Kingston and PNY found changing SSD components

Kingston and PNY found changing SSD components

Summary: ExtremeTech reports that Kingston and PNY are changing the components in their SSDs once the initial reviews are in. And not necessarily for the better.

TOPICS: Storage, Hardware

One user bought a new PNY SSD expecting a Silicon Motion controller, but when they checked their new SSD found that it now had a sand force controller. It's not clear that this meant a performance degradation but the customer wasn't pleased to get a product different from what was commonly reviewed.

Another case involving Kingston they switched from synchronous to asynchronous NAND flash. This rendered the revised Kingston V300 SSD much slower than the version that was widely well reviewed.


The Storage Bits take. The SSD market is brutally competitive and it's not surprising that some smaller players would seek to cut corners. But that doesn't make it right.

It is not uncommon in IT for individual components to change. A product design may take two years from conception to delivery and then sell for several years after that. In a five-year timeframe components have been known to come and go.

But in all the cases I've been involved in the company sought to do the right thing for customers: give them equal or better performance and reliability with the new component. And to make things clear they would usually update the part number as well.

That makes the Kingston substitution of asynchronous for synchronous NAND flash especially reprehensible. A customer reads a positive review, shops around, brings their shiny new Kingston SSD home, and get much less performance than they were expecting.

Sadly, this is human nature. What was the first thing that Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden? Disobeyed orders and then lied about it.

We can't do anything about Adam and Eve but I for one will stay with more reputable brands than Kingston and PNY for SSDs in the future.

Comments welcome, as always. Have you encountered this problem?

Topics: Storage, Hardware

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Thanks for the link back.

    You can find the original source here:
  • Wow - they thought they would get away with this - Amazing

    This gives new meaning to the words 'Balls of Steel'.
  • Thanks for the heads up!

    This information will certainly affect my buying behavior in the future. I have long been a Micron fan, but recently I have dabbled in Kingston and PNY. That is certainly not going to continue after this news.
    George Mitchell
  • Information is much appreciated!

    It may explain some performance variations we have been having. This kind of reporting is invaluable to help understaffed and overworked IT departments cope with unscrupulous vendors.

    Many thanks!
    terry flores
  • rampant deception

    Unfortunately this type of behavior is becoming more and more common. I recall a year or two ago, looking at a Canon printer in my local BJs. Saw that it looked the same as one being sold in Staples for much more money. Went back to Staples to be sure, then returned to BJs to compare again, and yes, they were indeed the same model #. But as I looked at the feature list of the BJs unit, there were some things missing that were offered on the Staples version. Yet both units were identical in appearance AND model #.

    This was an obvious and blatant attempt by BJs, with the full cooperation of Canon, who manufactured the lesser featured version for BJs, to deceive it's own members.
    • or BJs was lazy and remiss in listing features

      Same model # same Printer. It would not be uncommon to have a different model even if it looks the same, that's the usual play. Its risky and potentially illegal to sell different devices with the same model #.