引用:
|
作者Dragon cat
這種轉接架孔距和一般3.5"硬碟有沒一樣?
我之前在網路買了60元鍍鎳的轉接架,孔距不合
機殼3.5"快拆根本鎖不住  |
之前用過Intel SSD附贈的的轉接架孔位沒問題
SSD轉接架用過幾個
便宜的也碰過孔位對不到的問題 = =
拿去換轉接架時，
老闆說從對岸來的便宜貨在小地方問題比較多....
引用:
|
作者digictx
所以說難聽點..從各大論壇討論給我的個人感覺
SF機種的反修率實在比Marvell高得多
從SF1500到SF2200初期都是如此
最近Intel 520又因為AES256的問題，消費者願意可以回收換錢
當然也不一定是主控問題啦
可能是廠商多用的顆粒差也是造成這個因素
|
可以參考國外經銷商的返修率統計
http://www.behardware.com/articles/...ns-rates-6.html
- Crucial 0.82% (as against 0.8%)
- Intel 1.73% (as against 0.1%)
- Corsair 2.93% (as against 2.9%)
- OCZ 7.03% (as against 4.2%)
Crucial has taken top spot from Intel thanks to a notable increase in Intel’s returns rate. We should say that this time, the Intel sample is only just above the minimum required and that some of the Intel returns are linked to the 8MB bug which has since been resolved. The OCZ rate has got a lot worse, going up to 7%, and only OCZ has models with rates of above 5%:
- 15.58% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 240 GB
- 13.28% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 160 GB
- 11.76% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 80 GB
- 9.52% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 120 GB
- 8.57% OCZ Vertex 3 Series 120 GB
- 7.49% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 60 GB
- 6.61% OCZ Vertex 2 Series 3.5" SSD 120 GB
- 6.37% OCZ Vertex 3 Series 240 GB
- 6.37% OCZ Agility 3 60 GB
- 5.89% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 100 GB
The Vertex 2s have the worst scores but the Vertex 3s have nothing to be proud of either. Note that over the coming period, the Vertex 3s are doing much better thanks to developments in the firmware, with a rate of just 1.01% for the Vertex 3 120 GB as things stand.