Good info to have. More problematic than the confusing product model numbers correlating to plastic vs aluminum bodies I think are the differences in the internals. I'm not sure how this is considered proper practice since changing the controller and the nand flash is basically selling a different quality drive even if the specs are loosely similar. Makes people like myself wonder how they can get away with this and yet nvidia had to answer to a class action lawsuit over the layout of their vram when in fact they did have the full 4gb of vram on the card. It just reeks of bait and switch. Especially when as mentioned reviewers are often given cherry picked units that don't necessarily reflect the common resale market most consumers will be met with.
It would be nice to see manufacturers give review sites a voucher instead, rather than sending a unit directly for testing. Good for 1 purchase of the part slated for review from the retailer of their choice to ensure it's random and more indicative of the lottery a consumer would face. That is so long as they were confident that a random off the shelf unit would fairly represent their products rather than one specially set aside for review.
It may not seem like such a big deal but with the guts swapped out for lower cost and potentially lower quality alternatives that's an issue. I wouldn't be happy purchasing a top tier tool set only to find out it included a number of budget store brand replacements in lieu of what I paid for just because it's 'basically' the same. In just about any other scenario this would create great backlash. Why is it just accepted as common practice in the form of ssd drives? Not that I'm sue happy or think lawsuits are the solution in an attempt for gains but some sort of reassurance that the customer is getting what they're told they're buying rather than sold on a song and given something entirely different.
i bought one for 160 from amazon 512gb's, on sale. Have yet to boot it as skylate 6700k has yet to be released in america, from the charts i dont' see a major difference save about 70-90 mb's write difference, as someone moving up from a 5200rpm hdd i expect great things.
Disappointing to see price-point win over quality... yet again.
Manufacturers have been sending cherry-picked "review" units of products for decades, nothing new there... sadly it's to get the best reviews possible while hoping consumers won't be able to tell the difference in the actual product.
The "product specification may change" disclaimer has been around for a while. Sometimes it is used due to certain components going away, becoming too expensive (for the price point the bean counters and marketing decide on), or (less seen as it means they care about the product and reputation) quality goes south. Sadly it is more often abused just to make sure tier-1/top tier executives get their (large as they can get away with) bonus checks.
The Crucial BX100 line uses the same controller as the Transcend SSD370. I've heard no reports of Crucial using cut-rate NAND, and I wouldn't be expect them to since Cruical (aka Micron) makes its own NAND. Recently, prices have been lower for the BX100 than the SSD370. It seems like the BX100 would be a better option for anyone who might consider an SSD370.
I got a 256 and 512 about a year ago, main concern was price. I wanted the MX100 instead but couldn't find any in stock at the time. Have served me fine but definitely weren't worth the money. Has received no Firwmare updates/improvements (which I suppose is not always necessarily a bad thing, look at the 840). The plastic housing doesn't bother me except for the fact there's no temperature sensor in the SMART data, so I can't tell how warm it gets. Will probably upgrade to a 1 or 2 TB when they become more affordable and put this on my laptop instead. It performs much like any other SSD but disappointing to see it fare so badly in the theoreticals (when I bought it, there were not many reviews).
"Not every customer will lose their pictures, tax documents or music collection, but it could happen, and is more likely to than on an SSD370 using genuine Micron flash."
Good thing this is an SSD and not an HDD, seeing as how pictures, tax documents, and music collections belong on an HDD, while applications which benefit the most from the speedy SSD are all that is on the SSD, and can easily be reinstalled.
I completely trust customer reviews when it comes to SSD reliability: The Transcend SSD370 has quite positive reviews (considering how cheap it is) - I don't expect to get highest grade NAND built into the cheapest SSD (and frankly speaking, everything is better than the planar TLC Samsung and Sandisk are selling).
On the other hand, OCZ drives mentioned had horrible ratings back then. I had my Vector2 replaced 3 times and an OCZ petrol was DOA twice (even the replacement was completely broken). When browsing through Amazon reviews for the SSD370, I don't see *ANY* evidence there are large-scale issues with this SSD.
WE customers want a certain price point, yes, I'll agree there: We help decide final retail (ant to a point, wholesale) sales costs. HOWEVER it is the company/corporation that determines the materials, "acceptable" cost of those materials, AND their profit margins, MANY of them will put high profit margins per unit above all else.
SLM, one time owners of Crate and Ampeg had a amplifier that with just a few cents more per production unit could have increased reliability. Bean-counters wouldn't allow the change to the product due to "price point," rather taking their chances and having a higher Warranty Claims budget.
> HOWEVER it is the company/corporation that determines the materials,
> "acceptable" cost of those materials, AND their profit margins,
> MANY of them will put high profit margins per unit above all else.
Margins are razor thin, especially for companies which don't fab their own NAND.
The SSD370 sells quite well for a not-that-established SSD brand like Transcend, and for me the resason is clearly its attractive price point: Anandtech even gave it a recomendation because of the price/performance point. If it would be 10-15% more expensive, it wouldn't get all the attention.
Reading amazon-reviews, reliability doesn't seem to be a lot worse than other drives.