Are Inland brand SSDs decent quality?

[fohat.digs]

Title says it all.

I would prefer real-world experience to hearsay and innuendo.

Thanks!

[Leslieann]

I've used Sandisk and Adata for customers when I had to due to availability (both seemed to work fine), but personally I refuse to use anything but Crucial, Samsung or Intel for my own systems.

Pretty sure Inland is not actually a manufacturer, as far as I know, everything they make is white label, more importantly...
How much do you value your data? Do you really want to use the cheapest, newest, untested white label ssd you can get for data storage?

[tp4tissue]

Not something you need to be saving money on, because if your kid loses a school paper, or a 1000 lines of code,   the cost of the SSD is trivial..


Get a 500gb samsung evo  for ~$100

[fohat.digs]

How much do you value your data?

I would use it for upgrading an older laptop where little or no important data is stored.

[Leslieann]

How much do you value your data?

I would use it for upgrading an older laptop where little or no important data is stored.

It's your data, you need to decide that.

For probably a few dollars more you can get a Crucial.
It may be a cheap laptop, but you can re-purpose ssds. I'd rather prefer it was one I could count on in a pinch than have to swap it out again later or run to go buy another.

[typo]

Fine. Since they do not make anything. It is just a name someone owns. There are only a handful of manufacturers and they are all fine. Samsung maybe the best but M.2 970 pro really has disappointed me. 960 was faster. Splitting hairs though do you know how fast these are? Like 100GB a second.

[Leslieann]

Fine. Since they do not make anything. It is just a name someone owns. There are only a handful of manufacturers and they are all fine. Samsung maybe the best but M.2 970 pro really has disappointed me. 960 was faster. Splitting hairs though do you know how fast these are? Like 100GB a second.

I think it was Sandisk... (I have tried to find the article on it but I have not been able to locate it)
They released an SSD with really good specs, then the second batch came in from another manufacturer and they lost about 30% speed and lifespan. Same part #, same package. Also if you think all ssd manufacturers are equal, I again remind you of OCZ who despite manufacturer warnings enabled an unsafe firmware setting in order to attain more speed. This ended up destroying their company when the failures piled up and they ended up being sold.

Even if Inland is using Samsung as a supplier and manufacture, you have no idea if they are using 2nd tier binned chips. It's just a product to them, it's not their primary business, so if the failures happen they will just simply send out a replacement until the warranty expires and exit the market. There's little accountability, they have no reputation to uphold. Now take a company like WD who is now getting into ssd's, you can bet they are probably top tier materials and manufacturer. Why? because even WD knows the hdd industry is drying up and this is where they need to move to, selling garbage now would doom any hopes of transitioning their business. Would I buy a WD ssd, sure, why not. Would I buy an ssd from a company who makes CHEAP white label mice, keyboards and anything else they feel they can make a buck on? Abso-f'ing-lutely not. They have no investment beyond what is on the shelf, they are not trying to establish a name or market dominance, this is just them buying cheap and making a buck so what you are buying is bean counter engineered, not quality engineered.


By the way, this is an issue with ram vendors as well.
Notice how ram heat spreaders became a thing even on low end ram? That's because it allows them to hide what chips it has in it. Good ones use Samsung or Micron/Crucial chips, the cheap ones use Hynix, the latter are not as stable and burn out faster (some say not stable at all under high load). Which is why a lot of custom system vendors prefer ram without a heat spreader* simply because they can verify they are not getting Hynix chips. Just because it looks or is priced high end, doesn't mean you are getting good parts inside (common problem for Macs!). Ram typically doesn't need a heat sink, which is why it's called a spreader, besides looks, they are all but useless on ram that isn't overclocked or overvolted to hell.

[typo]

I can agree with that. My statement was based on price not quality. For the record the best SSD is the Samsung 970 Pro M.2 512GB. It is currently $230 I think. Mission critical, Optaine but not as fast. Plus to get it to go that fast you need a $400+ Motherboard. Running Quad E7 Xeons, 2x 970 M.2, 3X GV100. Cannot do that on a consumer machine. Will run out of PCI lanes with this. Just set default speed and still very fast like 10x Sata. My Windows loads in less than 6 seconds. Of course this is not a toy and would suck at gaming. Also not purchased by myself. Proper I7 machine with that at max speed running $3,500+ though. Default is plenty. It lasts at least read/write 1,200 Terra bytes as well. Now I was just pointing out the other side of the coin. Cost no object.

[Leslieann]

You don't need a $3500 system to get boot times like that.

[HotRoderX]

My 2 cent's on this subject is as follows, you get what you pay for. The cheaper drives have a lot of cost cutting/savings in them. There all pretty much the same drive using the same controller's. The biggest difference will be any custom tweaks done to the firmware and what memory chips they use. Personally I run a MyDigitalSSD which is a cheaper off brand. I don't save anything important to the computer. The drive has worked flawlessly since I got it. The drive didn't come with any fancy software are anything special or crazy. Its simply a NVME drive and is 500gb. I don't regret getting it one bit and it was worth the cost. Honestly I think that's something to look at. What do you plan to do.

In this case you said it was for a older machine that wasn't going to house mission critical data. I would just buy one of the cheaper drives knowing that it won't be as fast and it won't last as long as the Samsung, but chances are it will outlast the laptop its installed in. It will certainly outlast the 60-70 dollar's you paid for it.

[fohat.digs]

I would just buy one of the cheaper drives knowing that it won't be as fast and it won't last as long

the 60-70 dollar's you paid for it.

I had come to this conclusion, and since MicroCenter was selling a 120MB for $25 I figured that it was pretty easy. When I got to the store I saw that there was a Kingston next to it for $30 so I picked that. Personally, I have had good luck with Kingston gear in the past, so I feel certain that it will satisfy my minimal needs.

Thanks for all the comments, they were helpful and informative.