Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Asax Leopard Hunt II T2 2.5” (256GB) And T2 1.8” (64GB)

SSD Summer Slam: 12 New 2.5" And 1.8" Drives Rounded-Up

Asax Leopard Hunt II T2 2.5” (256GB)

Asax was pretty much unknown to us when we received a review request from this Chinese vendor. The domain forwards here, which is where we found product information. The firm focuses on mainstream 2.5” SSDs as well as various 1.8” options with different interfaces, such as ZIF for ultra-compact devices.

Leopard Hunt II is Asax’s performance series. We looked at the 256GB 2.5” model and a 64GB 1.8” drive. Both units utilize the Indilinx controller and feature 64MB cache memory. Asax doesn’t tell customers about the controller, but it does reveal Samsung as the source of its flash memory.

Thanks to the Indilinx device, the Leopard Hunt II is quite a predator. In fact, it’s the fastest SSD drive in this review according to our desktop performance index. This index weighs throughput at 50%, I/O at 25%, and PCMark performance at 25%. However, four other SSDs are extremely close. The Leopard Hunt II would also be fastest in our enterprise performance index—based on 60% I/O, 20% throughput, and 20% PCMark performance—if not for Intel’s new X25-E 34nm drive, which is miles ahead of all others.

Asax Leopard Hunt II T2 1.8” (64GB)

The second Asax SSD did similarly well, although it did not keep the pace of its bigger 2.5” 256GB brother.

The 1.8” drive is available in capacities up to 256GB, although our review sample was the 64GB model. This 1.8” device is suitable for ultra-portable, high-performance notebooks based on more compact form factors.

Still, the 1.8” device appears like a shrunk version of the 2.5” design, with performance differences owing more to specifications than physical dimensions.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 41 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 18 Hide
    outlw6669 , September 7, 2009 10:50 AM

    No 4k Random R/W tests.
    No mention of testing methodology (used or wiped drives).
    No subjective analysis (I bet the JMicron drive still stutters).
    No point of comparison to a standard hard drive.

    Review Fail :pfff: 
Other Comments
  • 0 Hide
    alagadnidonald , September 7, 2009 6:27 AM
    zingamCan't wait for the day when my laptop will come with an SSD! I hate those HDDs in laptops! Too slow and too hot for nothing!

    +1. i wouldn't mind one in mine. still, the price per GB of HDDs is way lower than that of SSDs.
  • 0 Hide
    Greg_77 , September 7, 2009 6:45 AM
    It's nice to see SSD technology maturing. When prices go a bit down, I will get one for my desktop. My laptop already has one, but its 1.2 ghz core2duo processor really bottlenecks the SSD.
  • 8 Hide
    nonxcarbonx , September 7, 2009 7:04 AM
    I think mainstream consumers are so uninformed, tha when they see a laptop with a 64gb ssd in it, "Why should I pay more for such a small amount of storage?" will go through their heads. So I think until prices go down and storage up, we'll be left installing our own.
  • -1 Hide
    johnny_5 , September 7, 2009 7:17 AM
    Usually I wouldn't bother pointing out spelling errors but I thought this was funny; look at the end of the second paragraph on the conclusion page, and you'll find "...ultra-mobile notbooks." :lol: 
  • 6 Hide
    pocketdrummer , September 7, 2009 9:18 AM
    Still too expensive for me...
  • -3 Hide
    Sined , September 7, 2009 10:08 AM
    However, we’re missing progress on the performance side, as the X25-M is no longer the best flash SSD for performance users. The exception is in enterprise scenarios, which Intel dominates thanks to incredible I/O results. Almost all Indilinx-powered SSDs now deliver higher throughput than Intel. Still, the difference is small once the SSDs are in the 200 MB/s range and up.

    Ill just leave this here.
  • 18 Hide
    outlw6669 , September 7, 2009 10:50 AM

    No 4k Random R/W tests.
    No mention of testing methodology (used or wiped drives).
    No subjective analysis (I bet the JMicron drive still stutters).
    No point of comparison to a standard hard drive.

    Review Fail :pfff: 
  • -4 Hide
    anamaniac , September 7, 2009 11:09 AM
    So Intel's newest drives seem to lack in the write area...
    Doesn't change the fact I would still go for the X25-M if I could afford it.
    Dam my fanboyism...

    Interesting article though. Nice to see that 256GB 1.8" drives exist. Would like a 1.8" intel drive in a notebook... no cooling required, uinexistant power usage, and still great performance. Help reduce both weight and size in a lappy. Read is more important to me than writes anyways (when I'm doing 200GB transfers with my current drives anyways I just go watch a movie). You hear that Intel?

    Either that or get a p55 mobo with 8 DIMMs and put 16GB of DDR3 in it for a awesome ramdisk.
  • -3 Hide
    xsamitt , September 7, 2009 12:07 PM
    lol More hard drives...Run for the hills,we should be safe there.ANd remember to duck and cover.
  • 4 Hide
    raptor550 , September 7, 2009 1:11 PM
    I would have liked to see them compared to 5400rpm, 7200rom and 1500rpm drives.

    Though I can vouch for that, my SuperTalent 32gb ME Ultra Drive is faster than my 2x Raptors and 4x WD RE2 drives.... if only it had more than 30gb it would be usefull.

    How about these guys in RAID? According to your South Bridge reviews the other day, if I put in another ST Ultra Drive than I will not receive my full throughput because of the limitations of the onboard RAID Controller. I don't have much more space for another RAID card.
  • 6 Hide
    clownbaby , September 7, 2009 2:18 PM
    what a worthless bunch of tests. How about showing tests that actually matter in SSDs. Nobody buys SSDs for through-put you morons! How about 4k random write and used/clean drive comparison. What use is a speedy SSD if the jmicron controller it uses stutters, or if the samsung controller it uses isn't any faster than conventional drives in the most important tests?

    this review is worthless guys.
  • 7 Hide
    Anonymous , September 7, 2009 2:27 PM
    Review is severely missing the 4k write performance wth?
  • -4 Hide
    prakalejas , September 7, 2009 3:04 PM
    The big question - is it worth the price. Useually no one needs that high speeds - you simply open document and work, open a movie and watch it and so on. So the advantage of SSD would be olny at opening time.

    For 80$ you can get 320GB 7200rev/min 2.5" HDD
    For same 80$ you get 32GB SSD with questionable speed and stability and durability.

    SO this review lacks price/performace/durability comparision, because the price differs not in 10-20$ but in a lot.
  • -1 Hide
    Someguyperson , September 7, 2009 3:33 PM
    I think that there should be a laptop recommendation in addition to the enterprise and workstation recommendations. After all, laptops natively use the 2.5" format and benefit from the low power consumption as well as the durability and low weight of the drives. The speed increase would also make using a laptop a much more enjoyable experience, as laptops aren't as fast as their desktop counterparts. Most people use their laptops for little things like word processing, internet, music and movie watching, areas in which SSDs excel in (random reads).
  • 5 Hide
    Anonymous , September 7, 2009 3:48 PM
    I think the most important table is missing:
    I think it's pretty clear the performance of the drives (save one) is good enough!
    Some people might prefer another drive than others, depending on their needs.
    Someone doing a lot of OS loading, or accessing of many files, might prefer to go for a faster drive.
    Someone who wants to put a drive like this in his netbook,mini notebook, or laptop, might prefer a drive that may be a bit slower, but has a lower TDP.

    But in the end it all comes down to price.
    If one drive costs half of the others, but doesn't really reach the speeds or low power consumption, itmight be a prime candidate for many to purchase.

    Almost all drives perform well,and have low power.
    Price will be the main factor to look out to now.
  • 6 Hide
    Eggrenade , September 7, 2009 4:12 PM
    No mention of TRIM? Which drives will be getting this very important feature? I'll be going to Anandtech for SSD reviews from now on.
  • 4 Hide
    mcvf , September 7, 2009 4:32 PM
    I would agree that 4k random writes are missing (well we all know from other sites that that is where Intel really shines). Also, did you connect SSDs as IDE or AHCI in BIOS? Some reviews said it is actually quite difference with AHCI being "not optimal" for SSD. Also i think somebody mentioned that software which is cleaning unused space in Vertex in fact uses TRIM command, which can be only used using standard sata drivers - they specifically mentioned that Intel Matrix ignores TRIM making these tools virtually useless.

    Did you considered any of these? After all, you are The Tom's Hardware!
  • -2 Hide
    midnightgun , September 7, 2009 4:47 PM
    Nice review.

    Would it be possible to get a review on raid solutions (both embedded such as intel raid chipsets, and dedicated raid cards), to see if they support the TRIM commend when in raid-0, 1 or raid 5?

    Also if non do currently, I was wondering if someone could get information on when that will be supported?
  • 5 Hide
    Anonymous , September 7, 2009 5:58 PM
    This article is a little juvenile, and doesn't really cover the whole scope of what is happening with SSD's. It's akin to someone reviewing cars, and only talking about horsepower.

    I purchased a first generation jmicron based SSD (G.skill 64G), and I'm now using an Indilinx based 64G OCZ Vertex. I can say first hand that there is a HUGE difference in performance between the two, and that difference had nothing to do with throughput. The Indilinx based drive is 10 times nicer to use than the stuttering jmicron, and has made a bigger improvement in my overall computing experience than any other upgrade I have ever made. This article completely missed the point, and it's a make or break on the SSD experience. Not all drives are created equal, and some will provide an incredible upgrade while others will be a nightmare to use.

    4K random writes seem to capture this effect very well, and those are absent here. Discussion of TRIM and the reduction of performance with use is also not mentioned. This article needs a complete overhaul, and really shouldn't have been published as-is. Either cover the topic properly, or avoid it all together.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , September 7, 2009 6:21 PM
    On the access time graph, that's not really nanoseconds is it? 0.1 milliseconds is 100 microseconds as I recall.
Display more comments