free web stats

Deal: SSDNow V Series 64GB – $99.95

by: admin Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

Less than $100 for the SSDNow V Series and free shipping is probably the best deal yet on the 64GB SSDNow V from Kingston. This drive competes with the Intel X-25-V in the value segment and offers respectable overall performance.

Visit Site

Tech Specs

Sequential Speed:
128GB — Up to 200MB/sec. read 160MB/sec. write
64GB — Up to 200MB/sec. read 110MB/sec. write

PCMARK® HDD 2005:
64GB — 21,317
128GB — 20,177
Power specs — 64GB, 128GB Active: 5.2W (TYP) Sleep: 0.7W (TYP)

« | Home | »

5 Responses to “Deal: SSDNow V Series 64GB – $99.95”

vt Said:

“Life expectancy” expressed in MTBF is not quite applicable to SSD drives, the reasons were explained earlier. It would rather be “reliability”. Its actual average LIFE EXPECTANCY (in the meaning of its lifetime) would be about 30x times less than its MTBF (something like 30000 hours, but it depends on the actual load).
The very MTBF value is clearly misguiding and completely wrong for non-enterprise consumers.

Comment made on October 27th, 2010 at 7:26 am
admin Said:

True, thanks for pointing it out. I removed the value. It’s odd that the manufacturers keep using it.

Comment made on October 27th, 2010 at 8:30 am
vt Said:

For mechanical drives (unlike SSD) MTBF was (mostly) proportional to their expected ACTUAL lifetime so it could make some sense. For example, for 600k MTBF the expected lifetime would be over 2 years (actually about 19k hours), with 1200k the expected lifetime would be ~5 years (actually about 38k hours).
Also, MTBF as an indicator of their ACTUAL lifetime makes sense for some more rare types of SSDs, such as RAM-based SSDs. But not for NAND-based ones.

Comment made on October 28th, 2010 at 5:35 am
vt Said:

For some more absurd MTBF numbers regarding NAND SSDs it would be possible to make 1m of expensive SSDs out of hand-picked parts. Their tests for 1 year may give an absurd value of MTBF over 1 billion (1000000000) hours). But most of them will surely fail within the next 5 years of testing, just because of limited NAND erase cycles, therefore making the difference between MTBF and their actual lifetime even more apparent (their actual lifetime would be about 30000x lower).

Comment made on October 28th, 2010 at 5:43 am
admin Said:

Very interesting.
The MTBF value was obviously intended for hard drives, but it’s pretty useless there, too. After about 20 years of owning and building computers, hard drives are without a doubt the #1 least reliable part in my experience. I believe the longest lasting drive was the 20MB one in my first 80286-based PC. 🙂

Comment made on October 28th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
 

Leave a Comment