Given their OCZ tech, I wonder how reliable they will be.
Oh well, the naming is indeed a pity.
And rather than OCZ I'd have appreciated a Samsung or Corsair Neutron GTX model (with 5 years warranty - just for reliability's sake).
retail prices will be different
This is just like CPU prices, when they're announced they're different and usually much higher than what you can find when the product reached the retail channels so I wouldn't worry that much about price. I actually think it's kind of cool to be able to buy and AMD SSD and since I'm a bit of a fan I might get it if the price is decent and the performance is good.
I would agree with your post. The Crucial MX100 is a very good consumer-grade SSD. It is better than the competition because it sports both parity correction and power-capacitors - two protections that many other SSDs lack. That should make them more resistent to corruption.
Originally Posted by kenjitamura
In most cases, consumers look at the sequential write performance, which is the only kind of performance figure where modern SSDs differentiate themselves. But it is also the least interesting performance spec. The lowest number - the 4K random read performance - is the most important one and basically the same for all NAND-based SSDs.
The 512GB version of the MX100 is as fast as the M550 and basically caps the SATA/600 performance boundary, making it one of the best consumer-grade SSDs you can buy. It's a shame people buy lower quality SSDs for a higher price - but this has been the case for years, particularly OCZ was very bad.