Reviews and Problems with SanDisk Extreme Series (SDSSDX-60G,SDSSDX-120G,SDSSDX-240G,SDSSDX-480G)
Showing 1-10 of 13
Better than an HDD, still underperforming
9 December 2012
Summary: Although this drive is certainly palpably quicker than my old HDD, and demonstrably via tests as well, it's still grotesquely underperforming on SATA II (which should still be plenty considering SATA II can accommodate up to 3 GBps, a great deal more than what this drive could ever manage) compared to what the advertising promises. 560/460 MBps sequential read/write, as promised in the product description? Try 256 and 173 - less than half those values.
Summary: I even set it up as a dual drive system putting the swap file and user accounts on a regular HD. I turned off defrag/indexing and all that jazz to prolong the life. I still only got 4 months out of it..........
Pros: SSD's are Fast. Loved it while it worked.
Cons: OS gave out in 4 months. Fatal errors and blue screens are symptoms of a failing SSD, hard drive tests showed drive failure.
Summary: Drive failed 94 days after installation. SanDisk's RMA process requires shipment of the defective drive first and then receiving your replacement drive 7-10 BUSINESS days later. Sounds like I'll without a drive for nearly three weeks! SanDisk does not offer an advance exchange option. Drive was fast, while it lasted... certainly a shorter lifespan that my hard drive.
Summary: This was my first SSD and I chose it based on the price and reviews. It actually installed just fine, installed Windows 7, and was up and running. When I checked the temperature via hwmonitor it reported 128c. Wow, that couldn't be right. Installed the Sandisk SSD toolkit and it also reported 128c. If you check Sandisk support forums you will read of many people having this same problem.
Summary: This SanDisk SSD, along with several other brands (Kingston HyperX 3K being another) will not run at full Sata 2 or 3 speeds!! This is a known problem that the manufacturer have so far not addressed with an updated firmware (as other manufacters have, ie OCZ). It will run at a negotiated 1.5 Mb/s instead of 3 or 6 Mb/s. Otherwise it seems to run well in my Mac mini 2010. Big improvement over stock 5400 rpm drive, but could (and should) be faster.
Macbook Pro link speed 1.5G instead 3G, SanDisk support for Mac is lacking
12 August 2012
Summary: For customers with MacBook Pros with a certain SATA II Nvidia controller, and using an SSD with a SandForce controller, the link speed is negotiated and falls back to 1.5G SATA I, instead 3G SATA II. This results in slow drive performance. Another supplier of SSDs that also uses the SandForce controller, OCZ, provided a bootable tool - around about Feb 2012 - allowing their customers to lock their drive to SATA II (which prevents the fallback to 1.5 issue).
Summary: Previously I've had great experience with "Extreme" SDHC line of memory from SanDisk. So I tried their SSD product expecting good performance. This turned out to be very disappointing. Sequential read and write speeds seemed to be Okay somewhere in the vicinity of 80MB/s. So I've copied an image of Linux installation from my old 40GB Intel SSD, and noticed right away that boot time was much slower than off of the Intel drive (although uses exact same OS image).
Summary: I am satisfied with the increased speed (I have a MacBook 2.1) as it turns up much faster, shuts down real quick too, seems to do everything faster. On the downside, I had my MacBook for 5 years, and it must have frozen/crashed a maximum of 10 times over it's lifetime (probably closer to 5), and since upgrading the HD to SSD it has frozen almost every week, and crashed twice (in 4 weeks operation!).
Summary: A few years ago, I bought an Acer Netbook to take with me on jobs... it was so miserably slow in everything it did. It's nearly usable now that I've dropped this in it, I'm not entirely sure, but I think it's also nearly doubled the battery life. started getting errors, now it just shows up in BIOS but nothing seems to read or write to it. Tried formatting, says it's fine, but it lies... "File doesn't exist" when restoring Windows 7.