manufacturer datasheets (which leads us to ATTO).
http://www.kingston.com/en/support/customer/email_customer_service

I filled that form. To save you trouble of figuring out which is the product number:
Part number of SSD (S......../...GB) found on the sticker of the SSD

Kingston EU department will then contact you for more information.

What kind of speeds are you getting in ATTO? Mine topped out at 275MB/s. They sent my replacement drive today. Will be here on Thursday.
post #82 of 165
Same speed in ATTO, but did you test it on SATA 3? My PC has SATA 2 only so I can't check if this is really caused by drive defect or Sata 2 performance limit.
In all other benchmarks with randoma data I have 180 MB/s approx read and 90MB/s write
post #83 of 165
I have SATA II aswell.
post #84 of 165

New SSD arrived. I guess that's the best you can get out of SATA 2 port. Way better than the old drive.
post #85 of 165
Yes,
That looks just as expected with Sata 2 and some model of SSD with synchronous NAND + random data.
V300 with its async memory will never get close... 180 limit.
I think you were lucky, as they said my system is not supported and the ATTO results I have are ok for old Sata 2...
Well, it seems I have to deal with it. But never again Kingston...
post #86 of 165
But check my post some pages back. Ive got 521 frimewire Kingston SSD v300 (made in Taiwan) and SATA II. Results are almost same. Cant test it on sata III atm.
post #87 of 165
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. wink.gif

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. wth.gif
post #88 of 165
Fee fi foo fum, still no change in labeling, or asynchronous NAND SSDs sent out for review to conform to long current product. Of course, any admission of wrongful behavior would get over a years production recalled.
Let us just say, I have no plans to deal with a company which fiddles under the label.
post #89 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by brasslad View Post

Fee fi foo fum, still no change in labeling, or asynchronous NAND SSDs sent out for review to conform to long current product. Of course, any admission of wrongful behavior would get over a years production recalled.
Let us just say, I have no plans to deal with a company which fiddles under the label.

Perhaps with enough bad press Kingston will go the way of OCZ.

I can always buy my memory from Crucial, Samsung, Mushkin, Corsair, GSkill, etc.
Not that I want to buy memory with DRAM price gouging post- Hynix fire aka 'let's copy what hard drive manufacturer's did post-Thailand flooding'.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570K @4.4 GHz ASRock Z77 Extreme4-m ASUS GTX 670 DirectCUII TOP Patriot VIPER III 2x8 GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial m500 240 GB Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB ASUS DVD-burner Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Dell Ultrasharp U2412m Rosewill RK-9000 Cherry MX Blue SeaSonic M12II 620 Bronze 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Rosewill R101-P-BK Logitech G100s HRT Music Streamer II -> Audinst AMP-HP -> Westone 4 
Audio
Etymotic Research ER-4P 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570K @4.4 GHz ASRock Z77 Extreme4-m ASUS GTX 670 DirectCUII TOP Patriot VIPER III 2x8 GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial m500 240 GB Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB ASUS DVD-burner Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Dell Ultrasharp U2412m Rosewill RK-9000 Cherry MX Blue SeaSonic M12II 620 Bronze 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Rosewill R101-P-BK Logitech G100s HRT Music Streamer II -> Audinst AMP-HP -> Westone 4 
Audio
Etymotic Research ER-4P 
  hide details  
Reply
post #90 of 165
Hi just bought a kingston v300 120gb ssd and I have problems with it it here is my thread also I am getting about 180mb/s seq read and only 91mb/s seq write My seagate 4 tb 5900 rpm gets 149 read and 139 write it has better writes than the ssd and close reads I am really disappointed I should have gone with a crucial ssd

http://www.overclock.net/t/1475388/kingston-ssd-120gb-retired-block-count-2#post_21978456


http://www.overclock.net/t/1475561/can-someone-help-figure-this-out#post_21980064
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)