Kingston V300

Deathscreton · Jun 27, 2014

Guess who just got swiped? This dude. Bought a v300 expecting AT LEAST 200-300MB/s performance. Got 50-150MB performance. My secondary HDD runs faster than this PoS. I should have done some reading before purchasing as it seems Kingston did a silent switch with their NANDS and destroyed performance without telling anyone. I can't even send this thing back because my old drive was pretty much destroyed and all my info is on this SSD.

:|

EDIT:
http://media.kingston.com/support/downloads/V300_Benchmark_Brief_MKF_586.pdf

I am NOT happy about this bull. Apparently, this was known since the first of January. If this dumbass had checked even the first couple of reviews on Newegg, he would have known to steer clear. But no, that 50 dollar price tag was just TOO damn tempting. :|

Robert17 · Jun 27, 2014

What MB are you running?

Automata · Jun 27, 2014

For what it is worth, that drive is still many times faster than a hard drive. It still sucks that you effectively got ripped off though.

Deathscreton · Jun 27, 2014

I'm running a PN5e-SLI which lacks ACHI which is necessary for speedy SSD functionality. It also only has SATA 2, however, I should still be seeing speeds in excess of 250 or less. I barely breach 120-150 which is insane compared to the speeds that the 505 revisions got. While the 4K speeds are still much faster than that of a HDD which decreases boot time and the such, it's still unacceptable that they managed to get away with this. But here's the kicker:

I tried to get a refund with Newegg which is where I purchased it, however, they told me that because it's only getting 1/4 of the specified rated speeds, it's considered defective despite what the manufacture might have done to it. And because of that, they don't allow refunds, only replacements. Which makes absolutely no since to me. I asked if they could aquire a specific revision for me int hat case, and they said no, that they wouldn't be able to promise that to me, and that I would only get the latest version of an item. Upsetting, but there's nothing I can do about it. I'll just have to avoid anyone whose known for doing this and stick with higher quailty SSD's in the future. I've learned my lesson. lol

Automata · Jun 27, 2014

Call them to see if you get a different answer, if you haven't already. I'd suggest calling a few times or talking to a floor manager. The people answering the phones are limited in what they can do.

Lvcoyote · Jun 27, 2014

You might have better luck getting the revision you want by contacting Kingston directly.

Deathscreton · Jun 28, 2014

I called them. They said that all revisions meet their specified criteria and there is no difference between the revisions besides the different NANDs being used. They all operate in the same manner and all produce the same efficient speed.

EarthDog · Jun 28, 2014

There are benchmarks that show otherwise.

caddi daddi · Jun 28, 2014

I bought a few of the v 300's, I'll never buy another kingston product again in my life over this.

Deathscreton · Jun 29, 2014

caddi daddi said:
I bought a few of the v 300's, I'll never buy another kingston product again in my life over this.

I won't either. The 505 rev. is a really, REALLY good entry SSD for what it's worth. And I wish I had gotten that isntead.

EarthDog said:
There are benchmarks that show otherwise.

I told them that. they said that those benchmarks use compressible files and because of that, adversely affect NAND performance. :|

EarthDog · Jun 29, 2014

It's the other way around last I recall? Highly compressible data works well but incompressible data does not?

Deathscreton · Jun 30, 2014

Probably. I might have had them mixed up.

EarthDog · Jun 30, 2014

Better confirm...

Deathscreton · Jun 30, 2014

"A few benchmarks, like Crystal Disk Mark, use fully random incompressible data by default, which as stated
before, will produce a lower read score depending on the build of the V300 we are testing."

xD Yeah, I most definitely had them mixed up. Still funny how they incriminate themselves by doing their own tests and proving the massive faults they have.

EarthDog · Jun 30, 2014

Some controllers respond a bit better to incompressible data, but, for the most part, that story rings true through most drives anyway.

Deathscreton · Jun 30, 2014

While that may be true, i doubt that the difference is as wide as it is in this case.

DanFraser · Jun 30, 2014

Deathscreton said:
I'm running a PN5e-SLI which lacks ACHI which is necessary for speedy SSD functionality. It also only has SATA 2, however, I should still be seeing speeds in excess of 250 or less. I barely breach 120-150 which is insane compared to the speeds that the 505 revisions got. While the 4K speeds are still much faster than that of a HDD which decreases boot time and the such, it's still unacceptable that they managed to get away with this. But here's the kicker:

I tried to get a refund with Newegg which is where I purchased it, however, they told me that because it's only getting 1/4 of the specified rated speeds, it's considered defective despite what the manufacture might have done to it. And because of that, they don't allow refunds, only replacements. Which makes absolutely no since to me. I asked if they could aquire a specific revision for me int hat case, and they said no, that they wouldn't be able to promise that to me, and that I would only get the latest version of an item. Upsetting, but there's nothing I can do about it. I'll just have to avoid anyone whose known for doing this and stick with higher quailty SSD's in the future. I've learned my lesson. lol

I used to have that motherboard until a few days ago and while the performance was much better than the platter drives it wasn't fantastic. I have the V300 120GB as my OS drive.

I upgraded to something with SATA III and the performance is significantly faster even without running benchmarks to prove it. I didn't even realise that the P5N-E SLI had SATA II at all.

Deathscreton · Jun 30, 2014

DanFraser said:
I used to have that motherboard until a few days ago and while the performance was much better than the platter drives it wasn't fantastic. I have the V300 120GB as my OS drive.

I upgraded to something with SATA III and the performance is significantly faster even without running benchmarks to prove it. I didn't even realise that the P5N-E SLI had SATA II at all.

You mind doing a benchmark for me sometime using Crystal? It would be nice to see some numbers. Also, what revision do you have?

DanFraser · Jul 1, 2014

Sure. My old parts are destined to go into my brothers computer so when it's built (soon) I'll run the benches on that as well.

DanFraser · Jul 7, 2014

Sorry, totally forgot about doing a crystal benchmark. Hope you're ok with ATTO instead. But even from these there is a clear difference.

On the left is the P5N-E SLI Mobo (with Q6600 at stock).

On the right is the system in my sig. There has been no overclocking, only installing windows 8.1 and making sure drivers are up to date for both machines. It is the exact same SSD, just a different computer it's plugged into.

Think we have a clear answer...

Kingston V300

Registered

Premium Member

Destroyer of Empires and Use

Registered

Destroyer of Empires and Use

Overclocked Moderator, Overclockers.com Lead Edito

Registered

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Godzilla to ant hills

Registered

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Registered

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Registered

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Registered

Member

Registered

Member

Member

Attachments

Similar threads