Backblaze's quarterly reports compare whichever drives are available at the time, and the authors argue that approach stacks old drives against young ones because each manufacturer's fleet skews to a different era. HGST led new installations in 2014, Seagate dominated from 2015 to 2020, Toshiba topped 2023, and WD topped 2024, so raw annualized figures pit aging Seagate and HGST stock against much fresher Toshiba and WD units. A further 146,943 drives, about 31% of the sample, exited the dataset without ever failing, mostly pulled during capacity upgrades.

Toshiba's monthly failure rate more than quadruples once its drives pass 60 months in service, a monolithic jump that no other manufacturer in the dataset shows at any age. Between 50 and 100 months, Toshiba units failed at five to six per 1,000 drives per month, while the other three brands generally stayed at or below 2.5. Seagate's failure rate started highest among young drives but held steady with age. Backblaze's own analysis of its dead drives previously found most failures happened before three years of service.

Each additional one-degree Celsius of average drive temperature raised failure rates by 2.1% in the models, compounding to roughly 23% across a 10 degrees Celsius increase. Each extra terabyte of capacity cut failure rates by about 3.4%, which the authors attribute partly to helium-filled enclosures and newer head-fabrication processes in higher-capacity designs.

The dataset consists of enterprise drives run in Backblaze's data centers, so the ranking may not carry over to consumer models. Backblaze doesn't record comparable workload data across manufacturers, and only 0.52% of sampled drives ran longer than a decade, so the estimates reflect short- to medium-term reliability.

The authors also suggest WD's ownership of HGST plausibly explains why the two brands sit closest together, given the potential for shared technology. Backblaze's most recent annual report, published in February, put its fleet-wide annualized failure rate for 2025 at 1.36%.

When you send in an SSD for warranty work, there are generally two possible outcomes. Either the company repairs it or replaces it with a similar or equivalent drive, or, in some cases, provides a refund. The former is often straightforward; the latter, however, tends to be more complex. The manufacturer's warranty strictly defines the refund amount.

If you examine SK hynix’s warranty policy on SSDs, the documentation explicitly states: “In lieu of a Product repair or replacement, the original purchaser may receive a refund of either the original purchase price or the fair market value, whichever is lower.”

In other words, SK hynix will determine the refund amount by comparing what the Redditor paid for the SSD at the time of purchase with its current fair market value, then issuing the lower figure. Under normal market conditions, it would be a fair and reasonable solution. However, the storage shortage has caused SSD prices to increase substantially, so this clause will definitely leave customers at a disadvantage. The Redditor did not provide details on which drive they bought or when. Nonetheless, as examples, SSDs like the SK hynix Platinum P51 and its predecessor, the Platinum P41, have doubled in price since the storage shortage.

An increasing number of warranty claims have gone public over the last couple of months. For example, a recent incident involving Micron saw the company initially offering only a standard refund at the original purchase price for a Crucial memory kit, the company's axed consumer brand. After some pushback, Micron ultimately offered to match the memory kit's capacity with alternative memory modules.

In another high-profile spat, Louis Rossmann had a lengthy back-and-forth with Samsung customer service over an SSD warranty and eventually threatened legal action. Samsung ultimately refunded the owner at the SSD's current market price. It was weird to see the situation escalate the way it did since Samsung’s warranty policy confirms that if the company is unable to repair or replace a product, it will “refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung.”

Recent cases show that it is important for consumers to read the fine print in manufacturers' warranty policies, especially in these turbulent times. Many companies are profiting immensely from the memory and storage shortage. Nevertheless, they should not forget the customers who supported them before the shortage. Consumers are already frustrated by rising hardware prices, so manufacturers should at least show empathy and flexibility when handling warranty claims to better serve their customers.

The two examples of shattered CDs embedded above might look pretty similar, but the failures may have been precipitated through different vectors. @japanretrogame’s split-down-the-middle CD was perhaps doomed due to too much care and maintenance. Reader notes suggest the user cleaned and polished this CD to keep it clean and shiny. This eventually caused chemical cracking of the polycarbonate substrate, it is thought [machine translations used].

Moving along to consider @CZ662C’s even worse-looking CD fragments, and the tech detectives on X reckon this dramatic damage was caused by storage in a foam-padded case. Some foam padding materials, the story goes, will off-gas ammonia compounds. Apparently sealed protective cases with (particularly polyurethane type) foam padding will off-gas, and if left sealed with CDs inside, the vapor can weaken, craze, or lead to cracking of the polycarbonate structure.

Polycarbonate substrate damage is a greater danger for CD users as compact discs rely on a single layer of this plastic. DVDs employ two polycarbonate halves bonded together with adhesive, which makes them less susceptible to the above-outlined issues.

There’s also bit rot and/or laser rot to worry about

The dangers of bit rot and laser rot have caused far more significant blips on the optical disc user threat radar to date. Wikipedia classifies this kind of damage as being caused largely by oxidation of the reflective layer, reactions with contaminants, and ultraviolet light damage. DVDs can also suffer from de-bonding of the adhesive between the two slivers of polycarbonate in the disc.

Over the years, some brands of optical media have earned a poor reputation for longevity due to bit rot susceptibility. I’ve had numerous discs suffer this kind of damage. It is therefore important to back up optical discs, which may themselves have been backups at some point, to keep all your old digital treasures alive.

● Check out this deal at Newegg

The Seagate BarraCuda comes in a standard 3.5-inch metal chassis and is a CMR drive with a 512MB cache and 7,200 RPM disk spin speed. A SATA 6Gb/s interface delivers up to 190 MB/s transfer speeds, some of the fastest available speeds for this kind of storage, and is the standard for most PC and NAS setups. Its large capacity means you can store reams of data, including pictures and video files.

The massive 24TB capacity of this drive is perfect for someone looking for a large storage drive for a media center or for a big backup drive in a PC. Although the Seagate Barracuda Compute is fast for an HDD, it's not fast enough for modern gaming; you definitely want an SSD for that. But for storing movies, videos, and other media, this drive is perfect.

The station dug a little bit deeper when it discovered that the OSS website no longer existed and was listed as delinquent under the Colorado Secretary of State. It also discovered that OSS utilized Iron Mountain’s services, so it sent a demand letter to the latter to preserve its data and to "pay any reasonable costs associated with its demand." At the time, Iron Mountain did not confirm or deny that it possessed Nine PBS’ data.

At the same time, the channel also sued OSS and its leadership, which it paused after someone who claimed to be a "managing partner of the group that officially acquired" the company reached out. The person, named James Tramel, initially communicated with Nine PBS for about a month. However, this also ended abruptly, with the channel eventually receiving an automated reply from Tramel stating he is no longer connected with OSS. The channel was able to get in touch with him, and he said that he had "been defrauded" into acquiring the cloud storage company and that ownership and operations have now reverted to the previous owners.

This left the channel at a loss, so it continued its case against OSS, and the court ruled that Nine PBS had all the rights to access its data stored with OSS and that the latter should "facilitate its transfer to a new vendor." The channel’s attorney also reached out to Iron Mountain to inform the company of the pending case in Colorado; Iron Mountain finally admitted to holding the data. Iron Mountain initially agreed to turn over Nine PBS’ data, but it eventually backtracked and claimed that OSS owned the data it stored. Because of this, Nine PBS now has no choice but to sue Iron Mountain, too, to ensure the data is not deleted.

The entire thing is a nightmare scenario for Nine PBS, especially as it’s still unclear what will happen to its data. The channel can only assume that its former cloud storage provider is no longer paying data center bills, so it’s rightfully concerned that its data might end up lost forever. And even if Iron Mountain is willing to give Nine PBS its data, it risks getting sued by OSS — it is simply protecting itself by refusing to turn over the said stored data.

It seems that the safest legal way to resolve this issue is for Nine PBS to get a court order requiring Iron Mountain to turn over its data. But the channel must act quickly to ensure that its data, which Nine PBS VP and CCO Leah Freeman said to Current represented "70 years of our organization’s history," stays safe.

It's not clear if the channel has backups of its data, but based on its determination, we suspect not. This is strange, though, especially for a major organization, as one can easily purchase a six-bay NAS on Amazon and populate it with the best HDDs. This also goes against the 3-2-1 backup rule, which says you should keep three copies of your files stored in two different mediums, with one of them running offsite. Hopefully Nine PBS will implement a better backup system once it regains access to its data. And at least there's still a chance — it's not like the fire that the South Korean government experienced last year, which saw 858TB of data go up in smoke.

● Check out this deal at Newegg

The only drive you'll find cheaper with similar specs is the Silicon Power UD90, but only by a few cents, with the next drive costing you over $50 more for slower speeds. If you want it, you'll need to make sure you use the coupon code BTSF2997 at checkout to get the full discount applied.

The T-Force G50 is a PCIe 4.0 SSD, running over all four lanes, and offers sequential read and write speeds of up to 5,000 and 4,500 MB/s apiece. It won't be winning any speed awards, but if that was your aim, then the Samsung 990 Pro, which sits on our best SSD, is the better option. You'll need to pay almost twice the price, however, with the 990 Pro costing $789.99 right now, just $10 less than double what you're paying here for the same storage capacity.

The T-Force G50 comes with a graphene heatsink to keep things cool, ships with TLC memory, and features a memory controller from InnoGrit.

The $389.99 sale price for this Team Group T-Force G50 4TB SSD is a bargain under current conditions. We're in a troubled market for PC builders, and the $106 saving brings this SSD down to around 10.2 cents per GB, as low as you'll find right now for this capacity from a Gen 4 SSD. Don't forget to use coupon code BTSF2997 for the discount, however.

After SK hynix acquired Intel's 3D NAND and SSD business in 2021 and formed its Solidigm subsidiary shortly after, it suspended any expansions of Solidigm's capacity in China partly due to the memory market downturn in 2022 – 2023 and partly due to U.S. export controls that curb exports of advanced fab tools to China. However, as demand for solid-state storage is setting records in general and demand for Solidigm's high-capacity SSDs is exceptionally strong, SK hynix is reconsidering its capacity plans for the Dalian fab just in time for Solidigm's initial public offering.

Following a four-year pause, Solidigm has reportedly resumed investment in its Dalian facility in China this year. The company has completed construction of the second phase of the fab and is preparing to start installing production equipment as early as November, the report claims. The facility is expected to begin mass production of floating gate 3D NAND flash in the first half of 2027, if the report is accurate.

The second phase of Solidigm's fab in Dalian is reportedly designed for a wafer output capacity of around 50,000 wafer starts per month (WSPM). Combined with approximately 100,000 WSPM at the existing first phase of the facility, the new phase would boost Solidigm's NAND production capacity in Dalian by roughly 50%, to around 150,000 WSPM.

Late last year, the U.S. government granted SK hynix and Samsung annual licenses to ship semiconductor production equipment that contains technologies developed in America to their Chinese fabs through 2026, which replaced their previous open-ended Validated End User (VEU) exemptions. As a result, both companies can now upgrade their fabs in the People's Republic and even use new process technologies there.

Solidigm, for example, intends to start making floating gate 3D QLC NAND memory with over 200 active layers at its Dalian facility in the second half of 2026, which was made possible by the timely tool upgrades. The additional capacity will further increase bit output of the Dalian campus, which in turn will enable Solidigm to produce its 245TB-class SSDs due to be introduced in the coming months in decent quantities, sometimes in 2027.

Solidigm, which controls roughly a quarter of the data center-grade SSD market, is a crown jewel in SK hynix's portfolio as it makes unique products that are sold at a premium and are in high demand. Listing Solidigm on NASDAQ would enable SK hynix to gain capital (up to $7 billion, if unofficial reports are correct), but retain control over the precious asset. The money that SK hynix will raise should be roughly enough to expand Solidigm's capacity and increase output of premium data center-grade solid-state drives.

It should be noted that SK hynix did not officially confirm the Solidigm IPO plan last week, as its regulatory filing on August 5 said that Solidigm was considering various ways to improve its competitiveness, but the final decision is yet to be made.

● Check out this deal at Woot

Before you grab your pitchforks, this is a good deal in context. Amazon owns Woot, so it's fair to use Amazon's own historic pricing as a benchmark here. That data shows this SSD, like the entire market, has seen a huge set of price increases since December. We've not seen this particular model close to this price since February. Prices have been unstoppable since then, too.

For your money, you're getting 4TB of fast storage from a known, trusted brand. Our Samsung 9910 Pro review, made before the market turmoil, shows this is a good all-rounder drive, with good power efficiency compared to its rivals. This is a PCIe 5.0 SSD, with speeds that vastly improve upon rival Gen 4 and 3 drives, and will be a huge step up over an older SATA SSD or traditional hard drive.

Two things are important to point out on this SSD: speed and capacity. 4TB of storage is a sizable amount for a gaming or productivity rig. Once you've installed your operating system, you'll be left with terabytes of space for your files. If you're a gamer, that'll mean enough for several of the biggest AAA game installations, alongside plenty of indies, with enough room left spare.

Speed is arguably the bigger draw, though. The Samsung 9910 Pro is an NVMe M.2 SSD, running on PCIe 5.0 over four lanes, delivering sequential read and write speeds of 14,800 MB/s and 13,400 MB/s apiece. This isn't the fastest, but it's not a million miles away from faster rivals like the Corsair MP700 Pro XT, which leads our best SSD list for speed with speeds of 14, 900 MB/s and 14,700 MB/s for read and write.

Specs-wise, the 9100 Pro is built with a single-sided design that includes an SSD controller, a DRAM package, and two NAND flash packages. It's made with Samsung's 5nm Presto controller and is able to max out PCIe 5.0 over four lanes for best throughput. It's a TLC drive using Samsung's 236-layer V8 flash memory modules. This particular 4TB model comes with a heatsink, too, to help keep the drive cool during use.

The $619.99 sale price for this 4TB Samsung 9910 Pro is not ground-breaking or an all-time low. In the context of the current PC hardware market, however, it's a good price that knocks nearly $350 off compared to the same model on sale at Amazon. It's a Prime exclusive (Woot is owned by Amazon), so if you want it, you'll need to make sure you use a Woot account that's linked to your existing Amazon Prime account.

If you're looking for more savings, check out our Best PC Hardware deals for a range of products, or dive deeper into our specialized SSD and Storage Deals, Hard Drive Deals, Gaming Monitor Deals, Graphics Card Deals, Gaming Chair, Best Wi-Fi Routers, Best Motherboard, or CPU Deals pages.

You can also join the Tom's Hardware deals Discord for up-to-the-minute hardware deals.

The Phantomdrive is built using the CH569 microcontroller that has a bunch of different hardware blocks — this project uses the USB3, SD/eMMC, and the AES block. There are no NAND chips directly onboard the custom PCB because of the ongoing component crisis. Instead, the Phantomdrive relies on a simple microSD card (that you provide; it doesn't come with one) for both its 8GB decoy partition and the hidden partition. The creator does say they'll make a version with eMMC modules once prices come down.

Of course, if someone were to open up the drive, they'd be able to physically rip the SD card out. However, it still wouldn't be a dead giveaway since many cheap USBs are powered by microSD cards, and SD card adapters are also a thing. Anyhow, the finished drive looks pretty simple from the inside; it comprises a USB port, two buck supplies, a button for firmware update, the microSD card, UART test points, and some support components. The custom firmware now comes into play.

The name of the game is interception. The firmware doesn't know it's being used to handle file transfers; it just reads raw packets of data being sent over the USB bus as is. It's coded to always look for a "password" string, so as soon as you create the unlock.txt file with "password:xyz" inside, it detects the "xyz" bit and copies it over to SRAM, while overwriting the raw data with a bunch of zeroes before it's written to the SD card. The operating system thinks it's created the new file, but the firmware intercepted it midway and sent essentially nothing to the physical storage cells.

The firmware uses the unique internal hardware ID of the microcontroller as the salt, combines it with the password you just typed, and runs the pair through PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA-256 hashes 100,000 times (you can also select 600,000 times) to create a key. Each run induces an intentional 2-3 second delay to deter brute-force attacks that would try to crack the password. The key is used to unlock and lock the hidden partition, and since it's tied to the silicon itself, putting the SD card into another Phantom Drive will not unlock it.

Even if you try to access it directly through a microSD card slot, it will stay hidden, and the 8GB decoy will actually appear like a broken partition. The creator has also provided the option to recompile the firmware on your own to spoof specific vendor IDs, so that the USB appears like it's from different brands. You can make the Phantomdrive pretend to be a cheap 16GB Kingston Datatraveler at the hardware protocol level, at which point no scanning software will flag it as anything more than a cheap USB.

There are Linux-based C tools you can use in case of emergency, however, to recover your data, such as physical damage to the board. The transfer speeds are also very limited because the project is built over USB 2 — 20 MB/s reads and 9 MB/s writes in AES-CTR mode. The speeds fall to 10 MB/s reads and 6 MB/s writes in AES-XTS, but at least you have the freedom to choose between the two according to your needs.

You can buy the Phantomdrive from Rootkit Labs for $50, but you can also build your own, since this is an open-source project. The prebuilt device comes with two extra shells because the pins wear off and break quickly. Otherwise, the GitHub repo provides all the resources, including the PCB layout files and schematics, the BOM for every part, and the custom firmware, alongside its related tools.

The creator of Phantomdrive, Ryan Walker, explains the goal behind the project as both utilitarian and political. It's built using entirely open-source software and with inexpensive, easily accessible components. They wanted to create something that could "slip past authoritarian government representatives, corrupt police, and anyone else that doesn't respect basis encryption rights."

We don’t want to confuse WD and Sandisk here, even if the hardware – and software, for that matter – is similar and often shared. Sandisk is making its own mark, and the Optimus GX 7100M, or 7100M for short, is proof of that. While there were few options available in the M.2 2230 form factor when the Steam Deck launched, there would soon be almost too many. Sandisk didn’t have to release this drive, but we’re glad it did, because it does fill an important hole in the lineup where alternatives have become harder to find.

This is a high-end Gen 4 drive, or as high-end as this segment gets. It’s still DRAM-less but can push the full bandwidth of the interface at both capacities. Where it shines is in its random read performance. That’s the key metric for responsiveness or real-world feel, and especially for game-focused hardware, it means the fastest loading times possible. Portable systems also need to use as little power as possible to reduce heat generation and prolong battery life. The 7100M’s pedigree is great there, too. And while 2TB was once hard to find in this form factor, because drives need to be single-sided with just one NAND flash package, the 7100M handles that and does it with faster TLC rather than lower-endurance QLC flash.

It’s a powerhouse of a product. The reason we say it fills a hole is that the alternatives are hard to find. The Crucial P310 still tends to be a great choice, but the parent company is moving away from the retail space due to AI and enterprise demand. The P310 is also QLC-based, which, while not a big deal anymore, does limit its performance in some cases and means reduced endurance. TLC-based alternatives with Phison’s E27T controller, like the Corsair MP600 Mini, are harder to find and don’t quite match that random read performance. SMI’s competing controller is more often used in budget products, where you can find it, like the Kingston NV3. The 7100M is left as the clear winner if you want the very best – especially if you like its strong software package – with no real drawbacks.

Sandisk Optimus GX 7100M Specifications

M.2 2230 SSDs are generally limited to a small range of capacities, and the Sandisk Optimus GX 7100M is no different. Lower capacities don’t make sense for an upgrade when base models typically come with at least 512GB of storage. Larger capacities, 4TB or more, are difficult to achieve in such a small form factor. The 7100M only being available at 1TB and 2TB, therefore, makes sense. We will add that 4TB is possible with slightly longer M.2 2242 SSDs like the Corsair MP700 Micro and, also, 4TB for 2230 will be possible in the future. Furthermore, if devices were designed for double-sided drives, then all these limits would be effectively doubled. From the other side of things, rising memory and storage costs mean that base units might arrive with less storage, making smaller drives relevant again. It’s a push-pull situation.

At the time of review, the 1TB was going for $229.99 and the 2TB for $449.99. At 1TB, you could get the P310 for a little bit less, but otherwise, you will be giving up performance to save money. Considering the P310 is QLC-based, the 7100M isn’t too badly priced there. At 2TB, the price gap is more significant, as you can get slower alternatives for $50 to $150 less. Unfortunately, maximum performance at 2TB is the holy grail, so paying the premium could be worth it. Right now, it’s $50 or 12.5% over the last-generation WD Black SN770M, for instance, and on paper, that sounds reasonable for a drive that’s faster and more efficient.

Both capacities of the 7100M have the same peak performance level: up to 7,250 / 6,900 MB/s for sequential reads and writes and up to 1,000K / 1,300K random read and write IOPS. Both sets of numbers are excellent for a drive in this form factor, and the drive even exceeds what the Phison E27T-based Corsair MP600 Mini can achieve. This is top-tier performance for this segment and a full notch above the WD Black SN770M and effectively matches the 7100M’s forebear, the WD Black SN7100. While the Black SN7100 did not particularly stand out for us with its performance, its power efficiency is fantastic. That bodes well for the 7100M.

SanDisk has the drive pulling 4W or less under typical workloads, which puts the drive into a good spot for mobile devices. We test with a mixed workload, which can push a drive a little bit harder than this. Either way, this isn’t a lot of power for a full-fledged Gen 4 device – the drive’s 7,250 MB/s is near the limits of the interface – so we can expect good power efficiency.

Sandisk backs the drive with the standard 5-year, 600TB of writes per TB warranty. The drive supports the TCG Pyrite 2.01 specification and only has software encryption. This is perfectly normal for a drive of this type. The TBW is, however, higher with TLC versus QLC flash.

Sandisk Optimus GX 7100M Software and Accessories

Sandisk has you covered with its software. The Sandisk Desktop App, which works on Windows and macOS, is useful for general file transfer and password protection – software encryption, as well. The Sandisk Dashboard is Sandisk’s take on WD’s Dashboard, an SSD toolbox application with a wide range of features. An SSD toolbox like this gives you information on your system and drives, including SMART and health information. It lets you test and benchmark the drive. Importantly, this software also helps you update the firmware, if necessary, and use other features such as Game Mode. Sandisk also offers an Acronis True Image download, which is great for backing up files and your OS or for cloning drives.

Sandisk Optimus GX 7100M: A Closer Look

The 2TB Optimus GX 7100M is a single-sided drive, optimized for device compatibility. This does limit it to a single NAND flash package, which puts a cap at 2TB. This is because the most common dies widely available are 1Tb, or 128GB, apiece, and typically a single package – which has to stack the dies on top of each other, might have dummy dies for stability, and has to carefully maintain signal quality without exceeding height limitations – can only hit sixteen dies.

According to the specification sheet, this drive uses the M.2 2230-S3-M form factor. The M.2 format is easily recognizable as the way consumer SSDs are made these days, in contrast to the old 2.5” SATA drives. Other form factors meet the needs of the enterprise. 2230 tells us the length and width in millimeters. This is a common size for portable devices like the Steam Deck, the Asus ROG Ally, and the Lenovo Legion Go. The “M” part means it’s M-key, which we expect these days as NVMe drives using a full four lanes are common. Some drives can drop back to two lanes, like the Samsung 990 EVO and Samsung 990 EVO Plus, but are still capable of using four.

The “S3” is the part we’re looking for here, which tells us it’s single-sided rather than double-sided with a “D.” The number tells us the permitted height of the components. S1 allows for 1.2mm, S2 1.35mm, and S3 1.5mm. We would expect this drive to be S3 since it needs to pack in sixteen dies. The nominal PCB thickness for M.2 is 0.8mm, so this puts the drive at ~2.3mm, and the datasheet lists 2.38mm. This isn’t too interesting on its own, but it could be useful if you know the exact limitations of your device or need to make other measurements, such as for custom cooling. Some devices can take double-sided devices, which, as you can imagine, have similar height thresholds but with components on both sides.

One other interesting thing is the rated power: 3.3V at 1.8A puts the peak power around 6W. This is well higher than the specification sheet, which, again, is for average and also with read and write separately rather than mixed, as well as what’s listed by SMART and in our testing. We reckon this drive will always be below 5W, which normally would ensure there won’t be any heat issues. For M.2 2280, that’s broadly true, but heat is always an issue for 2230.

In addition to the sole NAND flash package, the drive also has a DRAM-less SSD controller and power management circuitry. The controller is proprietary Sandisk technology, listed as the A101-000171-A1. Similar to the WD Black SN7100's A101-000172-A1, which is a four-channel controller that can take fast enough flash to saturate PCIe 4.0. We would expect the drives to share the same flash, too, which would be Sandisk’s 218-Layer TLC. BiCS8 flash, whether TLC or QLC, has proven to have fantastic random read latency and also excellent power efficiency. This makes it great for the M.2 2230 segment.

The 7100M is still DRAM-less, as it can be difficult to make a DRAM package work in this form factor. In the past, it was not uncommon to see DRAM at least in M.2 2242, but modern host memory buffer (HMB) solutions are quite good. A quick look at the random 4KB results for this drive will dispel any illusions that you need DRAM to make a drive feel fast. In fact, it’s very unlikely DRAM would ever make a difference in the type of device this drive is made for, although there are always exceptions. Yes, there are some odd drives that have DRAM as part of the controller package – SK hynix’s BC711 comes to mind –, but these are rare and relegated to the Gen 3 era. An OEM Gen 3 drive is perfectly enough for a Steam Deck, but we’re in the business of gauging modern retail options.

The older Black SN770M, which is a retail version of the OEM SN740 – an extremely popular drive when the Steam Deck was still young – and a shortened version of the Black SN770, struggled with power efficiency. At least, in comparison to some of the newer 2230 drives on the block. With that problem out of the way, thanks to more efficient flash, the 7100M might very well be the best drive of its type available. We certainly think so, but knowing the pedigree of the hardware can help explain why this is.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs

MORE: Best SSD for the Steam Deck

Comparison Products

The Sandisk Optimus GX 7100M is slated to be the top for M.2 2230 SSDs, so we are putting it up against our best drives. These include the Crucial P310, which, despite being QLC-based, is the fastest all-around 2230 drive up to this point, and the Corsair MP600 Mini with the Phison E27T. The Phison E27T controller, when paired with TLC flash, as is the case with the Corsair drive, is about as fast as you can get, but more importantly, it has the advantages of TLC. This means more consistent performance and better endurance. The Optimus GX 7100M, also with TLC flash, is therefore the ultimate challenger.

For other hardware, we have the Kingston NV3 that uses a comparable SMI controller. We have an SMI controller in the Lexar Play, too, although at a lower speed. The 7100M’s predecessor, the WD Black SN770M, is also in play. This drive and its OEM counterpart became popular picks after the Steam Deck came out, offering, at the time, the best performance possible at the cost of higher power consumption. Alternatives here generally use the Phison E21T controller with various TLC and QLC flash choices. These include the Silicon Power UD90, the Sabrent Rocket Q4, and the Teamgroup MP44S.

Trace Testing — 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities, including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams. Future gaming benchmarks will be DirectStorage-inclusive, and an evaluation for future-proofing is included where applicable.

If you’re buying an M.2 2230 SSD, you’re probably buying it for gaming. Yes, there are productivity machines with small form factor SSDs, and you could buy this drive and use it with an extender for a random system, but gaming is the one place it has to do well. Frankly, we’re impressed with how well the 7100M does here. It’s second only to the P310 and is first among TLC-based drives. Beating the TLC-equipped, E27T-based MP600 Mini is an accomplishment. This drive will be very responsive for gaming, and we’d even put it above the P310 for that, in fact. This is because the P310 is using QLC flash – with a fuller drive, with a lifetime of transfers and wear, it should suffer more, meaning you’d pick the 7100M for peace of mind. At the very least, it’s a deciding point if the prices are close.

As a side note, this drive is supported by the Sandisk Dashboard and, as such, has the Game Mode feature. This mode works by disabling the drive’s idle power states, improving responsiveness. This can slightly improve game loading times. The Dashboard is designed for Windows.

Trace Testing — PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is an industry standard trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices. The results are particularly useful when analyzing drives for their use as primary/boot storage devices and in work environments.

The 7100M proves to be great at productivity, too, more or less tied for first in PCMark 10 with the P310. Our QLC caveat applies again: all else being equal, you’d probably pick the TLC 7100M over the P310. We want to emphasize that there are many good DRAM-less drives that can get near this performance level, but you don’t see that hardware in this form factor. For example, we don’t see the Maxio MAP1602 controller here, for a variety of reasons. That controller does tend to run hot, for one thing, and that’s always a looming concern for this form factor. We also don’t see much from SMI, and when we do, it’s usually for budget drives. This reduces the amount of direct resistance to the 7100M.

Phison exists, but the E21T and controllers of that class were and remain much more present in this form factor. That’s partly because the M.2 2230 form factor took off around the same time that such drive technology came out, and now we have a very uncomfortable memory market. Also, the Steam Deck is PCIe 3.0, so you only need so much performance for the most popular destination device. Even with 4.0 devices, a 5 GB/s drive is plenty of performance for a portable system. That means that a drive like the 7100M has less direct competition than you might expect if we’re talking about performance. It’s nearly peerless, in fact. If that’s what you want, then this drive should be at the very top of your list.

Steam Deck Testing — Gaming, KDiskMark, and Temperature

The Steam Deck is not the only portable gaming system in town, but it was the first and most popular to take M.2 2230 SSDs. While some systems have moved on to fit 2280-length drives, 2230 remains popular for many systems, and such drives will work fine in longer slots with the proper standoff or extender. The Deck operates in PCIe 3.0 mode for its SSD, limiting maximum bandwidth, but that has less of an impact on responsiveness/latency, and the Deck is still useful for gauging drive temperature and power efficiency.

Our current testing for the Deck involves analyzing game load times for some popular games. This is probably the most important metric for gamers, but the difference between one SSD and another can be small. We also use KDiskMark, a CrystalDiskMark-like substitute that uses the flexible I/O (FIO) tester instead of diskspd for its underlying benchmarks. We also check the drive’s maximum temperature during this test.

The tests in this section are run under the stock Arch-based SteamOS Linux platform, but our other tests are conducted as per our normal reviews, using Windows. Many portable gaming systems today use or can use Windows with multi-boot as an option. This testing section is instead designed to give an idea of Linux performance, which does involve the use of Proton.

The 7100M does well in all of this testing and runs relatively cool, too. We specifically want to point out its excellent random read performance at QD1, a metric that most readily correlates with responsiveness or “feel.” The P310 pulls away at a higher queue depth, but this is mostly not relevant to what this drive needs to do. We’d say the 7100M’s biggest weak point is the QD1 sequential read speed, merely good but significantly below the P310’s. Many apps and games have low QD sequential reads for loading, and it’s possible the P310 will be slightly quicker for some titles. The magnitude of this, on average, across apps and games will likely be tiny, to say the least, and further, we think that a fuller and realistically worn drive might favor the TLC-based 7100M in the long term. Then again, you probably won’t be fully wearing out any drive in a portable gaming system. We’d probably focus more on heat and power draw, which we address further below.

We do want to point out that QD1 sequential read performance is excellent in our CrystalDiskMark test below. KDiskMark is running on Linux and is built on FIO, which is a different I/O stack. Additionally, on the Deck, we’re testing drives only at PCIe 3.0 speeds. Furthermore, in some cases, weak CPUs – and this applies to many APUs – as well as different platforms, can impact storage performance results. If your portable device is running on something more modern with Windows and PCIe 4.0, it’s quite possible your results will align more with CDM.

Transfer Rates — DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom 50GB dataset. We write 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to the test drive, then make a copy of that data to a new folder, and follow up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file. This is a real-world type workload that fits into the cache of most drives.

The 7100M delivers the highest copy rate in DiskBench, along with the highest read transfer rate. In a portable device, such as one that would take a primary M.2 2230 drive, you often don’t have a lot of fast transfer sources. You might have only a 10Gbps external drive, a relatively slow microSD card, and so forth. Copying on the same drive still occurs with updates and other procedures, and you are essentially relying on a single drive to manage most things on the system. For this reason, the DiskBench results are still useful for gauging how well a drive can manage mixed workloads. The 7100M handles that like a champ, and the high read performance – considering you do a lot of reads – is also a bonus.

The only anomaly here is the write speed, which was also a bit low in our previous Steam Deck test section. Write performance can be misleading for many reasons. Most pertinently, modern drives use pSLC caching, which can “hide” the true performance of the native flash. This can mean performance is not always consistent. Manufacturers can optimize the drive firmware with this in mind, making trade-offs such as varying the cache size to improve sustained performance. Drives ultimately have to move data over from the cache to the native flash, so test results don’t always align with expectations. To get a fuller idea of write performance, you should check our Write Saturation section.

Synthetic Testing — ATTO / CrystalDiskMark

ATTO and CrystalDiskMark (CDM) are free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tools that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how each device handles different file sizes and at different queue depths for both sequential and random workloads.

The first signs of weakness on this drive appear in ATTO, but things are not as bad as they first appear. We’re talking about read performance, and when looking at our logarithmic chart, the jumps up and down don’t seem as bad. While throttling could affect this test, generally, that’s not the case. It helps that we see the same pattern with the WD Black SN7100, as we can rule out any randomness.

However, we don’t see it with the WD Blue SN5100, which uses BiCS8 QLC and a comparable controller, so this is probably a feature of BiCS8 TLC. We also don’t see it on the WD Black SN8100 or Corsair MP700 Pro XT, drives with that flash but controllers from SMI and Phison, respectively, so it’s not the flash on its own, either. Given the drops are at 64KiB and 256KiB – with 16KiB pages, this is with 4-way and 16-way interleaving, which aligns both with the flash channel count and the four-plane count dies – it’s likely an artifact of how the proprietary controller manages the reads. Sandisk has some interesting optimization going on, which you can see most clearly with random reads and power efficiency, so we don’t want to jump to conclusions, especially as long as real-world performance remains strong.

Thankfully, it does. The 7100M has incredibly low 4KB random read latency at QD1 in CDM, blowing away the rest of the 2230 drives. As we pointed out above, the competition here is more limited in comparison to full-length drives, which helps the 7100M stand out even more. In many cases, you could look only at this result and be convinced that this is the drive to get. However, as we’ve stated in the past, a good rule of thumb is ~45µs if you want a top-notch experience, and other drives hit that. The 7100M just takes it to a new level.

Sequential read performance at QD1 is also very important; in fact, it is sometimes overlooked with regard to game and app load times. It often deserves to be weighted alongside random 4KB. Luckily, the 7100M is tops here, too. WD and Sandisk have this mastered, as the SN770M is a monster as well. Given that the 7100M can push even more bandwidth with efficient flash, just chef’s kiss.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of pseudo-SLC (single-bit) programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC (three-bit) or QLC (four-bit) flash. Performance can suffer even more if the drive is forced to fold, the process of migrating data out of the cache in order to free up space for further incoming data.

We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds. This process shows the performance of the drive in various states including the steady state write performance.

Modern drives tend to write in three states: the pSLC cache, direct to the native flash, and in a folding mode. The first mode is temporary and fast, converting native flash into single-bit mode to trade capacity for speed. When space gets tight, the drive can choose to write straight to the flash. This is slower and can be worse for endurance in some cases. When space is completely exhausted, the drive is forced to wait for data to go through the pSLC cache and be “folded” over to the native flash, is far slower and decreases drive consistency and responsiveness. Most of the time, you want to be in the cache, especially with an M.2 2230 drive, but it’s worth seeing how the drive might behave if it’s left in a fuller state after sustaining writes.

How the pSLC cache is handled varies from drive to drive. A larger cache can handle larger bursts of traffic, but this can leave the drive more vulnerable in some cases. A smaller cache can result in more consistent drive performance. There are also two types of pSLC cache, static and dynamic, with different characteristics. Generally speaking, the static portion is always available, while the dynamic portion is altered with the amount of free space. Proprietary solutions such as Samsung’s TurboWrite and WD’s or Sandisk’s nCache – with nCache 4.0 on this drive – use both types in tandem.

WD’s and Sandisk’s most recent drives have opted for larger caches. This is also true for Samsung, which, with the Samsung 990, has significantly increased the size of the cache. In the 7100M’s case, the cache takes up almost the entire drive. The drive wrote at over 6.4 GB/s for 110 seconds, implying a ~708GB cache. With three bits in TLC needed per pSLC bit, this is quite large for a 2TB drive, although there is a little free space, which helps keep the drive from flatlining completely. Instead, the drive is able to maintain a middle mode around 2.9 GB/s for a small amount of time, which is, honestly, quite fast for such a mode. In most cases, this would be an adequate cushion.

After that, the drive oscillates when hitting the folding mode. Performance is much less consistent as space is periodically freed. We see an actual peak of around 1,450 MB/s here, which is about half of that 2.9 GB/s. This is a common ratio because when you’re folding, you’re essentially writing twice. However, the controller is juggling many things as it is attempting to remain responsive to incoming I/O while moving data in the background. Therefore, performance dips further with a bottom closer to 500 MB/s or so. Over time, this gives us an average of 894 MB/s, which isn’t too bad. By all standards, it’s better than any QLC-based drive and is respectable for a TLC drive with such a large cache.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade, as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre stock storage in terms of capacity and performance. Desktops are often more performance-oriented with less support for power-saving features, so we show the worst-case scenario for idle.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt, or efficiency, is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

For temperature recording, we currently poll the drive’s primary composite sensor during testing with a ~22°C ambient. Our testing is rigorous enough to heat the drive to a realistic ceiling temperature, but real-world temperatures will vary due to the environment and workload factors.

The 7100M does not disappoint in power efficiency. It’s the most power-efficient drive on this list and the most power-efficient M.2 2230 SSD that we’ve tested. We feel like anything over about 500 MB/s per watt is good enough for this segment, but getting above that into the P310 or NV3 range is better. It’s hard to argue with this result.

Drives can have multiple sensors for different things. Temperatures can be reported for the flash memory, the DRAM if present, the PMIC, and the controller. Typically, these values are not super accurate and certainly will be different from directly measured temperatures, as often they are a composite. This essentially means the drive reports a general temperature measured against a range for throttling.

Measured temperatures from the 7100M’s sensors came in at 73°C, 76°C, and 85°C for peak readings. The drive is rated to throttle at 90°C with a critical temperature of 94°C. Generally, we like to have at least 10°C of headroom and preferably twice that. So, the numbers here do give us pause, but they can be explained. If we compare the P310, for example, we have another very efficient drive that, in our testing, got within 5 degrees of throttling. The reason is simple: this short form factor has all the hardware pressed together. It’s hard to get around that fact, and it’s very common for 2230 drives to throttle or overheat in portable devices, especially when traveling in warmer climates. You usually have little to no cooling right next to a maxed-out APU, after all.

Another consideration is the workload. You’re unlikely to have sustained writes of the type we’re doing. If you’re on a Steam Deck or an older device, you’re also going to be running in PCIe 3.0 mode. Drives will run much cooler in that mode or with everyday workloads. To add to that, these temperatures don’t reflect actual internal ones or the real limits of the hardware. You should not assume that high temps like this mean the drive won’t have a long lifespan, especially since your host device will likely spend most of its time sleeping.

That said, we do recommend you treat your drive well. If it is at all possible to improve cooling – and this could be a simple matter of adding some thermal interface material or a low-profile heatsink – then you should consider it. Avoid breaking warranties, of course. A good example of what we’re talking about is the Apple MacBook Neo. The main chip on it runs notoriously hot, and DIYers have shown that even adding just some thermal padding can significantly improve performance. The chip still throttles, though. This is the reality of portable devices like this, and thankfully, your SSD won’t be running full blast like an APU any time soon. So we don’t think this is a major drawback of the 7100M – it’s just difficult to escape – but you should be aware that top-tier Gen 4 performance comes at a cost.

Test Bench and Testing Notes

We use an Alder Lake platform with most background applications, such as indexing, Windows updates, and anti-virus, disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

Sandisk Optimus GX 7100M Bottom Line

The Sandisk Optimus GX 7100M is, in a word, fantastic. Anyone who loved the WD Black SN7100 as a proper successor to the WD Black SN770, especially for its class-leading random read performance and power efficiency, can now get that in M.2 2230. The Black SN7100 has been the best SSD for laptops, and now smaller portable devices can enjoy new levels of storage comfort, too.

The 7100M doesn’t disappoint with high levels of performance across-the-board and excellent power efficiency. It’s not always the fastest, but it’s very fast where it matters and doesn’t have the power consumption issue of the previous WD Black SN770M. Even though these drives usually end up on a Linux machine such as the Steam Deck with SteamOS, Sandisk’s excellent Windows software suite is a cherry on top if you’re working with that OS, are multi-booting, or need to work with the drive on your main Windows PC. The drive is also great for enclosures, particularly ones for M.2 2230 drives, and you can extend this drive with an M.2 extender accessory for other slots. It’s just a solid product, no matter what.

The drive lacks a full capacity range of SKUs, but we can’t hold that against it. Higher capacities cannot be achieved without going double-sided or up to M.2 2242. Lower capacities have generally been less desirable, and performance would be lower, too. It wouldn’t be the first time a new 2230 model was limited to 1TB, but Sandisk is going for 2TB out of the gate. Sandisk opted for the two most popular capacities, and performance is stellar for both. Power consumption is also low for both, which is useful for the battery-limited target devices for the drive. It’s really hard to find fault here.

Although it’s not easy to find downsides to this drive, we do feel there are enough drawbacks to prevent it from getting a perfect score. We feel the pricing isn’t too far out there given the current market, and that aside, we’re then looking at performance and cooling. Performance is not always consistent across our tests, and while Sandisk’s pSLC optimization makes sense within the greater product stack, they could have taken a cue from Phison and been more conservative with it. There are people who will want to use this drive in fast enclosures, and having more consistent, sustained writes could help them. But this is a nitpick.

Of more concern is the heat output of the drive, which, to be fair, is also not really Sandisk’s fault. This level of performance in a tight package is going to put out some heat. Because the drive has to fit in a range of devices, Sandisk can’t really throw on a heatsink or anything like that. The drive will be fine in any Gen 3 device and, hopefully, any properly designed Gen 4 device. Alternative drives do not necessarily offer any advantage over the 7100M here, either. Nevertheless, we’ve seen from newer controller designs like the Phison E31T that you could probably do better in this form factor. Sandisk is using existing technology from its stack, and that makes the most financial sense, but that also leaves in our mind the knowledge that a better product could exist.

We’d say that’s quite complimentary to Sandisk, considering the 7100M is the best M.2 2230 drive on the market. If you’re looking for the best 2230 drive, this is it. Your experience is going to be fantastic in every way – fast load times, good power consumption levels, and software support with True Image and a respected toolbox if you need it. You will pay a premium for it, but particularly for an enthusiast Gen 4 device, this is well worth it. On the other hand, your device might come with a fast, capacious drive, so you wouldn’t be looking at the 7100M, anyway. If you’re on the budget end of things, you can save money here, too. Any of the other 2230 drives on the list will probably be sufficient in that case. The 7100M is an investment, but a sound one, and we can highly recommend it.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs

MORE: Best SSD for the Steam Deck

Kioxia's and Sandisk's BiCS10 3D QLC NAND device introduced at FMS features an areal density of 37 Gb/mm², which makes it the world's densest 3D NAND storage device formally introduced to date. The device features 332 active layers as well as an up to 4,800 MT/s interface with a separate command address (SCA) capability, but the manufacturers do not disclose the actual capacity of the IC. Typically, assuming the same number of memory cells and roughly the same die size as the 1Tb BiCS10 3D TLC NAND chip introduced last month, the new memory device should have a capacity of 1.33 Tb, though we are speculating.

The new BiCS10 3D QLC NAND flash IC with record storage density is aimed at data center-grade SSDs that must offer both high-capacity and decent performance enabled by high-speed I/O of flash memory. Since such applications also strive to reduce power consumption, Kioxia and Sandisk also implemented their power-isolated low-tapped termination (PI-LTT) technique designed to reduce the power consumed by high-speed output drivers without sacrificing signal integrity.

Since Kioxia and Sandisk produce their BiCS10 3D QLC NAND device using their latest BiCS10 process technology, they not only achieve the record bit density, but also lower costs compared to competing high-density 3D QLC NAND ICs once their yields reach target levels. As a result, the two companies will be able to offer ultra-high-capacity SSDs at prices that are lower compared to those of rivals, or get higher margins while selling at similar prices.

"By redefining the performance and efficiency envelope of QLC NAND, our 10^th Generation BiCS QLC 3D flash memory delivers simultaneous gains in density, bandwidth, and energy efficiency and establishes a new paradigm for high‑capacity flash storage to provide a scalable foundation for next‑generation infrastructure applications," said Alper Ilkbahar, chief technology officer at Sandisk.

Kioxia and Sandisk intend to use their BiCS10 3D NAND devices primarily for data center-grade storage (read: AI-oriented SSDs that need capacity and performance), so it remains to be seen whether we are going to see such ICs on client SSDs any time soon.

The initial specification defines HBF packages with capacities of up to 512GB using either 8-Hi or 16-Hi NAND die stacks, though these will not be standard 3D NAND stacks, but rather specialized devices with a fast interface. In fact, Sandisk once called them HBF core dies rather than 3D NAND die stacks.

Performance of HBF is divided into three bandwidth grades ranging from approximately 0.4 TB/s to 3.0 TB/s (though we are not sure whether this figure describes the full HBF subsystem or per-package bandwidth). Such a huge performance range implies that Sandisk and SK hynix expect HBF to have a multi-year roadmap featuring multiple implementations and generations of HBF. It is noteworthy that the most capable implementation of HBF (3 TB/s) is set to beat the memory bandwidth of a single HBM4 memory stack (2 TB/s), though it will be unlikely to beat HBM4 when it comes to latency.

Interestingly, SK hynix claims that HBF uses the Universal Chiplet Interconnect Express (UCIe) standard to simplify integration with heterogeneous computing platforms, whereas Sandisk claims that HBF is set to adopt the 'xPU-HBF' interface, which could be its definition of UCIe implemented by companies like Broadcom or Marvell.

In addition to capacity and performance targets, the specification establishes electrical and interface characteristics, packaging and reliability guidelines for stacked HBF devices, as well as software I/O requirements. For now, these specifications are not officially published by the OCP.

Extracting 400 GB/s of bandwidth from a single 512GB HBF package is not a trivial task. To enable such a package, Sandisk once planned to use 16 HBF core dies that feature many, many arrays that can be accessed concurrently using dedicated read/write paths. Meanwhile, it is possible to reach over 400 GB/s of bandwidth per package using a single UCIe interface that runs at up to 64 GT/s and features 64 lanes. Yet, this means that the HBF base die will be a fairly complex piece of silicon.

Sandisk and SK hynix position HBF as a new memory tier for AI inference workloads by combining near-memory bandwidth with the higher capacity and non-volatility of NAND flash. The technology is aimed at workloads that require substantially larger memory pools close to compute than HBM alone can economically provide. For example, while the maximum capacity of an HBM4 stack is 64GB, an HBF stack can provide up to 512GB. Even at a lower bandwidth, such memory can be useful for inference workloads.

Arguably the biggest question about HBF is who is going to adopt the technology? Since Sandisk and SK hynix announced plans to collaborate on defining the HBF specification in 2025, only Google and Tenstorrent have expressed interest in participating in the HBF consortium. Meanwhile, AMD, Broadcom, Intel, Nvidia, Marvell, Micron, Qualcomm, Samsung, and Western Digital have so far expressed no interest in HBF.

“What's more retro than obsolete technology?” asks Fanattik, the collectibles maker behind this useless physical media. “Celebrating the humble 3½-inch, 1.44 MB floppy disk that the game was originally released on back in 1993, this limited edition Doom Floppy Disk Replica plated with imitation gold comes in a box displaying the original game artwork, has a display stand included, and is individually numbered as one of 5,000 worldwide.” Pre-orders are now open at GameStop in the US for $29.99 or directly from Fanattik in the UK at £19.99.

The 89 x 89 mm dimensions of the golden-but-not-gold and 3.5-inch-but-not-floppies make them at least the correct size. However, if I were buying fake floppies, I think I would appreciate a movable protective sliding mechanism and the write-protect cutout toggle to move, so I could fidget with them from time to time.

Also, in some ways, it is ironic that game media is now being licensed and hawked to fans, at non-trivial prices, without any game data contained on them. This seems to be a growing trend as the games industry moves inexorably to a digital-only future. People still covet the physical media so much that they are now willing to pay for it, even without any game data or download code being associated with it.

The original Doom v1.2 shareware edition was released on two floppy disks in Feb 1994, and it is famous for adding modem support to this seminal game. If you paid and registered Doom v1.2, you would get four floppy disks from id Software containing the full three-episode campaign. The registered release disk set stayed on four floppies until the CD-ROM era.

● Check out this Samsung 9100 Pro 2TB SSD deal at Amazon
● Check out this Samsung 990 Pro 2TB SSD deal at Amazon
● Check out this Samsung 990 2TB SSD deal at Amazon

Samsung's 9100 Pro SSD boasts sequential read speeds of up to 14,700MB/s and write speeds of 13,400MB/s thanks to the available PCIe 5.0 bandwidth, making it one of the fastest drives on the market, perfect for heavy professional application workloads, and of course top-end gaming PCs.

By contrast, the 990 Pro offers about half the read and write speeds of this drive at around 7,450/6,900MB/s, with the recently released Samsung 990 offering up to 7,250/6,450 MB/s, but switching from TLC to QLC NAND. These drives pretty much max out the PCIe Gen 4 bandwidth, with the new Samsung 990 being marketed as a budget-oriented SSD, but in reality and most importantly, in terms of pricing, the difference between the Samsung 990 and the much faster 9100 Pro is just $30.

We've reviewed Samsung's 9100 Pro and found this impressive Gen 5 drive to be one of the fastest SSDs available to buy. During benchmark testing, the Samsung drive placed near the very top of the charts. In our PCMark 10 Storage tests. the 9100 scored higher than any other drive we've tested.

However, if your motherboard doesn't support PCIe Gen 5, or you only have a single Gen 5 M.2 slot on your mobo and need to populate any other spare M.2 slots with PCIe Gen 4 SSDs, then the Samsung 990 Pro is the best shout.

Or save a further $20 and opt for Samsung's latest SSD, the 2TB 990. This PCIe Gen 4 drive opts for QLC NAND, but still has fast access speeds. The drive can reach 7,250/6,450MB/s for sequential reads and writes and up to 850K/1,200K random read and write IOPS.

RAM and SSDs are some of the toughest PC components to get your hands on at the moment at prices that won't give your bank account an aneurysm, so we take any discounts we can. Especially if it helps us build or upgrade our beloved PCs for slightly less. There's currently no end in sight for memory and NAND prices to return to more normalized values until manufacturers can ramp up production, and AI hyperscalers stop sweeping up all the demand. So definitely give these Samsung SSD deals a look if you're on the hunt for an SSD upgrade.

I use my PCs for video editing, streaming, and various other content creation and productivity tasks, but I also use them for some PC gaming fun. There’s always a pull towards going for the biggest and the best when building a gaming PC, so you can have settings dialed up to the max, with incredibly smooth frame rates on a ridiculously expensive monitor with an insane refresh rate. But unfortunately, I don’t have unlimited funds.

Everyone knows that having a higher-end graphics card, with bigger processors and more VRAM, has a direct impact on how your game runs, but what’s not so clear is how much effect your SSD storage pick has on your game's performance metrics. The short answer is that it’s not as important as your CPU or GPU, but it typically only has a slight effect on your game performance, depending on the game you're playing and whether it’s streaming levels or pre-loading them.

The most important thing to first factor in with an SSD is the capacity. Games have grown in size exponentially over the last decade, with some of the latest titles demanding up to 150GB and more just for the one game. My son's Ark: Survival Evolved game with all the added DLC content fills up a 512GB SSD on its own, so if you have a lot of games that you want ready to play at a moment's notice, then you need a larger capacity SSD to have them all installed. In my gaming PC, I have 6TB of storage, which is ample for me, and because I don’t have the fastest internet connection, I prefer to keep my games installed.

If you have an amazingly fast internet connection with high download speed capabilities and don’t need to worry about any kind of metered connection rates, then this will also affect how much storage you need. If you can download any game you want in 5-10 minutes or less, then capacity isn’t as big a concern. You can just uninstall and reinstall a game whenever you want, provided you aren’t in the danger zone with your SSD endurance metrics. The minimum-sized SSD I’d recommend, though, is a 1 TB drive.

If you’re running a traditional hard disk drive for gaming, you should definitely upgrade. An HDD has an average read speed of 100-150 MB/s, compared to the latest PCIe 5.0 SSDs that have peak read speeds of around 14,500 MB/s. Now, although you don’t need read speeds that fast for gaming, the difference is humongous. A game running on an HDD may take 45 seconds to load a level, compared to just a few seconds for the SSD. Even the oldest SSD technology would be an improvement over your optical disk.

When building or upgrading a gaming PC, SSD manufacturer marketing often pushes massive sequential speeds (like 7,000 MB/s or 14,000 MB/s). However, the real-world impact of read and write speeds on actual gameplay is much more nuanced. The effect that a superfast PCIe 5.0 SSD has on frame rates compared to a PCIe 3.0 SSD is virtually imperceptible, as the frame rate rendering is predominantly handled by your GPU, VRAM, CPU, and system RAM. Your PC will use your SSD to load game assets from storage into the VRAM/RAM, and then mostly sit idle during the rendering of the game while you’re playing it.

If you’re playing a game with a massive open world or large levels, there may be the occasional request for assets (textures, models, shaders, etc.), but the most important spec of your SSD in that scenario will be its IOPS speed, or random read speed. Write speeds typically do not affect active gameplay performance, as playing a game predominantly consists of read operations.

Patching the game, downloading the game, or copying a game file will make use of the SSD's read and write speeds. And if you use background recording programs like SteelSeries GG, Xbox Game Bar, or OBS, that will also make use of the drive speeds, but again, the effect on the actual gameplay is typically very minimal.

So, to answer my initial question, how much SSD storage and speed do you need for pure gaming? Well, you can use anything from PCIe 3.0 to PCIe 5.0; the impact of peak read and write speeds is often negligible if you aren’t playing a Direct Storage-capable title. Capacity is the most important factor, and you should base that on how many games you want to store on your system. If you want to choose your SSD to perform more than gaming, then the speeds start to matter, plus SSD features like DRAM and HMB, but that's another story.

Your choices will also be very much affected by pricing. If you can get a 4TB PCIe 4.0 SSD for the same price as a 2 TB PCIe 5.0 model, the choice is simple. However, we are in one of the toughest periods in recent memory for storage prices, and the usual rules don’t apply. Prices are all over the place, with PCIe 3.0 drives not necessarily cheaper than the more recent PCIe 4.0 and PCIe 5.0 drives. What was $80 a year ago is now $250 for the same product. To give you a small idea of prices and capacities, here are some of the most popular SSD drives with their PCIe generation, capacities, and prices.

PCIe 3.0 M.2 SSDs

PCIe Gen 4.0 M.2 SSDs

PCIe 5.0 M.2 SSDs (Ultra High-End)

You can already get a 3.5-inch SATA hard drive mounting kit at the same price (or a 2.5-inch kit for $17.99), but TPO said that it created the M.2 version for longevity reasons. It also noted that SSDs won’t give you a significant performance boost on the Wii U — an SSD loads just 7.5% faster than the DVD drive and 6% quicker compared to a hard drive — but it does give you more space to save your games on the console. TPO said that this does not offer any performance uplifts versus SATA drives, but it created this anyway because of easier M.2 NVMe drive availability in the future.

Note that this isn’t a straightforward upgrade — first, you have to provide your own drive, which could be one of the best SSDs you can get today or one that you already have lying around at home, and then you’ll need to break open your console to install the kit. This is the easy (and most expensive, given current storage pricing) part. Once done, you’ll need to hack into your console so that it can use the custom Aroma firmware. While there’s a complete guide on how to install it, it’s not without risk, as there’s a small chance that you could brick your device during the process.

If you’ve previously purchased a drive upgrade kit from TPO in the past, you could get updated parts to upgrade your current kit at shipping cost. All you need to do is upgrade the firmware on your interposer board, and you should be good to go.

While the Nintendo Wii U already accepts external drives, installing this upgrade kit will give your console more storage without needing to have a bulky drive hanging outside it all the time. This upgrade is more for aesthetics, but if you’re willing to accept the risk of (or already have) homebrew software, then finding a way to have a “permanent” storage upgrade on your Wii U is a no-brainer.

"Mozaic 5, our 5+ terabyte per disk platform, remains on track for qualification shipments in late calendar 2027," said Dave Mosley, chief executive officer of Seagate, during the company's earnings call with financial analysts and investors.

Mozaic 5 is the company's 3^rd generation platform for commercial hard drives based on Seagate's heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR) technology that succeeds Mozaic 3 and Mozaic 4. The Mozaic 5 platform enables the company to build platters with over 5TB capacity and consequently build 10-platter HDDs with over 50TB capacity featuring conventional magnetic recording (CMR) for clients seeking performance and versatility or shingled magnetic recording (SMR) for clients that need maximum capacity to maximize their storage density.

If Seagate preps to initiate 'qualification shipments' of its 50TB-class hard drives in late calendar 2027, then it means that by the time the HDDs have passed all the manufacturer's internal validations, including reliability and durability of heads and media, shock and vibration tests, and longevity tests among many others. It typically takes server OEMs about two to six months to qualify new HDDs for their offerings, whereas hyperscale cloud service providers usually qualify them for six to 12 months. In any case, it is safe to say that Seagate is on track to ship 50TB-class hard drives in calendar 2028 with significant volume ramp in 2029.

These 50TB-class HDDs will come to market just in time to meet exabyte demand from the AI and cloud sectors. Most of Seagate's nearline HDDs have been allocated for 2027 and 2029 under long-term supply agreements (LTAs), with some customers looking to secure supply in 2029.

"Based on the long-term supply agreements in place today, the vast majority of our nearline exabytes are now allocated into calendar 2028," Mosley said. "[…] As our strategic relationships deepen, many are actively seeking to extend planning horizons through 2029 and beyond, which we believe reflects growing confidence in their own long-term infrastructure needs."

Seagate's LTAs not only define exabytes, but also product configuration and prices. As it turns out, both are set for the 'entirety of calendar 2027.' Meanwhile, Seagate is flexible on pricing of drives that are not covered by LTAs as well as newly signed LTAs, so the company is implying price increases, following makers of 3D NAND and SSDs.

"We continue to execute our value-based pricing strategy, balancing a stronger demand environment with our objective of supporting sustainable, profitable growth over the long term," Mosley said.

"Our volume was a little bit higher in fiscal Q4," said Gianluca Romano, chief financial officer of Seagate, during the call. "We think can be maybe a little bit of output available in fiscal Q1. Of course, we are pricing that increased output at a very good price right now."

The key advantage of Seagate's high-capacity drives based on the company's Mozaic platforms is, of course, its HAMR technology, which is gradually increasing its share within the company's nearline HDD shipments. HAMR-based products accounted for a 40% exabyte share of Seagate's nearline HDDs as of early July and are on track to account for 70% of the company's nearline exabytes shipments by early July 2027. Moreover, nearly half of Seagate's nearline capacity will rely on its 40TB-class HDDs featuring its Mozaic 4 platform.

"We expect to achieve our next ramp milestone by exiting calendar 2026 with 50% of our HAMR exabytes on our Mozaic 4 platform," Mosley said.

For the fourth quarter of its fiscal 2026 ended on July 3, Seagate earned $3.629 billion, up from $2.444 billion it earned in the same quarter a year ago. The company's gross margin totaled 52.3%, up from 37.4% in Q4 FY2025, and its net income reached $1.294 billion. The company's FY2026 revenue was $12.195 billion, up from $9.097 billion in the prior year. The net income increased more than twice year-over-year to $3.184 billion, with gross margin reaching 45.6%.

It’s a sadly familiar tale. Like RAM, SSDs were once an afterthought when it came to PC building — you always knew you could find a ton of capacity, decent speeds, and a reputable brand at a reasonable price. Like RAM, SSD shortages have driven absolutely insane price rises across the board, and like RAM, the death of Micron’s Crucial has seen a major player leave the scene.

As you can imagine, the SSD market is decidedly more complex and fragmented than the RAM market, for obvious reasons. Whereas your principal choice of RAM boils down to DDR4 vs DDR5, and then capacity, there are a plethora of SSD solutions for PC. There are M.2 drives for performance, or larger SATA SSDs for volume or even external storage. The former also sees vast performance differences between Gen 5 and Gen 4 options, adding another dimension.

Sadly, prices on SSDs generally have skyrocketed. This uncomplicates the picture slightly. But just how badly have SSD prices changed in the last year, and can you buy an affordable SSD these days?

12 months on

We’re fortunate to be carrying out this look 12 months removed from the 2025 Amazon Prime Day event, which means we have a plethora of pricing and sales data from exactly a year ago that we can use to pinpoint just how badly the SSD market has tanked. As we did with RAM, we’ll start with our fabled 2025 Amazon Prime Day build, in which we recommended users kit out our 1440p, 7800X3D gaming rig with a Samsung 990 EVO Plus 2TB SSD. The deal at the time was a hefty discount, bringing the price to $113, down from $176. That same drive is on sale right now, discounted by 36%, to an eye-watering $363, triple the price. The list price of that drive is $579.99, and the highest actual price we’ve seen on it is $465 in May this year, more than four times what it cost a year ago.

Famously, buying a 4TB SSD could net you M.2 storage for your PC for as little as $0.05 per GB just over a year ago, with devices like the WD Blue SN5000 and Silicon Power UD90 costing just $214 and $209, respectively. The SN5000 has doubled in price to $449.99, with the cost per GB at 11.2 cents.

SATA: No less painful

You’d be forgiven for thinking that toning down your storage for a less potent SATA III drive would be a great way to save some money over an M.2 drive, but you’d be wrong. Case in point is a drive we've been watching on Amazon for some time, the Samsung 870 Evo. This 2 TB drive was once just $80, and no more than $150 a year ago. Now, Amazon is selling it discounted by 62% at a cost of $399, with a list price of an eye-watering $1,039. That’s not a typo; that’s a 2021 hard drive with 2TB of storage now listed at a price of over $1,000. Of course, much like RAM, these numbers and prices aren’t really real, which makes it absolutely impossible to try and pin down the reasonable price of SSD storage in 2026.

A crucial factor

Micron announced in December that it was shuttering its consumer outfit Crucial in favor of enterprise. With so many SSD vendors and solutions, it’s arguable that Crucial’s absence in the SSD sector will be a little less keenly felt than it will in the RAM industry — after all, Micron is one of only three memory makers in the industry. Still, Crucial’s T-series and P-series drives are capable and performant offerings that will be missed once they disappear from the market completely. Of course, any reduction in competition is going to have an impact on pricing, but Crucial’s loss certainly seems like it will be more felt when it comes to RAM, rather than SSDs.

If you actually need to buy SSD storage

If we discount Gen 3 drives, which you shouldn’t be settling for in 2026, the cheapest you can grab an M.2 SSD these days is 11 cents per GB; specifically, this Silicon Power UD90 is one of the best value drives right now, at $439. SP’s UD90 is also one of the cheapest 1TB options on the market at around $150, and its 2TB option is $244. Of course, the larger the drive, generally, the less you’ll pay per GB when it comes to storage. Simply put, these are the baseline prices for 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB SSDs, respectively, in 2026.

If you want a snappier Gen 5 option, Crucial’s 1TB P510 is $180 dollars right now, while the 2TB version is $340.The popular Samsung 9100 Pro’s 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB drives will set you back $250, $400, and $900, respectively, a truly tragic state of affairs.

Pre-build your way out of the crisis

As with RAM, a pre-built PC is one of the best ways to secure a decent amount of SSD storage. However, unlike RAM, the vendors can more easily obfuscate SSD performance. I’ve been covering PC sales and deals for months since the crisis hit, and it’s clear that vendors find it much easier to hide poor SSD storage inside a pre-built than RAM. The reasons are obvious: it’s very difficult to sugarcoat a PC having 16GB of DDR5 RAM, as opposed to 32GB; however, you can quite easily bury a slower Gen 4 SSD or a less spacious drive inside a pre-built spec sheet.

Generally, I’d recommend pushing towards a build with 32GB of RAM, even if it means compromising on storage. You can always add more SSD space down the line, and while you’d obviously rather have a blistering Gen 5 drive with those 14,000MB/s speeds, Gen 4 will do you just fine for gaming, and likely will for years to come.

Whether it's a SATA SSD, an OEM M.2 from an older laptop, or even a spinning hard drive, you can turn any of these into handy external storage by picking up one of the best SSD and hard drive enclosures, with some options selling for less than $10 when on sale. In most cases, you won't even have to mess with a screwdriver. Just open the enclosure, drop in your old drive, and you're good to go.

Of course, the drive you have and the enclosure you choose will dictate how fast your DIY external drive will be. But speed doesn't matter much if you're just doing simple backups or transferring a few files. And even a SATA SSD is pretty speedy for most mainstream tasks. If you're using the drive to edit lots of 4K video, doing animation work, or running local LLMs, you'll need a faster, newer PCIe 4 or 5 M.2 SSD and an enclosure that can deliver as much bandwidth as your fastest USB-C port can handle.

To break down the kind of speed you can expect from digging out an older hard drive or SSD and putting it to work as external storage, we installed several older drives (and even a speedy recent PCIe 5 model) into various enclosures and put them through some of the same tests we use for testing brand-new drives. And we'll compare those results to speedy dedicated external SSDs and flash drives, to see what, if any, speed you might lose.

Of course, every individual drive model will have its own performance variances, as we see when testing internal SSDs, but the results and charts below will give you a sense of what to expect, generally, from whatever class or type of drive you happen to have at your disposal, and whether it's speedy enough for your needs.

I grabbed four different drives, three of which were older drives of various types that I found in my storage drawer or in older enclosures, and ran some of the tests that we typically run for external storage reviews, to see how they perform compared to a high-end flash drive and a fast external SSD.

Drives

▶️ Western Digital WD5000BPVT 2.5-inch hard drive (500GB)

This 2011-era 2.5-inch hard drive either came from an old laptop or was something left over from testing in a previous job. I've held onto it, in part, as a photography prop to show storage options in PC cases. It's clearly not a fast drive, but a good representation of the lowest-tier option to build your own portable storage drive.

▶️ Samsung 850 Pro 2.5-inch SATA SSD (512GB)

I originally intended to use my old Crucial MX100 2.5-inch SATA drive for this test (as seen in the main image, above), but when I plugged it in (for the first time in at least five years), it was effectively dead, as it wasn't recognized by any PC I connected it to. So I pivoted to a Samsung 850 Pro, a slightly higher-end drive from the same year (2014). It's sure to be much faster than the spinning-platter hard drive, but as a SATA drive, it's going to top out around 550 Mb/s.

▶️ Intel 660p PCIe 3.0 NVMe SSD (2TB)

I picked up a 2TB Intel 660p back in 2019 for $109 (the first time SSDs got really cheap), to use as an external drive. I eventually replaced it with a 4TB Samsung 990 Evo Plus that I bought for $199 about a year ago (the last time storage was cheap). It's rated to 1,800 MB/s read and write at that capacity, so it's good for any 10 Gbps or 20 Gbps enclosures, which is why we tested it in both. But if you're after USB4 or Thunderbolt 3+ speeds, you'll want something faster.

▶️ Gigabyte Aorus 12000 PCIe 5.0 SSD (1TB)

If you want to put together an external drive that's as fast as reasonably possible with a single M.2, you're probably not going to have a drive like that sitting unused in a drawer. So to see what is possible with an SSD that you might pay for, specifically to build an external drive with the fastest possible speeds, I grabbed the Aorus 12000 PCIe 5.0 SSD from Gigabyte. At the 1TB capacity I tested, its rated sequential read (11,700 MB/s) and write (9,500 MB/s) speeds aren't going to be a significant bottleneck, even if you opt for a Thunderbolt 5 enclosure.

Enclosures

▶️ Orico 2139U3-V1 Clear HDD/SSD enclosure (5 Gbps)

There are loads of affordable enclosures for 2.5-inch SATA hard drives and SSDs. You'll want one with UASP support for faster transfers if you are or plan to ever install an SSD, and most are plastic these days. I opted for this one both because I like its transparent shell (so I can see what drive is housed inside) and because it often goes on sale for less than $10. It's $10.99 at full price, but I paid around $8 for it. It snaps together without the need for any screws, which is convenient. But if you're carrying the drive around regularly, I could see the cover falling off now and then.

$8.99 at Amazon

▶️ Lemorele SD3L NVMe M.2 SSD enclosure (10 Gbps)

Affordable M.2 SSD enclosures are also easy to find online. I chose this one, because, again, it sells for around $10. Plus it has a built-in USB-C and USB-A port (one on each end), so you'll never need to fish for a cable, making it kind of like a large flash drive. It also lets you drop in a drive without a screwdriver or other tools. Its main downside is that it doesn't support older SATA M.2 drives, so it's only good for NVMe models.

$9.49 at Amazon

▶️ Asus ROG Strix Aiolos NMVe/SATA M.2 SSD enclosure (20 Gbps)

This premium metal enclosure is also tool-free, and helpfully supports both NVMe and SATA M.2 drives – the former at speeds up to 20 Gbps so long as you have a system with a USB 3.2 Gen 2 2x2 port. It also has some flashy RGB and includes a carrying strap that can make fishing it out of your bag a little easier.

$65.22 at Amazon

▶️ OWC Express 1M2 USB4 / 40Gbps enclosure

An enclosure meant for fast PCIe 4.0 or 5.0 SSDs, this premium model is effectively a large hunk of aluminum with fins for heat dissipation. And when your drive could be slinging data at up to 5,000 MB/s, you'll need that kind of cooling to keep speeds from dropping due to heat. It's far from the cheapest or the smallest, but if you're after some of the fastest external speeds possible from a single drive, you don't want to skimp on something smaller and cheaper. And I prefer this kind of larger, passive cooling over something with a tiny, whiny fan.

$78.99 at Amazon

Comparison of external SSDs and flash drives

To get a sense of how our DIY external drives compare to retail external storage, we will include results in our charts from a trio of current options. On the 10 Gbps front, there's the 1TB Kingston Dual Portable SSD (in a flash drive form factor with USB-C and USB-A ports) that was selling for $226 when this was written.

Stepping things up to 20 Gbps, we have the Crucial X10, a compact drive that we tested in 4TB trim. That capacity doesn't currently appear to be available, but the 2TB option was $304 at Amazon. The key consideration with this (and any 20 Gbps drive or enclosure) is that you'll need a 20 Gbps USB 3.2 Gen2 2x2 port to achieve top speeds. Even if your system has a technically faster USB4 or Thunderbolt port, there's a good chance your drive will be capped at 10 Gbps, because the two-lane 10 Gbps configuration in Gen 2 2x2 differs electrically from USB4 (which is itself built around Thunderbolt 3). Unless you have a specific need, it's smarter to opt for a USB4 or Thunderbolt drive or enclosure at this point.

Speaking of USB4, we also included our favorite drive of that flavor, Corsair's EX400U. It sports a magnetic back for attaching to some phones (and various other things with iron in them), and was selling for over $600 in the 2TB capacity we tested when this was written. Naturally, storage prices are in flux right now, so prices may be different.

Enclosure and drive testing

We tested our drives and enclosures on our USB4-equipped storage test PC, running a Ryzen 5 7600X CPU and Asus' ROG Crosshair X870E Hero motherboard.

▶️ Synthetic Testing: CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a free and easy-to-run storage benchmarking tool that SSD companies commonly use to assign product performance specifications. It gives us insight into how each device handles different file sizes. We run this test at its default settings. The sequential read and write test effectively amounts to a best-case scenario, which often closely aligns with the read /write specs that drive makers put in their specs and on the product box.

Unsurprisingly, the 2.5-inch hard drive in our Orico enclosure lands last here, putting up reads and writes a bit below 90 MB/s. That's OK for incremental backups and if you only occasionally need to carry around files. But the Samsung 850 Pro is 4-5 times faster in the same enclosure. Speeds below 500 MB/s might seem slow compared to modern SSDs, but it's perfectly serviceable for most tasks, and even running programs.

If you are regularly moving around terabytes of data, though, you'll want something faster. Intel's 660p passed 1,000 MB/s on this test in reads and writes. That's a little slower than our 10 Gbps flash drive, especially on reads, but close enough that you wouldn't notice the difference between the two without running benchmarks.

Dropping that same 660p SSD into the 20 Gbps Asus ROG enclosure, it got close to, but not quite over 2,000 MB/s. The Crucial X10 was about 100 MB faster, but again that's about a 5% difference. So if you have a decent PCIe 3.0 drive sitting around that you can drop into an enclosure, you can get performance that's very close to the much costlier competition.

Stepping up to our PCIe 5.0 Aorus SSD in the large aluminum OWC enclosure, reads and writes topped 3,700 MB/s. On writes, that actually beat Corsair's excellent EX400U, although the OWC-enclosed Aorus did lag about 10% behind on reads. And even if you're buying a bare 2TB PCIe 5 drive and the OWC enclosure, it will cost much less than the Corsair's current $600-plus for the same capacity. A 10% performance difference isn't bad, considering.

The CrystalDiskMark 4K read / write test is more of a measure of how well a drive handles a plethora of small files, the kind of workload you might encounter when running a program, an OS, or a game directly from the drive.

On this test, we see the flash drives are poor choices for running programs or an OS directly from the drive – the 850 Pro doesn't look great on writes, either, although it's a drive that I’ve used as a boot SSD in the past. But the Intel drive in the 10 and 20 Gbps enclosure did better here than the Crucial X10 drive.

On the fast 40 Gbps front, our Aorus test drive and OWC's enclosure did better on reads, but the Corsair EX400U was much faster with small file writes. In reality though, everything but the sub-10 Gbps drives and the Kingston Dual drive should handle small file performance well in most use cases.

▶️ Transfer Rates: DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test real-world file transfer performance with a custom 50 GB dataset. We copy 4,617 files (images, videos, and software ISO files) to a folder on the test drive (write). Then, after leaving the system idle for five minutes, we run the same test in reverse, moving the test folder to a different location on our PCIe 4.0 testing drive. This is a separate drive from our boot drive to avoid slowdowns due to the operating system background tasks that can be difficult to control.

In this real-world file transfer test, we see somewhat similar, though slower results as we saw with the synthetic sequential test above. Things look better for the Kingston flash drive here, but our 660p Intel drive in the 10 Gbps enclosure is still faster (it jas a thermal advantage being a much larger drive, physically). And the same drive in the 20 Gbps Asus enclosure again beats the 20 Gbps Crucial drive — and significantly when it comes to reads.

Looking at our USB4 OWC enclosure with the Aorus PCIe Gen 5 drive, it impressively blows away the Corsair EX400U. Both drives are fast, but our DIY USB4 drive is nearly 38% faster on reads and almost 70% faster on writes. I suspect some of the advantage comes from the fact that the OWC enclosure is about 5x larger and entirely made out of aluminum, while the Corsair drive has a metal top, but otherwise the shell is mostly plastic.

Final Thoughts

Older drives don’t lose much speed in the right enclosure

We could do a few more tests, but one thing is clear. Depending on what spare drive you have on hand and the enclosure you use, you don't necessarily have to lose any speed if you opt for building your own external storage enclosure rather than buying a retail external drive. Of course, if all you have is a hard drive, you're going to get external hard drive speeds, which are mostly good for basic backup and / or moving a few files between devices. If you have an old SATA SSD, dropping it into the same 2.5-inch enclosure should give you speeds 3-5 times faster than a portable hard drive, which is plenty fast enough to be useful for mainstream tasks. And if all you need to do is buy an enclosure for $8-$15 and drop in an old drive, that's easily the best value in external storage these days. If you have an old SATA M.2 SSD, getting an enclosure for it for less than $20 is a similarly excellent money-saving option.

If you're lucky enough to have an old PCIe 3 NVMe M.2 drive hanging around that you can drop into a 10 Gbps or 20 Gbps enclosure, you can get speeds nearly as fast and, in some cases faster, than competing drives that cost hundreds of dollars.

And if you truly need the fastest external storage speeds, even if you have to buy a 1TB or 2TB PCIe 4 or PCIe 5 drive and a sub-$100 enclosure, you can still achieve comparable or better speed than some of the fastest USB4 options, for hundreds less – although you'll still likely have to spend a few hundred dollars to get there.

In short, we may lament the fact that component price hikes have driven up the cost of components to the point that it's usually cheaper to buy one of the best prebuilt PCs these days than building one yourself. But it's still often cheaper to build your own external SSD than to buy one at today's inflated prices. And if you happen to have a suitable drive sitting around that you aren't using, one you can insert into an enclosure, you could easily save hundreds of dollars. Just remember to check the drive's health before using it to store any irreplaceable data. Because if your old drive had an active life as a boot drive in years past before you replaced it, it could be on its last legs, and no one wants to piece together an external drive only to have it fail after a few weeks or months of use.

How do you log in to your PC?

The application, which costs $5.99 / 5.99€ on Steam, leverages Windows' built-in LZX folder and file compression to transparently compress on-disk games — sometimes with massive savings. I've used NTFS compression for over two decades with no ill effects, and I occasionally enjoy improved game load times. That might sound counterintuitive, but with a compressed game, there's less I/O data to shuffle around. The only cost is a little bit of CPU overhead, which is almost guaranteed to be available as almost no games can fully utilize all the system's cores.

While it's easy to say that Game Compressor is just a UI for Windows' built-in functionality, the amount of convenience is impressive. You first set up a number of watched folders, of which presumably the ones for Steam games will be filled in. After Compressor scans which games are available, it will actually preview what kind of space savings you can expect, to save you the hassle of going through a long-running task for no benefit.

Once you select your games to compress, the tasks go into a queue, and can be paused or cancelled at any point — a convenience the Windows command line doesn't offer. You can also selectively decompress games later, and there's a log of operations just in case something goes awry. As you might expect, Compressor tries to detect which files (such as videos) aren't worth squeezing further.

One of Game Compressor's neat tricks is that it can monitor games that have received patches to reapply compression. Normally if, say, a 50GB game file gets a patch, it could be decompressed post-patch — this way, the space savings are kept in place.

Just about the only "con" to this notion is that it's not advisable to use compression on DirectStorage-enabled games, because that API relies on IO-to-VRAM operations and adding a CPU decompression step could introduce stuttering. Those titles are few and far between, though.

Some of you may be scoffing at this article and pointing out that ever since Windows 10, the "compress" command supports LZX compression. But paying just $5.99/5.99€ for Game Compressor will save your time, add visibility into compression status, and automatically recompress patches. If you'd rather strike a middle ground, there's also the open-source CompressGUI — which is also pretty nifty, though not quite as feature-filled.

AGI AI828 Specifications

The AGI AI828 covers every capacity you could ever hope for: 512GB, 1TB, 2TB, 4TB, and 8TB. Unfortunately, only 1TB and 2TB units were available at the time of review. These were going for $239.99 and $449.99 which is on the expensive side in both cases. Right now, however, this drive comes in and out of stock and can be priced competitively. It’ll probably be difficult to find the 8TB SKU, though.

The drive can hit up to 7,400 / 6,700 MB/s for sequential reads and writes, with no specification for IOPS given. IOPS tend not to be important for this segment – that is, a budget drive – and AGI is likely mixing multiple controllers and flash types based on availability and cost, which makes it less straightforward to try and nail down performance numbers. However, we would expect it to match the Seagate FireCuda X1070, with more than enough performance for this class.

AGI’s warranty covers the drive for the standard five years, with a bit extra on the writes front: the drive can absorb up to 750TB of data writes per TB capacity. The industry standard is 600TB. You probably won’t need this amount of writes, but it can be reassuring nonetheless, especially when dealing with less well-known brands and drives. It also suggests, but doesn’t guarantee, that TLC flash is used on the drive.

AGI AI828 Software and Accessories

AGI does not offer any substantial, direct software support. We recommend using CrystalDiskInfo for monitoring the health status of your drive. For basic benchmarking, CrystalDiskMark is a good choice. If you’re looking to backup data we suggest MultiDrive for windows and either Clonezilla or Rescuezilla for bootable options.

AGI AI828: A Closer Look

This is a single-sided drive that comes with an optional heatsink. This makes it great for the PS5 and many desktops, with the heatsink, and for laptops without. As this is intended to be a budget drive, that’s a bonus, as often there is no heatsink option. It’s best not to have to worry about a drive overheating in any circumstance, and the heatsink is sufficient for the job, but may not always be necessary.

The drive is pretty barebones with a DRAM-less SSD controller, two NAND flash packages, and a power management IC. As there is room for four flash packages, this drive could very well be single-sided at even high capacities. Not having a DRAM package helps. The PMIC is an Active-Semi or Qorvo part similar to what we’ve seen on some WD drives in the past. Power management can be handled this way, with discrete components, or as an embedded feature of the controller, each method with its own trade-offs.

The use of the PMIC makes sense when we look at the alignment of the drive: the controller is in the center. Leaving enough space for four NAND flash packages is ideal for a budget drive, and having the controller in the middle can be beneficial in some ways. We remember the WD Black having this configuration to help with cooling and to make even-length traces to the flash packages. Cooling is also aided as the heatsink can spread heat out to either side, with flash usually running cooler than the controller. This gives the center, hottest area of the drive a lot of heatsink surface area to dissipate heat before thermal equilibrium is attained.

As for traces, SSD controllers generally have to contend with timing issues to make sure all the flash operates in tandem, and even small differences can impact latency and, ultimately, drive efficiency. While we don’t think you should buy a drive based on this arrangement, it shows attention to detail on AGI’s part, even though that’s probably giving them too much credit with this being focused on the lowest possible BOM cost.

The flash is not directly identifiable through decoding or through utility use. We suspect the flash can vary on this drive, anyway, especially at different capacities. Examples we’ve seen have used TLC flash, and that matches the endurance rating of the drive. On the other hand, the Seagate X1070 with the same controller and TLC levels of TBW is using Micron’s 232-Layer QLC flash. Looking at the performance characteristics of the drive as a whole, we’re limited by the controller and relatively small capacities on hand. Usually, you will have TLC flash with smaller SKUs as it offers higher baseline performance, as historically, QLC flash dies have been denser, which means fewer dies. However, in this era of 1Tb dies for both TLC and QLC, this is less of a certainty.

The flash that can be paired with this drive is somewhat limited to newer generations due to the required I/O speed, but there is still enough variance – especially if you take flash quality into consideration – that nothing is guaranteed. This isn’t particular to this drive, especially in the current market where flash supply is limited. Still, we can be reasonably certain that it won’t be using “bad” flash, which puts it a cut above lower-end drives that are once again becoming common.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs

MORE: Best SSD for the Steam Deck

Comparison Products

We’re pulling no punches. The AGI AI828 is going up against drives that can match or outclass it and are generally of a higher capacity. This puts the drive at a disadvantage, but we don’t really think it belongs in a lower class, either. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

The drive is up against some of the best DRAM-less PCIe 4.0 drives we’ve tested, with both TLC and QLC flash. These include the Crucial P310 with QLC, the Biwin Black Opal NV7400, the Addlink A93, the Inland TN470, and the WD Black SN7100 with TLC. The last one is using exceptional BiCS8 TLC, which has very low latency and very high power efficiency.

Drives that may be considered a step or half step lower include the Klevv CRAS C925 with different TLC flash, the Biwin NV7200 with QLC, and the Kingson NV3 with variable hardware. The AI828 is more of a match with these drives, but they are all tested at 2TB versus the 512GB and 1TB SKUs of the AI828. With fewer flash dies, the AI828 is at a disadvantage in some sequential workloads.

Trace Testing — 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities, including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams. Future gaming benchmarks will be DirectStorage-inclusive, and an evaluation for future-proofing is included where applicable.

The AI828 is at the bottom of the chart, but it's not as bad as it could be. Poor performance at 512GB is to be expected – remember that most of the comparison drives are 2TB or larger. Such a low capacity for the AI828 does not allow for optimal use of newer, denser flash. Even at 1TB, things are stretched a bit.

We recorded 53µs for latency in 3DMark for the 2TB Seagate X1070, which means the AI828 1TB’s result here is actually not that bad. 50µs is far from a good score, but it's good enough for gaming. 512GB probably isn’t enough space for a gaming drive, but the AI828’s other capacities would work. This is not our first choice for a gaming drive unless it’s the least expensive, but your experience in general will not suffer from using it.

Trace Testing — PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is an industry standard trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices. The results are particularly useful when analyzing drives for their use as primary/boot storage devices and in work environments.

Things are significantly better in PCMark 10, which is not entirely surprising, as the flash compatible with this controller is likely to be newer. We want to point out that this doesn’t necessarily help us discern the flash in use. QLC flash, for its part, can have surprisingly good read performance because, for one, you can end up reading hot data from the pSLC cache, and two, QLC tends to be optimized for 4KB reads to compensate for the flash’s slower native speed. So the flash type is not always made clear through synthetic tests.

We consider ~45µs to be an ideal target for drive responsiveness, and both capacities of the drive hit this. We should add that 44µs is the same score we got on the 2TB X1070, so we see nothing unusual here. As always, a drive with BiCS8 TLC or QLC flash – that would be the Black SN7100 here – is optimal for the very lowest 4KB read latency. However, the AI828 is quite fast enough to serve as a primary drive or as the only drive in your system.

Console Testing — PlayStation 5 Transfers

The PlayStation 5 is capable of taking one additional PCIe 4.0 or faster SSD for extra game storage. While any 4.0 drive will technically work, Sony recommends drives that can deliver at least 5,500 MB/s of sequential read bandwidth for optimal performance. Based on our extensive testing, PCIe 5.0 SSDs don’t bring much to the table and generally shouldn’t be used in the PS5, especially as they may require additional cooling. Check our Best PS5 SSDs article for more information.

Our testing utilizes the PS5’s internal storage test and manual read/write tests with over 192GB of data, both from and to the internal storage. Throttling is prevented where possible to see how each drive operates under ideal conditions. While game load times should not deviate much from drive to drive, our results can indicate which drives may be more responsive in long-term use.

Our main PS5 tests show no problems with the PS5. These would be the read test and the game transfer test from the M.2 SSD. The problem comes with the write test – game transfer test to M.2 SSD – where clearly the 512GB drive is not writing or not writing fully to the pSLC cache. Generally, this is not a problem in our testing because pSLC caches are large enough to handle even larger writes, plus drives have sufficient idle time to free up the cache. However, the cache size varies with capacity, so it is smaller at 512GB, and for drives using denser flash, especially that is going to be an issue.

This is not likely to be a real-world problem as a drive, and especially a PS5 drive, probably won’t be taxed this hard, and even if it is, the average speed here is still largely sufficient. This just demonstrates why smaller drives have gone away as the move to denser flash makes performance less consistent – even a 512GB drive lacks sufficient dies for optimal parallelization. In fact, it’s just one die per channel with 1Tb dies. On the other hand, SSD prices scale with flash, especially with the price hikes, which means lower-capacity drives are making a return. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t work well at this performance level. So you are left in a situation where you either have to make do with a much slower drive or spend enough money to get 1TB or more to make a faster drive worthwhile.

Transfer Rates — DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom 50GB dataset. We write 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to the test drive, then make a copy of that data to a new folder, and follow up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file. This is a real-world type workload that fits into the cache of most drives.

The AGI reads data fine, but struggles a bit during write workloads. This impacts copy performance, as writes are more limited than reads. Write performance can be impacted by the size of the pSLC cache, but if that is not too small, then it is impacted by the amount of parallelization the drive achieves. Smaller drives have fewer flash dies, and therefore less parallelization, and as a result write more slowly, which in turn reduces copy performance. This means the 512GB AI828 struggles to match the larger drives in this list, although, actually, its performance is not terrible for a drive of its size.

When you double the number of dies, you can reach up to double the speed, and with half the dies, you might drop to half the speed. The 512GB SKU here manages to maintain 1.1 GB/s, which, for this type of workload, isn’t world-endingly bad.

The 1TB SKU also struggles against the larger drives. The only other 1TB drive, the TN470, is near the bottom of the list. The budget NV3 is about as fast as the 1TB AI828. So, we can be somewhat happy with the AI828’s result. We’d figure that with at least a slower controller, the AI828 is going to fall behind the TN470. That doesn’t change the fact that this drive should be at a discount as a result. We are merely saying that the performance here is not unexpected, although things should be better at 2TB.

Synthetic Testing — ATTO / CrystalDiskMark

ATTO and CrystalDiskMark (CDM) are free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tools that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how each device handles different file sizes and at different queue depths for both sequential and random workloads.

Fundamentally, we don’t see any issues with the AI828 in ATTO. The dips for 1KiB and 2KiB writes, for example, have little to no impact on real-world performance. This is not only because you mostly feel the reads with consumer workloads, but because writes are preferably combined into full 16KiB pages, and typically your logical page will be at 4KiB. Likewise, the dip for larger writes with the smaller 512GB SKU is expected because you lack sufficient dies for parallelization. This could be an issue if you intend to write or store larger files to the drive, but then a 512GB drive is probably not ideal. One exception might be if it’s used externally, in which case picking a heatsinked drive is odd, but even if that weren’t the case, the typical NVMe to USB enclosure is rated for a meager 10Gbps, anyway.

Read performance is more problematic. The 512GB SKU still has issues with larger I/O for the reason mentioned, although this begins at a smaller size. You will likely have files or blocks at 128 KiB or larger, and your performance may suffer from going with a smaller drive. The 1TB drive is better off except at 2MiB, where we have a dip. We’ve in the past hypothesized this could be a flash alignment issue, which would suggest this drive uses six-plane flash. With the 2,400 MT/s requirement here, that would mean 232-Layer YMTC or Micron TLC.

In CDM, we can move right over to sequential reads and writes to get a fuller idea of performance. For example, both capacities are fine with sufficient queue depth, but at queue depth 1 – which is a realistic workload for file transfers – the smaller 512GB model struggles. It’s still within striking distance of the 2TB NV3, which means it’s actually pretty good for a drive of its size. The 1TB drive has no issues at all. We see something similar with sequential writes, except that the 512GB SKU sees no performance improvement with queue depth. It simply doesn’t have enough flash to eke out more than ~4.1 GB/s.

With random 4KB operations, though, the amount of dies won’t matter at QD1. This is because you’re only hitting one die at any given time. As a result, both capacities have the same latency for both reads and writes. This isn’t always the case, as sometimes a large-capacity model might have more overhead, or you may see different hardware combinations at some capacities. However, in this case, both drives are dead even. While the 4KB write latency is fine, the 4KB read latency is not great. However, this is actually better than the X1070’s 55.44µs we got at 2TB and is better than any of the 5 GB/s budget, PCIe 4.0 SSDs we’ve tested.

Again, we consider ~45µs to be excellent, with ~50µs being a second dividing point. The AI828 is close enough to put it above last-generation drives, but it’s slow enough to be relegated to game duty. The exception would be if you really only need 512GB and have to save money any way you can. In that case, this drive is passable, as you might otherwise be looking at older PCIe 4.0 or even PCIe 3.0 drives. This one still feels more snappy than those. At higher capacities and on a tight budget, if you can find the drive at the right price, it could also work, but would not be our first choice.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of pseudo-SLC (single-bit) programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC (three-bit) or QLC (four-bit) flash. Performance can suffer even more if the drive is forced to fold, the process of migrating data out of the cache in order to free up space for further incoming data.

We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds. This process shows the performance of the drive in various states including the steady state write performance.

The AI828’s first, fastest mode in pSLC writes at ~6.4 GB/s for 51 seconds with a 328GB cache on the 1TB SKU. Given that this is almost one-third of the full capacity, we’re dealing with TLC flash. This is a large cache, which means the drive will struggle once it’s depleted. That is the case with the 1TB drive, averaging below 200 MB/s in the post-cache mode. This is very slow, HDD slow, and even QLC flash slow, but that is not completely unexpected. A modern 1TB drive does not have enough dies to hit a higher speed, and if the cache is very large, as is the case here, the trade-off is slow performance outside the cache. The good news is that the large cache hides this very well in 99% of real-world cases.

The 512GB SKU has even fewer dies, too few to really manage sustained writes very well. It’s better in a read-heavy role, but it's too small for large media. In many cases, you’re better off with an HDD in that case. If, however, you need a smaller option for a primary drive in, say, an older machine, this could do the trick. Older machines benefit greatly from going to an SSD – especially an NVMe SSD – and will usually be read-heavy or even read-exclusive. If you are intending to get a small, 512GB caching drive, this is certainly not the way to go.

We must admit that, in our testing, the smaller SKUs’ cache size is tiny. This is highly unusual and points to AGI using a static cache in that circumstance. Such a small cache means the drive can rebound better, even with half the interleaving or parallelization of the 1TB drive, so it scores higher in steady state write performance testing. The use of static pSLC makes sense here to improve post-cache performance and potentially also to improve flash endurance. Static pSLC can lead to lower effective write amplification if you’re not doing big writes, and it is still ample enough to cache potentially damaging random writes. So, it’s possible AGI is making the best of a bad situation.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade, as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre stock storage in terms of capacity and performance. Desktops are often more performance-oriented with less support for power-saving features, so we show the worst-case scenario for idle.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt, or efficiency, is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

For temperature recording, we currently poll the drive’s primary composite sensor during testing with a ~22°C ambient. Our testing is rigorous enough to heat the drive to a realistic ceiling temperature, but real-world temperatures will vary due to the environment and workload factors.

Power efficiency is rough on the AI828. We also saw this with the X1070, so it must be chalked up to the controller. We suspect it’s because our workload is hard on the drive, and this controller is not as strong. You will likely not have issues with everyday, read-heavy activities. Also, our idle testing is for desktops, and a laptop with proper power-saving states will not be in as bad a shape. That’s all to say that we don’t think these results preclude the drive’s use in a laptop because, frankly, this drive isn’t fast enough to be an issue in most cases. We might recommend a different drive like the Black SN7100 if you're aiming at power efficiency or want/need a cool-running option, though.

Speaking of the heatsink, it kept both drives at a maximum temperature of 54°C. This means plenty of headroom, and the drive should be suitable for any machine that can take it. It won’t overheat. That’s a bonus for PS5 usage because the thermal envelope can be tighter.

Test Bench and Testing Notes

We use an Alder Lake platform with most background applications, such as indexing, Windows updates, and anti-virus, disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

AGI AI828 Bottom Line

The AGI AI828, like the Seagate X1070, is not a great drive, but it’s also not one to dismiss. Memory prices have risen greatly within the last year, which impacts SSD prices through NAND flash costs and, sometimes, DRAM costs as well. An SSD’s cost is derived almost entirely from the flash, in fact. We’ve seen budget drives return in force, and we’re seeing low-end PCIe 4.0 and even PCIe 3.0 drives coming back.

This is also a reality for volatile memory markets – DDR4 is coming back, there was a threat that included even DDR3, and, believe it or not, DDR2 prices are increasing as well – with no end in sight. To put it simply, the AI828 would not have gotten far a year or so ago, but in the current climate, it’s not too bad. We feel that Seagate did a better job of presenting and supporting its drive, and, simultaneously, we feel like AGI has made improvements in its SSDs, so our score falls somewhere in between.

Let’s start with the good. AGI offers a wide capacity range for the drive, which is good for people who need 512GB or, theoretically, 8TB at a lower price. We think 8TB luxury buyers might opt for a faster drive like the Sandisk Optimus GX Pro 8100, WD Black SN8100, or Samsung 9100 Pro, or frankly, the less-expensive WD Black SN850X. The lower-end 512GB version of the AI828 perhaps makes more sense, but that’s one area where older technology might make sense. Newer flash is more dense and so really prefers higher capacities. On the other hand, the AI828 is more responsive than older drives, which is probably more important from a user experience perspective. So, despite some of the bad results, the fact that it’s using newer hardware is a bonus.

The drive also comes with a heatsink and runs pretty cool. It should be great for a normal desktop or in a PS5. It’s not very efficient, but that generally doesn’t matter in these two scenarios. Certainly not in most desktops, although there are exceptions. If you do have proper power-saving, it should be fine, though. The drive is designed to pull 5.5W or less at peak, which frankly isn’t concerning. So, we’re willing to give it a pass on the power side, although there are better options for laptops. One thing we have to mention again is that smaller SKUs don’t perform as well, and, since we’re testing at 512GB and 1TB today, the AI828 looks worse than it is. Most of the competition is sitting at 2TB because that was the sweet spot back when prices were sane.

It’s still hard to love the performance on this one. Like the X1070, which uses QLC flash, things are inconsistent across our benchmarks with relatively poor results on the whole. We opted not to put this one up against older or slower drives, even though some of those are making a comeback. The fact is, this drive will beat PCIe 3.0 and many lower-end PCIe 4.0 options and really shouldn’t be compared to those. You’re probably better off going with its newer tech unless budget is your only priority. Against other PCIe 4.0 drives in this range, however, even adjusting for capacity, it’s going to struggle. This drive has to be priced inexpensively to make sense, and if it is, we can recommend it for lighter duty.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs

MORE: Best SSD for the Steam Deck

Alex Chou is an interesting person to talk to. Before joining Silicon Motion, he spent some 18 years at Broadcom, where he led the wireless connectivity business, also initiating the Enterprise Switch, PoE, and 10-G Base-T PHY business with a product marketing focus. Before that, he worked at UMC Capital, ARK Logic, and Western Digital, where he developed graphics accelerators. He deeply understands the industry and uses his knowledge to expand SMI's business into the data center segment. As he is the first general manager of Silicon Motion's enterprise business unit, it is safe to say that all the success that the company has faced in the new segment so far can be attributed to Alex Chou.

Anton Shilov: Can you introduce yourself to our readers, please?

Alex Chou: My name is Alex Chou. As you know, Silicon Motion has two business units: the client business and the enterprise business. I am responsible for the enterprise business unit. My responsibilities include defining new products, leading development teams, bringing products to market, and working with OEMs, cloud service providers, and other customers to promote our technology and differentiation.

Getting into enterprise SSD business

Historically, Silicon Motion was focused on NAND controllers for client applications as well as embedded graphics processors and USB display controllers. Following the restructuring in the early 2020s, SMI formed a separate business unit to offer enterprise-grade SSD controllers, though it took the company some time to land its first tangible orders. By now, the company has yet to grab a 10% market share, yet it has clients among cloud service providers (CSPs), hyperscalers, and OEMs, significant achievements given Silicon Motion is a relatively new market entrant.

Anton Shilov: It has been a challenging year for much of the industry, particularly for memory-related segments. Yet Silicon Motion reported first-quarter revenue of $342.1 million, up 23% sequentially and 105% year-over-year, while SSD controller sales increased by roughly 40% to 45%. Can you explain what drove those results, particularly on the enterprise side?

Alex Chou: It depends on how you define a difficult year. If you look at the results, I would argue that this has actually been one of the best years the storage industry has seen.

Silicon Motion is fundamentally a controller company. We build controllers that work with NAND from all major memory suppliers. On the enterprise side, we are still relatively new compared to some established competitors, but we have secured a number of new projects and have started delivering products to customers.

We have invested heavily in PCIe Gen5, Gen6, and Gen7 enterprise SSD controllers. Today, our Gen5 products are beginning to ramp into volume production with multiple OEM customers. That ramp is contributing to our growth.

Anton Shilov: Do you have an estimate of your market share in the enterprise SSD controller market?

Alex Chou: That depends on how you define the market. Some people measure market share by unit shipments, while others look at exabytes shipped because SSD capacities continue to increase.

We have only recently begun shipping enterprise products in volume. If you listened to our CEO's comments during the earnings call, we expect enterprise shipments to increase significantly in the second half of the year. We are still in the early stages of our ramp, but we are making good progress with several key customers.

If you look beyond the initial ramp and think about the full-year run rate, I believe we can build from there and target a much stronger position next year. Longer term, our goal is to exceed 10% market share in the $4B enterprise SSD controller market, but this year is really about getting through qualification, customer testing, and the early production ramp in 2 half of this year.

Our goal is to continue expanding our share. We are only beginning the ramp [of our data center-grade SSD controllers] today, but we expect our share to increase meaningfully as deployments grow.

Anton Shilov: Who are your primary customers? SSD manufacturers, OEMs, or hyperscalers?

Alex Chou: We primarily work with OEMs. We sell controllers and firmware solutions to SSD manufacturers and OEMs. Some customers use our complete controller-and-firmware solution, while others develop their own firmware.

At the same time, we work directly with hyperscalers and cloud service providers to explain the advantages of our products and ensure they understand our technology roadmap.

Enterprise SSDs are used in several different segments. Traditional compute servers represent one market. High-density storage systems used for AI and large-scale data storage are another. We also see growing interest in storage systems located near GPUs, where latency becomes particularly important.

One area where we differentiate ourselves is quality of service. We have developed a patented traffic-shaping engine that helps maintain latency consistency under heavy workloads and multi-tenant environments. That capability is particularly attractive to hyperscalers and cloud service providers.

Anton Shilov: Do you see the enterprise SSD market splitting into different categories depending on workload?

Alex Chou: Yes. We see at least three major categories emerging.

The first is traditional compute-attached enterprise SSDs, which are used in conventional servers and storage systems. The second is very high-density storage for AI and hyperscale environments, where capacity, throughput, and cost efficiency are critical. The third is storage located closer to GPUs, where the requirements are very different because latency and quality of service become much more important.

That third category is particularly interesting. In AI systems, the storage subsystem is no longer just feeding CPUs. It increasingly has to support GPUs directly, especially for workloads involving very large datasets or KV-cache offload. In those environments, low latency and predictable performance matter much more than they did in traditional storage deployments.

Storage Next, PCIe 6 and PCIe 7 SSD controllers

Anton Shilov: Is that where Nvidia's Storage Next vision comes in?

Alex Chou: Yes. Storage Next is one of the major industry developments we are watching very closely.

The idea is that storage will move closer to the GPU and become part of a much more tightly integrated data path. In some cases, the goal is not just to maximize bandwidth, but to ensure that latency remains low and deterministic enough for AI workloads that continuously move data between accelerators, system memory, and storage.

This is one of the reasons we have invested heavily in QoS and latency control. Through our traffic-shaping technology, we can manage access patterns and reduce latency spikes when multiple tenants or applications share the same SSD. In a cloud environment or an AI storage environment, that becomes very important.

Anton Shilov: So, the challenge is no longer just raw throughput, but how predictably the SSD behaves under load?

Alex Chou: Exactly. Bandwidth still matters, but in many enterprise and AI environments, consistency matters just as much.

When multiple applications, multiple VMs, or multiple users share the same storage device, you need to control latency and quality of service carefully. If performance becomes unpredictable, it can affect the entire system.

That is why we have focused on a traffic-shaping mechanism that can prioritize and isolate workloads more effectively. We believe that kind of latency management will become a key differentiator for enterprise SSD controllers going forward.

Anton Shilov: How does that affect your roadmap for future controllers?

Alex Chou: It affects it quite a bit. Our upcoming controllers are not designed only for higher sequential bandwidth. They are also being designed for newer enterprise requirements such as OCP 2.7 compliance, stronger security, better QoS, and support for more advanced deployment models.

Anton Shilov: Are you already sampling your PCIe 6.x controllers?

Alex Chou: On the Gen6 side, our controller design is essentially complete; we have an FPGA [emulating algorithms], and we expect tape-out very soon. If everything goes according to plan, we expect first silicon back in the second half of 2026.

That controller not only supports a faster host interface, but also supports new features and requirements we see from AI infrastructure and hyperscale customers.

Anton Shilov: So, the PCIe Gen6 SSD platform is not just a speed upgrade for Silicon Motion?

Alex Chou: Correct. PCIe Gen6 obviously provides more bandwidth, but for us the more important part is that the surrounding system requirements are changing as well. Security, QoS, cloud deployment models, and AI storage architectures are all evolving at the same time, so the controller has to evolve with them.

Anton Shilov: Let us talk about the roadmap in more detail. You said the PCIe Gen6 enterprise controller is close to tape-out. What comes after that?

Alex Chou: PCIe Gen6 is the next major step for us, and the design is essentially complete. We expect to tape out very soon and, assuming [everything works correctly], receive first silicon in the second half of 2026.

But internally, we are already working beyond PCIe Gen6. PCIe Gen7 development has already started. In fact, the overall architecture for our Gen7 enterprise controller platform has already been defined. That means we are not just planning the interface speed increase; we are also defining the surrounding architecture, feature set, and deployment model that will be needed in the next generation of enterprise and AI systems.

Anton Shilov: So, SMI's PCIe Gen7 controller is no longer just a concept?

Alex Chou: Correct. PCIe Gen7 is already in active development. The current plan is to have internal samples in 2H, 2027 and to move toward production in that same general timeframe.

As controller development becomes more complex, you cannot wait until the market is ready before starting work. By the time a new interface reaches the market, the controller has to be nearly finished already. So, we are always working at least one generation ahead, and in practice often two.

Anton Shilov: As NAND becomes denser and more complex, error correction also becomes a bigger issue?

Alex Chou: That is a major part of controller development now. As NAND moves to higher layer counts and denser cell structures, the controller has to do more work to maintain reliability, endurance, and data integrity.

One of the areas we are working on is stronger LDPC. On the enterprise side, LDPC with a 16KB collaborative codeword is already used with SM8466, SMI’s first Enterprise PCIe Gen6 controller, and it is part of the roadmap because future NAND will require more robust error correction. That is one of the reasons enterprise controller architecture keeps becoming more complex generation after generation. You are no longer designing only for interface speed. You are also designing for signal integrity, power, security, QoS, error correction, and support for future NAND generations that may behave very differently from today's devices.

Anton Shilov: Will LDPC with 16KB collaborative codeword be enough for next generations of 3D NAND with hundreds of active layers?

Alex Chou: A 16KB LDPC engine already consumes a significant amount of silicon area and is quite sophisticated. For PCIe Gen7 controllers, our goal is to optimize and improve that engine from multiple angles rather than simply keep expanding it. We still need our architects to make the final call on exactly which improvements we will implement, but at this point we are more likely to refine and enhance the current design than to move beyond 16KB LDPC.

SSD controller development strategy

Anton Shilov: Speaking more generally, SSD controllers are increasingly becoming full platforms rather than just controllers, because integration matters so much. Do you expect close collaboration between controller vendors, NAND makers, and SSD manufacturers to become even more important as the industry moves to next-generation storage devices?

Alex Chou: I may not fully understand your question, but let me explain how we approach it.

At Silicon Motion, we design the controller architecture and build the firmware stack with a rich feature set. For example, we have developed our own [PerformaShape] traffic-shaping engine to improve QoS. That is the foundation of the platform.

From there, we have to look at how NAND evolves from one generation to the next. As we move from PCIe Gen5 to Gen6 to Gen7, controller performance has to scale accordingly. If you want to saturate the PCIe interface and deliver, say, 7 million IOPS today and much higher performance in future generations, you have to understand exactly where NAND is going.

That is why my team meets regularly with Samsung, SK hynix, SanDisk, Kioxia, and all other NAND vendors to review their roadmaps. Silicon Motion is part of that ecosystem, and because of those relationships, we usually get early visibility into future NAND generations and often receive early samples so we can bring up our controllers and make sure they take advantage of new NAND as quickly as possible.

That matters even more in the current supply environment. Because we work with all NAND suppliers, hyperscalers and cloud service providers can come to us and ask for a solution that is not tied to a single memory vendor. A company like Samsung naturally builds around its own NAND, but we have the advantage of being able to support multiple suppliers. That gives customers much more flexibility when supply is tight.

So yes, we have a core controller architecture and a common firmware base, but one of our strengths is that we work very closely with NAND vendors on future generations and make sure our platform can take advantage of faster interfaces, higher die counts, and new NAND capabilities as they arrive.

XL-Flash and storage-class memory

Anton Shilov: What about storage-class memory? Are there any developments there? As far as I can tell, adoption of Kioxia’s XL-Flash has been limited.

Alex Chou: That’s a very good question. I am actually going to visit Kioxia, so I should have a better sense of their plans after that. At the moment, Kioxia is essentially the only company still pushing XL-Flash, so they are trying to build something around it.

The challenge is that it is not just about the technology itself. You need a broader ecosystem to support it, and that is what makes the situation more complicated. We are watching it closely and trying to understand whether it is something we really need to support, but at this point I do not have a definitive answer. We are still evaluating it.

Anton Shilov: Have you heard anything similar from other suppliers? Quite a few memory makers used to talk about storage-class memory or similar technologies in their roadmaps.

Alex Chou: Based on what we know, not really. If you look back at last year’s Flash Memory Summit, several NAND makers were talking about higher-performance flash and storage-class-memory-like concepts. That created a lot of buzz at the time, and we looked into it, just as we have looked into XL-Flash, to understand whether there was a real ecosystem forming around it.

But there is much less discussion around those ideas now. One reason is simple: memory vendors do not really need those products at the moment because they can sell conventional NAND at very high prices and still generate strong returns.

Anton Shilov: In other words, they can just sell QLC 3D NAND and be perfectly happy.

Alex Chou: Exactly.

Anton Shilov: On the other hand, Nvidia wants storage devices capable of 100 million IOPS.

Alex Chou: Yes, that is where Storage Next comes in.

Anton Shilov: Has anyone actually come close to 100 million IOPS yet?

Alex Chou: I would say Storage Next gains many attentions. XL-Flash could be one possible approach to address that kind of requirement. But these are other options aiming to address high-performance and low latency needs.

What matters more is that Storage Next has a much stronger ecosystem behind it because Nvidia is actively driving it. There are regular meetings around it, and our architect has been involved from the very beginning. We have been tracking it closely and trying to make sure our future controller architecture can support it if and when the market materializes.

At the same time, Nvidia itself appears to recognize that 100 million or 200 million IOPS may not be realistic in the near term. The target seems to be moving closer to something like 50 million IOPS, which is more achievable. So yes, we are watching it very closely, and we are building in the flexibility to support it if needed.

In storage, having a technically interesting idea is not enough. The industry has to agree on how to use it, how to deploy it, and how to integrate it into systems. Storage Next currently has more momentum because the ecosystem behind it is much stronger.

Anton Shilov: So, you see Storage Next as more commercially relevant than storage-class memory, at least for now?

Alex Chou: Yes. At least today, Storage Next looks more immediate and more actionable.

We are already participating in those discussions and thinking about what future controller requirements will look like in that environment. That includes not only bandwidth, but also latency behavior, QoS, and the role storage plays in systems where GPUs are increasingly central to the data path.

That does not mean other technologies disappear. It just means that if you ask where the market is actively moving right now, the answer is much more on the Storage Next side than on the storage-class-memory side.

Anton Shilov: So, in practice, you make sure your controller works with all relevant NAND types, while the memory vendor mainly has to make sure the media itself complies with the interface requirements?

Alex Chou: When we design a controller, we already cooperate closely with NAND suppliers. Our architects look at all of the major vendors to understand whether there are any special requirements we need to account for. Then we handle another layer of optimization in firmware to make sure we can support all of those devices properly.

If you look deeper into enterprise NAND, most products also use interface chips internally to connect large numbers of dies. Those interface chips can differ from vendor to vendor, so we need to understand their configurations as well, including die counts, planes, and other architectural details. The goal is to make sure the controller and firmware together can support all of those different combinations.

So far, our architecture has been able to support NAND from SanDisk, Kioxia, SK hynix, and the other major vendors. Even if the interface chips differ, we try to keep the overall hardware design as flexible as possible.

There are really three elements involved: the controller itself, the hardware board, and the firmware. Ideally, you do not want a completely different board design for every NAND supplier. Fortunately, the industry has standardized a lot of the pinouts and module interfaces, which makes it possible to use a common hardware design and swap in NAND from different suppliers with the right firmware support.

We spend a lot of time making sure we can support all of those different combinations.

Anton Shilov: So you are effectively building controllers with a fairly clear view of what future NAND generations will look like.

Alex Chou: Exactly. We want to make sure that when the next generation of NAND arrives, we are ready to support it as broadly as possible.

The drive has its ups and downs, but in this challenging market, and for a budget drive, that’s to be expected. Samsung is still well-regarded for its name and reliable hardware, even as there has been a massive push towards enterprise, away from the consumer side. Samsung has, in fact, given some ground in the SSD space for many years, even as it produces some of the most common OEM drives. So while this is not a Crucial situation, it’s best to jump into this review with the right expectations about what this drive is and isn’t. It’s a budget drive with full Gen 4 throughput that hits the most common capacities with sufficient performance and power efficiency. It’s not meant to be a throne-taker.

It’s also thankfully not another 990 EVO situation – that drive felt somewhat underwhelming by the time it arrived, even when pitted against budget drives – but the 990 is also not a QLC rallying call. It’s a competent drive that mostly hits the right notes, as intended. Given how scarce Samsung QLC drives have been, and how much demand its QLC flash surely has elsewhere, it can feel like Samsung is throwing consumers a bone, though it would be crass to put it that way. We instead think this is smart positioning by the company as it knows the future is with QLC and the technologies used in this flash (even if first shown two years ago at ISSCC) point firmly at an ambitious future. The 990 just lets you own a piece of that.

Samsung 990 Specifications

The Samsung 990 is only available at 1TB and 2TB capacities, with MSRPs of $269.99 and $529.99, respectively. These prices are very high, as you can get competing drives like the Crucial P310 for substantially less, and in fact even the TLC-based WD Black SN7100 costs less. But Samsung has historically launched with MSRPs well above actual market price. You should be able to get the drive at significantly lower prices after launch, but the “Samsung tax” may still apply. We’ll get into what that means throughout the review.

This limited capacity range is unfortunate, but enables Samsung to pack the flash into just one package, which reduces PCB space so that any OEM variant can be used in multiple M.2 form factors and will always be single-sided. Less than 1TB is also not enough for these denser dies if you want good performance. That leaves 1TB and 2TB as the target capacities, which also makes sense in a market where 4TB+ is getting exceptionally expensive. We’ll eventually see 2Tb dies to make single-package 4TB a reality, but that’s further along in Samsung’s roadmap.

The drive can reach 7,250 / 6,450 MB/s for sequential reads and writes and up to 850K / 1,200K random read and write IOPS. Peak performance is attained at 2TB, where you have the optimal amount of interleaving or parallelization: Sixteen 1Tb dies means four dies for each of four flash channels, the typical ceiling. However, as these are four-plane dies, you still get 32-way interleaving at 1TB with eight dies, which is enough to get good performance with just two dies per channel. Less than that is much less ideal, and more than that introduces additional overhead, especially for budget controllers. The math changes with six-plane and 2TB dies, but for this flash, 1TB is the reasonable minimum, with 2TB offering the best performance.

The drive is rated for approximately 4W of power draw across the two capacities, when looking at both reads and writes. Check our power results below to see how accurate that is. The drive is rated for 400TB of writes per TB capacity, which is high for QLC flash – we would typically see maybe 300TB, which is one-half of the TLC standard – but also indicates a very high drive writes per day (DWPD) rating. This is due to the warranty only covering three years rather than the normal five, so the amount of writes per year is significantly higher. This is atypical, so requires further explanation.

For those who live for TBW and write endurance, this illustrates why TBW often looks better on paper. Spreading 400TB over three years works out to roughly double the daily write allowance of a typical 300TBW / five-year QLC drive. Most people will never approach either number, and they will live with the shorter coverage window. However, if you intend to hammer the drive with writes to the point of exceeding TBW within the three-year warranty period, then this could be good. Although you really shouldn't use a budget DRAM-less QLC-based drive for that type of workload. However, that option exists and is rarely the case with a QLC-based drive. As a final note, the drive does support TCG Opal 2.0 for encryption.

Samsung 990 Software and Accessories

Samsung’s Magician software is the gold standard for consumer SSDs. This is an SSD toolbox with all the features you need. It displays system and drive health information, including SMART, and checks whether your drive is legitimate. You can also benchmark your drive and use any optional features, such as encryption. The software is also essential for keeping the drive’s firmware up to date, although you can also download that from the first link.

Samsung 990: A Closer Look

The 990 has an SSD controller, a single NAND flash package, and power management circuitry. There is no DRAM package present. This is a single-sided drive, which is ideal for compatibility and cooling. There is a lot of free space on the PCB, and by putting distance between the controller and flash, there is separation to mitigate component heat generation. This would also help if a heatspreader or heatsink were to be added. Without this space, the drive could be sold in a shorter form factor, which is particularly useful for OEM drives.

The label has information about the drive, such as the date of manufacture (DOM), model, serial, the PSID, and the power rating. We always caution that you not take certain drive information as being conclusive about the hardware. For example, you should not assume TLC or QLC flash from a drive’s TBW. Likewise, you shouldn’t rely on the labeled power rating – and this is done more often on M.2 2230 drives for portable devices – as any indication of drive power efficiency. Here we have 3.3V / 1.85A, which indicates potential power draw over 6W. Now, the power ratings given on spec sheets will often be average and not peak, and will be separated as read or write rather than mixed. In fact, this drive’s load power states can reach a peak of 5.90W via SMART, which is much above the rated average ~4W. We track both peak and average in our testing.

We always enjoy reviewing Samsung drives with a focus on the technicals, as the manufacturer remains a leader in many ways. The 990, in particular, requires some extra description to be fully appreciated. Simply looking at the benchmark results might make the technology seem underwhelming – to be honest, this is very much a budget drive, even taken in the best light – but that doesn’t mean Samsung phoned this one in. In fact, there are signs of deliberate design here, and some of the decisions could help sell this drive. Samsung still has to get the pricing right, of course, but what else is new?

Let’s start with the controller. The 990 is using the PiccoloQ, which is the QLC flash version of the Piccolo. The Piccolo is utilized on the 990 EVO and 990 EVO Plus, two TLC-based drives. In all cases, it’s a four-channel, DRAM-less design, which limits performance and capacity. In both cases, the controller takes up to 2,400 MT/s flash – this is more than enough to saturate PCIe 4.0 – and the interior design is the same. This means it’s a Samsung 5nm part with multiple ARM Cortex-R8 cores and a single R5 core. If the Piccolo stands out in any way, it’s that it offers a PCIe 5.0 x2 option in addition to the standard 4.0 x4 interface. This option or mode has limited usefulness, though, and nothing in the 990 would change that if enabled for the PiccoloQ.

So, not much new on the controller front, but the use of this controller at the 990’s rated speeds does give us some more information. Namely, we know the 990 EVO runs more slowly because it’s using flash slower than 2,400 MT/s, 1,600 MT/s Samsung V6P TLC, to be precise. If we look at Samsung’s V7 QLC flash, it can run at that same speed. This is why the originally speculated 990 QVO with that flash was targeted at the same speeds as the 990 EVO. Things have changed since then. This drive could have been the 990 QVO, but with the EVO and EVO Plus lines going DRAM-less this generation, we suspect the QVO tier was “promoted” to the plain 990 name, and the 990 now targets the 990 EVO Plus's specs

The evidence to back this up, which also supports the loose 990 QVO rumor, is that Samsung does have a V7 QLC OEM drive: the BM9C1. This is the cousin to the PM9C1 line with OEM 990 EVO and 990 EVO Plus (PM9C1b) variants. The BM9C1 is available down to M.2 2230 and uses the same PiccoloQ as the 990 (the QLC version of the 990 EVO/EVO Plus’s Piccolo). It’s just limited to the same speeds as the 990 EVO, as it’s running at 1,600 MT/s. We have to be careful here, though, as Samsung’s V9 QLC press release indicates a 60% I/O improvement, which, with the V9 being 3,200 MT/s, suggests a 2,000 MT/s ceiling for the V7 QLC. Since there is an OEM TLC-based drive in between the 990 EVO and 990 EVO Plus (the PM9C1a) at 2,000 MT/s, the possibility for a ~6 GB/s 990 or 990 QVO with V7 QLC existed.

Before we dive more deeply into the flash, since we haven’t seen the new Samsung QLC in a while and there is some neat tech here, let’s decode the module. “K9” tells us it’s Samsung NAND flash memory. “YYG” indicates it’s a QLC flash package with sixteen dies (HDP) in a 2TB configuration, which confirms 1Tb dies. “Y8” means it’s 8-bit, J tells us the voltage, “5” tells us the number of chips enabled and ready/busy signals, and “D” tells us the generation. With V7 being “C” and V8 skipped, this suggests V9. The second part of the code tells us how the flash is packaged and that it’s commercial / consumer-grade. While you aren’t expected to know how to read codes on your SSD, knowing how it works can be useful, especially with Samsung drives, even if it’s just a matter of trying to figure out if you have a counterfeit product.

So let’s talk about the flash. This is a 286-Layer part, technically, but is sold as 280-Layer once accounting for source/ground and dummy lines. Dummy lines are usually at stack edges, as the physics of flash can make these lines otherwise unusable. A higher layer count – Samsung’s V7 is only 176-Layer, although technically 191 layers – generally means higher bit density. Bit density is key to scaling NAND flash, which is acting as capacious, non-volatile storage media. This can be disappointing to some because it means you don’t always see any real performance scaling as the layer count progresses.

Fitting more flash into the same space can mean less room for charge in each cell, which makes it harder to optimize for performance if you’re trying to maintain the same endurance level. That is certainly the case with this flash, as the performance only manages to match that of last-generation 176-Layer QLC flash from competitors, which is why we want to go out of our way to point out Samsung’s design decisions and why it leans innovative in ways you won’t see in, say, your game load times.

For one, when we talk about the layer count difference – reported versus actual – you also get an efficiency number that is the ratio between usable and total word lines. Samsung is a leader here, with high layer efficiency. Samsung also has held off using three decks or stacks of flash and is still at two, due to having superior channel etching – it’s able to drill down more layers with a higher aspect ratio. It’s also possible to run lines through the flash itself rather than rely largely on masked steps, which sets the stage for Samsung scaling to extremely high layer counts. One issue with high layer counts is that you start losing uniformity from layer to layer, and Samsung accounts for this with optimized word line spacing, too. So, as we’ve said in the past, it often feels like Samsung is falling behind on layer count, but in reality it has a very focused strategy and the best technology in the business, and we can see this with the 990’s flash.

For the consumer, though, the 990 is a little bit weird. This is presumably 3,200 MT/s flash that is being “wasted” with a 2,400 MT/s controller. This flash has amazing bit density, but having a single sixteen-die package at 2TB is nothing new. What about performance? Samsung has made optimizations to improve performance on this flash, but nothing amazing. This QLC is only comparable to the competition in performance terms, particularly at 2,400 MT/s. Samsung is playing catch-up, but we also think this is a case of designing for enterprise rather than consumer.

QLC flash is now highly sought after in enterprise for its density, and Samsung’s optimizations all benefit that kind of environment. In fact, from a consumer’s perspective you could look at this V9 QLC as being focused on higher bit density – but no 2Tb dies – and you would largely be correct. Samsung’s V9 QLC is 86% more dense generationally and about 94% more dense than the competition’s 176-Layer QLC flash.

We’ll take a look at one new technology in the V9 QLC flash to illustrate. One important consideration is flash power interruption leading to data loss, which, without power loss protection (PLP) means you are looking at protecting data at rest. This is on the non-volatile media or flash, not the volatile memory like DRAM. When folding from the pSLC cache to the native flash, data loss is not an issue because you don’t invalidate the original pSLC copy until the write has been verified. However, when writing to native QLC, you are writing multiple pages where the upper pages will require higher levels of sensitivity for proper reading. There are different methods of writing to QLC flash, but generally multi-bit flash has multiple write passes that go from fuzzy (coarse) to precise (fine), and lower pages write faster and may be complete first. Therefore, it’s important not to ruin existing lower-page data if you lose power while still adjusting voltage for the upper pages.

Micron has a unique way of dealing with this using a differential engine that can predict values from partial shifts, but a more common method is simply to back up or buffer the values in nonvolatile flash. QLC stores four bits per cell, so a full backup means writing four bits of pSLC per cell. pSLC is used because its writes are fast, whereas QLC's upper-page writes, in particular, are an order of magnitude slower. Samsung reduces the buffer to a single parity bit by using an odd/even algorithm, creating a sensing window that’s more like TLC (8-state) than QLC (16-state). This improves performance, endurance, and bit density. Some of that performance is still lost for higher bit density. For consumers, the direct benefit is higher TBW, but we speculate the higher density is aimed more at enterprise and future flash generation products. This is in part a response to Solidigm’s floating-gate design, a different technology than charge trap, with tighter charge placement.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs

MORE: Best SSD for the Steam Deck

Comparison Products

The Samsung 990 enters a crowded market with a lot of good options, at least in theory. If we’re looking at QLC-based drives, this means the Crucial P310 and Sandisk WD Blue SN5100 at the very top. Both of these drives perform incredibly well. Below that, we have the older wave of drives represented by the TeamGroup MP44Q. That drive in particular remains a budget favorite with a fast controller and good QLC flash.

We would put the rest below that, even though the hardware is not always worse. This would include the Biwin M350, the Kingston NV3, and the Seagate FireCuda X1070. These drives are using alternative controllers – SMI, SMI, and TenaFe, respectively – that are roughly comparable, and the flash is not particularly old, either. However, these drives tend to be more budget-focused with reduced performance and (ideally) reduced cost.

We’ve also thrown in Samsung’s 990 EVO and 990 EVO Plus for comparison. The 990 should be closer to the latter, but with QLC flash, it would be okay landing somewhere in between. On the whole, we would expect the drive also to be between the two main categories of drives – that is, above the budget ones, below the two fastest, and closer to the middle MP44Q and its MAP1602-equipped alternatives, but with Samsung’s name recognition. The technology is here to make this a reliable drive, which is also a factor to consider, but being this late to the game puts the 990 at a general disadvantage.

Trace Testing — 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams. Future gaming benchmarks will be DirectStorage-inclusive and an evaluation for future-proofing is included where applicable.

We start by looking at 3DMark because, frankly, QLC-based drives make a lot of sense for gaming. Aside from large installs and updates, you’re mostly doing reads, which do not favor TLC drives as much. While it’s true that QLC flash is still slower, often-accessed data might be left in the pSLC cache – if you leave enough space free – and QLC is also optimized for random reads. Games do involve a lot of sequential reads and often at larger block sizes than you’d expect, but as long as the drive has sufficient interleaving (it’s sufficiently large) you are going to get pretty good performance.

For 3DMark, which is a synthetic test, we might expect the drives to perform as they do under ideal, cached circumstances. This means the 990 should perform closely to the 990 EVO Plus and better than the 990 EVO, even though both of those latter two are TLC-based. It does. The 990 gets pretty close to the P310, which is one of the best QLC drives out there, aside from the Blue SN5100. We tend to look at ~45µs as a good cutoff point for all-around performance – gaming doesn’t need to be super responsive – which is roughly around the popular budget NV3. The 990 is significantly faster than that, which is all you could ask for here.

Trace Testing — PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is an industry standard trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices. The results are particularly useful when analyzing drives for their use as primary/boot storage devices and in work environments.

PCMark 10 performance usually, but not always, follows 3DMark. There is speculation that some drives or firmware may be optimized for benchmarks like PCMark 10, but taken within a greater suite of tests it’s still useful to get a feel for application performance. For us, that means for a primary drive – your boot or OS drive where your apps live – or for your everything drive, if you work and game on a single drive in your system. This isn’t too unusual with laptops where M.2 slots are limited.

The 990 again ends up roughly where we’d expect – above the 990 EVO, and close to the 990 EVO Plus. It’s not on the level of the P310 or Blue SN5100, but it’s clearly above the budget drives. This is a strong result with good latency. For instance, we would take the 990 over the NV3 any day, every day. On the other hand, the P310 and Blue SN5100 are frankly better drives. These two drives are better optimized and performance-oriented. The 990 is more of a gap filler that’s late to the scene.

We have to say, though, that we’re glad Samsung didn’t push out a 990 QVO that was more like the 990 EVO, even if it would have arrived earlier. Such a drive would have used older QLC flash and performed more slowly simply due to the lower interface speed.And frankly we’d rather have density-optimized flash that can run at the 990 EVO Plus level. That’s what the 990 delivers, even if it feels a little underwhelming. However, it makes perfect sense given the current market, enterprise demand, OEM demand, etc. The drive is still very fast and of a superior quality to a great many budget drives out there, and that makes it worthwhile.

Console Testing — PlayStation 5 Transfers

The PlayStation 5 is capable of taking one additional PCIe 4.0 or faster SSD for extra game storage. While any 4.0 drive will technically work, Sony recommends drives that can deliver at least 5,500 MB/s of sequential read bandwidth for optimal performance. Based on our extensive testing, PCIe 5.0 SSDs don’t bring much to the table and generally shouldn’t be used in the PS5, especially as they may require additional cooling. Check our Best PS5 SSDs article for more information.

Our testing utilizes the PS5’s internal storage test and manual read/write tests with over 192GB of data, both from and to the internal storage. Throttling is prevented where possible to see how each drive operates under ideal conditions. While game load times should not deviate much from drive to drive, our results can indicate which drives may be more responsive in long-term use.

You know our PlayStation 5 line by now: just about any drive will do. The 990 can push more bandwidth than the 990 EVO, which arguably makes it a better pick. It’s on par with, or better than, most budget drives out there. At least, for the things you will usually be doing on the PS5. It’s clear from our one bandwidth test that the drive ran out of cache, and it has the typical slow QLC flash write state. This is not indicative of real-world performance if you do normal installs/updates with mostly reads. If you are freshly installing the drive and moving a ton of games onto it, then yes, this could be an issue, but the QLC write speeds are still significantly faster than 1GbE if you’re intending only to download a ton of games at once. Otherwise, you can check the cache size in the relevant testing section.

Transfer Rates — DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom 50GB dataset. We write 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to the test drive, then make a copy of that data to a new folder, and follow up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file. This is a real-world type workload that fits into the cache of most drives.

We also see some write performance issues in DiskBench. This is dependent on cache size and speed, but for the most part should be limited by the interface speed. However, there are cases where copy speed will simply be slower, whether due to the controller or other optimization trade-offs. We can see that the 990 EVO, with TLC flash, is not exactly doing great here, and the 990 EVO Plus does much better. However, the 990 lags behind, and is very far behind the P310 and Blue SN5100.

So, we can put some of this slow speed on the Piccolo/PiccoloQ controller. To avoid getting too technical on this, we suspect it is partially architectural. This is reflected in power efficiency, as both the P310 and Blue SN5100 – with the Phison E27T and a proprietary Sandisk controller, respectively – are significantly more power-efficient than the 990 EVO, 990 EVO Plus, and as we’ll discover, the 990 as well. We also know that Samsung’s V9 QLC flash is not particularly inefficient.

As for the controller, there are reasons to design it differently. Reliability is one reason, especially if you sell a lot of OEM and enterprise drives that share the technology. Scaling is another, as you may use similar technology across your stack. You might want to optimize for a different sort of performance baseline; you may have unique endurance requirements, and you also might have to keep capacity in mind – enterprise drives, in particular, could make better use of this flash’s interface speed when scaling for capacity. Therefore, DiskBench results for our specific testing may not really be what Samsung is optimizing for, in which case the 990’s performance more or less hits expectations based on the 990 EVO and 990 EVO Plus. It just disappoints against drives like the NV3, which are otherwise inferior.

And to put a cap on it, yes, this is a consumer drive, but if you go back and read our 990 EVO review – and other recent Samsung SSD reviews, for that matter – you will see we underlined the idea that Samsung has been late to the party with less-than-leading performance recently. The fact is, Samsung has and has had bigger fish to fry, and its technology is sound but no longer looks amazing on the standard consumer benchmarks. That makes its products less relevant if you just want the fastest drive, although we’d argue there are secondary effects like drive reliability that still keep Samsung in the fight, certainly as an OEM option. It’s also true that consumer use has a lower bar – any halfway-decent NVMe drive is fast enough for daily driving – which means, sometimes you’re just buying the Samsung name.

Synthetic Testing — ATTO / CrystalDiskMark

ATTO and CrystalDiskMark (CDM) are free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tools that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how each device handles different file sizes and at different queue depths for both sequential and random workloads.

ATTO gives us a clear image of how a drive performs over a range of block sizes. This can relate to different file sizes, for example, you probably have many files at or below 4KiB in size for various things but larger files, archives, and media files will usually be in units of MiB. Depending on what you’re using the drive for you may want to pay attention to how a drive performs within a certain range. For the quickest comparison, we show the results on a logarithmic scale and, there, the 990 shows significant dips for reads between 64KiB and 1MiB.

What you need to know is that flash is interleaved to improve performance, which means that larger I/O sizes will show higher throughput. A single, four-plane die, with modern 16KiB pages, can interleave up to 64KiB internally. If you have one die per each of four channels, that’s 256KiB. If you parallelize that over four dies per channel – which is the ideal amount and what we have with the 2TB 990 – then you reach 1MiB. While alignment here can impact performance, for example we sometimes look at six-plane flash these days, in general you will see a gradual throughput increase as you go. You’ll see this beyond 1MiB as data can and will be cached in volatile memory, either system-side or in a small cache on the drive. If you’re looking at higher queue depths, which we do with CrystalDiskMark, performance saturates even further as the controller is able to optimize data placement and retrieval with knowledge of what’s coming.

What this usually means is that QD8 is enough to get drives close together, while there will be more disparity at QD1. QD1 is much closer to real-world, as most operations will be at low queue depth, the vast majority at our below QD4 and the majority at QD1 or QD2.

We see that the 990 matches the P310 with QD1 reads, while some drives, like the X1070, do surprisingly well. We can assume that the controller plays at least a partial role here. The X1070 is a good example because, let’s be real, it’s not a drive a lot of reviewers liked. Yet, it has pretty good performance in this instance, indicating it could be a solid secondary storage drive. Fair enough. The 990 just doesn’t really have the response we like to see for that, but it’s fast enough to remain relevant. We got the impression in our X1070 review that its controller was chosen for cost savings and that was plenty for daily use, but we don’t think Samsung cheaped out on the PiccoloQ. Rather, Samsung is looking at the bigger picture, as it also sells drives with the Piccolo controller, including its OEM offerings.

Random latency seems much more important to a lot of people. We generally find that sub-50µs is one bar and another is sub-45µs. The 990 manages the former, which puts it above last-gen drives and some earlier Gen 4 drives, and budget drives like the X1070. It’s in the same ballpark as the NV3, too. It’s sufficiently far behind more popular budget drives, though, to draw our interest. In most cases you won’t notice it, but if you’re using this as your only drive and are sensitive to that, it’s not your best option. On the other hand, we think you have to balance that against pricing and some management of expectations. Any modern SSD is going to be very fast, and with current pricing it might be worth putting more weight on reliability, for example.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of pseudo-SLC (single-bit) programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC (three-bit) or QLC (four-bit) flash. Performance can suffer even more if the drive is forced to fold, the process of migrating data out of the cache in order to free up space for further incoming data.

We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds. This process shows the performance of the drive in various states including the steady state write performance.

Samsung’s TurboWrite 2.0 caching technology utilizes a fixed, static portion of pSLC combined with a much larger dynamic portion. These two zones have unique characteristics which, when taken together, ideally keep the drive feeling fast across a variety of workloads. The static portion ensures the drive always has some cache for random writes, while the dynamic portion varies with drive usage so that you always have ample cache. While the 990 EVO had 108GB total regardless of capacity, it’s more typical for Samsung to increase both caches in absolute terms as capacity goes up. This is the case with the 990 EVO Plus, which has a 216GB cache at 2TB. But we know from our 9100 Pro review that Samsung is quite capable of going with a larger cache. The general trend for consumer SSDs has been to go that way, especially for QLC-based and DRAM-less SSDs, as it better hides weak performance states.

Therefore, it’s not too surprising that the 990’s cache is pretty large. In its fastest state, it writes at almost 6.1 GB/s for over 57 seconds, for a cache in excess of 350GB. This is larger than the 2TB 990 EVO Plus’s but smaller than the 2TB 9100 Pro’s. Our suspicion is that the 990 follows the newer, larger scheme, but we’re dealing with QLC rather than TLC flash. QLC flash to pSLC is 4 bits to 1, while TLC is 3 bits to 1, so in relative terms the 990 lines up with the 9100 Pro. That’s all fine and good. As for how fast it writes, Samsung markets the 990 as having over 50% faster write performance than the 990 EVO, which is accurate simply because we’re moving from 1,600 to 2,400 MT/s, with newer flash and firmware.

Once the cache is exhausted, the drive has to write to the native QLC flash directly or fold data over from pSLC to QLC. The latter is slower but can reduce wear in some cases – folding uses predictable, sequential writes – and reduces the likelihood of errors in transmission. Considering the technology we mentioned above and how Samsung avoids problems with power loss, it makes sense that going slower is by design. In fact, given we know the expected speed of the flash – rated at 41 MB/s per die – we can reasonably assume the firmware wants this outcome. It’s not that the flash can’t handle higher speeds, even at the risk of endurance. It’s simply that for a consumer drive of this type, the response is reasonable and measured. Going faster would require reducing the cache size potentially, which tends not to be a good trade-off for this type of drive.

One interesting thing about the V9 flash is that it can operate in a pTLC caching mode. We don’t see that here. Honestly, that’s not too surprising: Solidigm’s 5-bit PLC flash effectively was designed to run as QLC/pQLC for enterprise, so it’s possible this pTLC mode was for cases where you might need that higher level of performance or endurance. After all, this is extremely dense flash even in such a mode, which points more at enterprise use.

We’ve seen QLC flash from Kioxia also optionally have this mode – and for that matter, Solidigm’s PLC can do pTLC, too – in the past, but that mode doesn’t appear to be designed for consumer use. There may be other reasons for not using it in a consumer product, such as power optimization, as consumer workloads probably benefit more from a straight pSLC and native/QLC hybrid.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre stock storage in terms of capacity and performance. Desktops are often more performance-oriented with less support for power-saving features so we show the worst-case for idle.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption but performance-per-watt, or efficiency, is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

For temperature recording we currently poll the drive’s primary composite sensor during testing with a ~22°C ambient. Our testing is rigorous enough to heat the drive to a realistic ceiling temperature but real-world temperatures will vary due to the environment and workload factors.

Is the 990 power-efficient? Samsung markets the drive as being 38% more efficient than the 990 EVO – or that it cuts power consumption by 38% – which, technically, works with our numbers. It’s not a huge bar to hit as the 990 EVO was not very power-efficient. Even the X1070 is significantly more efficient! The 990, unfortunately, really doesn’t do well against other drives in its class, regardless of flash. We can’t chalk this up as being fully due to the controller because the 990 EVO Plus does well enough for itself.

This is actually expected since, for example, the Blue SN5100, which is using BiCS8 QLC, is less efficient than its BiCS8 TLC sibling, the Black SN7100. QLC and TLC flash of the same generation often have significant differences. TLC flash saw six planes first while QLC tends to be optimized for density. While it’s true that pSLC performance between the two is often comparable, behind the scenes the drive still has to deal with wear-leveling, garbage collection, and other maintenance with block granularity. QLC is slower, with larger blocks and pSLC taking more bits. So all else being equal, TLC often outshines it in power efficiency.

Our impression here, as is the case elsewhere in the review, is that this flash is basically V7 QLC with twice the density. Samsung uses impressive tricks to get it there; the flash is technically a bit faster and more efficient, and it has some neat changes that mostly apply to enterprise. This means you can have the 990 doing worse than the 990 EVO Plus with its V8 TLC. This is not perplexing. QLC flash is made for bit density, and Samsung intends to scale flash for a very long time. It also skipped V8 QLC for a reason. This doesn’t endear it to people wanting to buy this drive for laptops, although we assure you that this does use some cutting-edge technology, and we do think it should be very reliable. It’s just not going to be as efficient as you might expect.

Samsung is cognizant that its drives will end up with OEM variants in laptops and in many cases, shorter form factors. The 990 EVO wasn’t a great laptop drive due to its heat generation, but it works. The 990 is significantly better, so it, too, will work as a laptop drive. We think this drive deserves a heatsink in a desktop or PS5, and probably should have heatspreading of some sort anywhere else, if at all possible.

The question is, will it overheat? In our testing, we found that it got closer than we prefer to that point. Our maximum reported controller temperature was high relative to the initial throttling temperature, but a true composite value would be lower. Even so, the controller did get warm. On the other hand, our Iometer testing is far from real-world. We push our drives hard. This is not the sort of drive for a desktop replacement or high-end laptop in our opinion, although we think with typical workloads it’s perfectly fine. After all, the results here are better than the SK hynix Gold P31, which is a laptop staple. By all means, in a Gen 3 slot this thing will fly. If you’re hammering it at Gen 4 speeds, though, yeah, it’s not the coolest drive in town.

Test Bench and Testing Notes

We use an Alder Lake platform with most background applications, such as indexing, Windows updates, and anti-virus, disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

Samsung 990 Bottom Line

The Samsung 990 is bound to be underwhelming for some, but none of our results should surprise. We know what this technology is and we’ve seen Samsung’s entries in recent years with the 990 EVO, the 990 EVO Plus, and the 9100 Pro. You could even put the 980 and 990 Pros into that mix. The move away from DRAM on the EVO Plus series, in particular, was a sign of the times. It’s not surprising to see the raw 990 – the 980 was TLC-based – go to QLC without the “QVO” addendum. The original speculation of the 990 QVO being a QLC 990 EVO, with the EVO itself being a surprisingly “slow” drive, was probably correct given the OEM evidence, and the 990 being a step up lets it command the 990 name by itself. To reiterate, this is exactly what we expected.

Skipping over the 990 QVO and V7 QLC flash is only sidestepping, and that’s likely because the market has changed so much over the last year or two. Bringing out a QLC-based 990 EVO equivalent just wouldn’t sell and might even make the brand look bad. It could certainly be done, and even still done, as an affordable SKU with better yields. But any 990 was going to be exactly what we got, instead. You need the faster flash to saturate PCIe 4.0 with a DRAM-less drive, and this was always going to be DRAM-less. Using a new or licensed controller with TLC flash would be weird, as it’d be going up against the existing 990 EVO Plus. Frankly, the 990 is a good 990 EVO replacement from retail and OEM perspectives, with one caveat: endurance. Samsung saves itself some headaches by reducing the warranty to three years, and as this flash is robust, it can just nudge up the TBW as a distraction.

We think that’s an important part of the message here. This flash seems designed for enterprise and has technological changes to back that up, with the main consumer benefits being the potential for increased reliability. But memory is still in high demand, and this has to be a budget part, so here comes the three-year warranty. Performance is not bad – it certainly beats earlier Gen 4 QLC-based drives and would beat the rumored 990 QVO as well. It’s just not really performance-focused. It’s also a much more efficient design, but that’s in comparison to Samsung’s own hardware. It’s merely mediocre there in the current landscape. Samsung seems to be building for the future with higher layer counts and bit density, so this lays the groundwork. A client drive seems almost like an afterthought. Users shouldn’t take that personally, but also shouldn’t underestimate this drive as it’s more than effective enough for its purpose.

In fact, in the era of Gen 3 drives returning and so many “box of chocolates” SSDs with random names and hardware, a reliable Samsung SSD is a nice option. Even with QLC flash. If you only need a budget drive to throw into a build or to upgrade an old PC, you get Gen 4 performance and a TLC-like experience for most things. We also feel this drive should be reliable and, although it runs hotter than we’d like, it’s not going to be molten like some other drives. It’s just a polished design by Samsung that fills a micro niche, and clearly it thought a response was needed. It’s not a lot different than our reaction has been to Samsung’s last few new drives, which have all been competent but largely never the strtong leader. That’s okay with us, as we can tell the manufacturer has a longer-term perspective; it just means a little less awe when you finish a build using a Samsung drive.

If you really want the best experience with a QLC-based drive, we still recommend the Crucial P310 – which is going away – or the Sandisk WD Blue SN5100. These offer incredible performance for QLC flash. Otherwise, there are some MP44Q-like drives out there that continue to be budget leaders. The 990 fits somewhere along there as a known-brand alternative. If you’re looking for Gen 5, DRAM, or TLC, then you’re also looking at a higher price tag. Frankly, QLC costs more than it should, in part due to enterprise demand. On the other hand, a modern QLC drive will provide an equivalent experience 99% of the time. The priorities are up to you. For us, the 990 is a fine primary drive for normal builds and OK for laptops, although we’d go cheaper for the PS5 and higher-end for an enthusiast machine.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs

MORE: Best SSD for the Steam Deck

This das_POD product is “designed to be assembled, repaired, and owned,” says the maker. In contrast to a conventional hi-fi CD music player, the CD-ROM PLAYER 01 is supplied as a project that lets owners repurpose their old, unused, or discarded optical drives. The artsy assertion of das_POD is that “the project explores ownership, reparability, and the physical experience of music.”

As we stressed in the intro, the kit is supplied without any IDE optical drive, something required to complete the project. “Compatible IDE drives can often be found in old computers, second-hand markets, recycling centers, or forgotten boxes in storage,” points out das_POD, just in case you have never heard of eBay. “Every drive carries its own history. Every player becomes unique,” it adds, attempting to add mystique to a simple recycling/upcycling project.

We looked through the das_POD store and noticed that it sells some very reasonably priced IDE drives that can be used to facilitate a complete CD-ROM PLAYER 01 delivered in one package. Several refurb opticals are priced at just $5, for example. But you can also pick through multiple drives at $10, $15, $20… all the way up to $40. Something about the $35 DRIVE_24 from Samsung with its blue logo bar and tarnished beige faceplate (Grade: Output: A+, Sound Quality: A, Condition: C) grabbed my attention.

There are two CD-ROM PLAYER 01 colorways to choose from right now. das_POD sells a model in an anodized semi-gloss white for $220. A model in TE-a-like powder-coated orange is priced at $190.

The maker boasts that the kit supplied needs no soldering. But we also learn on the respective product pages that an AUX cable and 12V power adapter are (also) not included. Circling back to the firm’s online store, it looks like purchasing these items will add $25 to $30 to your checkout total.

A cheaper Aliexpress + DIY alternative for makers?

As some social media commenters say, besides the case, another key component of this product appears to be a CD/DVD-ROM optical drive controller, much like one available from Aliexpress for $30. That leaves the das_POD power board PCB as the sole missing essential, preventing makers with 3D printers, laser cutters, and/or CNCs from crafting their own CD-ROM PLAYER 01-type kits.

• Check out this deal on Amazon

The ROG Strix Aiolos is a premium, high-end M.2 SSD enclosure with transfer speeds up to 20 Gbps, enabled by a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 interface that terminates in a USB-C port. Asus is using a Realtek RTL9220 controller, which allows it to take either a PCIe-based NVMe SSD or a SATA-based SSD and connect it to the aforementioned USB interface. It supports M.2-2242/2260/2280 sizes, but not M.2-2230.

You get a tool-less assembly with the Aiolos since it features a push-to-open mechanism for quick removals and installations. The enclosure is made from metal and has a hook on one end with a fabric loop for attaching it to backpacks and such. The body is also wrapped around in rubber to make it grippier on flat surfaces like when it's sitting on a desk. Frankly, the entire thing looks like a miniaturized ROG Astral graphics card.

Being an Asus ROG Strix product, there's an RGB strip running along the top that's controllable through software. Speaking of which, the Aiolos ships with a key for a basic version of the ROG SSD Dashboard so you can monitor your drive in real time. It can track SSD health, remaining capacity, show SMART info, and check temps. You can definitely get cheaper M.2 enclosures, but for just $59 right now, you're not getting one as fancy, or perhaps as fast, as the Aiolos.

If you're looking for more savings, check out our Best PC Hardware deals for a range of products, or dive deeper into our specialized SSD and Storage Deals, Hard Drive Deals, Gaming Monitor Deals, Graphics Card Deals, gaming chair, or CPU Deals pages.

The devil, as they say, is in the details, as its performance quirks make it better for some use cases over others. It’s also not something you want to toss into your laptop – this is still a high-end drive with correspondingly high heat production – but could work in a pinch for pretty much anything else. In this market, it’s a welcome alternative.

TeamGroup G70 Pro Specifications

If you’re ever upset that a drive only comes in one or two capacities, then the TeamGroup G70 Pro might be for you. Not only does it come in both heatsinked and non-heatsinked versions, but it’s also available at 512GB, 1TB, 2TB, 4TB, and even 8TB. At the time of review, we could only find 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB models available, with pricing pretty close between the two types – go for the heatsink, if you can. We’re giving the lower prices at $197.99, $326.99, and $505.99. If you’re shooting for DRAM, these prices aren’t too bad, but we’d lean towards the Seagate FireCuda 530R instead at 1TB. The G70 Pro is more competitive at 2TB and 4TB against comparable drives.

The drive is capable of reaching up to 7,400 / 6,600 MB/s for sequential reads. Random read and write IOPS are not given, but we know this controller and flash are rated for at least 700K and can reach 1,000K or more. This is comparable to other drives in this class. We wouldn’t recommend the drive at 512GB as it can’t reach peak performance. Ideally, you would go for 2TB or 4TB for the best results. The drive is backed by a five-year warranty that covers 740TB of written data per TB, which is above average but not exceptional.

TeamGroup G70 Pro Software and Accessories

TeamGroup’s primary download for the G70 Pro is its SSD S.M.A.R.T. Tool. This all-in-one SSD toolbox displays drive and system information and allows for performance testing. While you can sometimes catch drive errors early with SMART, it’s best not to rely on it. For drive and data backup we continue to recommend MultiDrive for Windows and Clonezilla or Rescuezilla for everything else.

TeamGroup G70 Pro: A Closer Look

The 2TB TeamGroup G70 Pro is a double-sided drive and, judging by the specifications, always double-sided. We don’t have smaller SKUs to verify that, and we recommend the larger SKUs as the better value anyway. However, we’ve heard of single-sided G70 Pros at 1TB in the wild, so your mileage may vary.

Our drive uses a graphene label – which is useful for spreading heat from the controller, in particular – but there is also a version with a heatsink. We would recommend going with a heatsink, if possible. The rear of the drive states a power rating of ~8.25W, which is within expectations. In our testing, we would expect it to pull less and, in fact, that is what our numbers show.

The drive is adorned with an SSD controller, two DRAM packages, and four NAND flash packages. The controller is the InnoGrit IG5236, an eight-channel controller with DRAM that competes directly with the Silicon Motion SM2264 and Phison E18. These are at the top of the PCIe 4.0 product stack. The DRAM in question is SK hynix H5AN8G6NDJR-VKC, which, as the 8G indicates, is in an 8Gb or 1GB configuration. Two packages mean 2GB, which gives the normal 1GB:1TB DRAM:NAND ratio for optimal performance. The flash packages are 512GB each of YMTC 232-Layer TLC (X3-9070) with four 1Tb dies each. With a total of sixteen dies, or two per channel, performance is good at this capacity.

Let’s address the elephant in the room: the IG5236 controller. This controller was one of our favorites when it first came out, as it competed with the E18 – the first true non-proprietary high-end PCIe 4.0 controller – at a lower price point. Eventually, it saw some flash it didn’t like from YMTC, which caused some serious issues. Over time and with more feedback, the controller eventually gained a more general reputation for unreliability. Reliability reports were often unpredictable, which didn’t help matters. While, as a result, we do prefer the E18, our review of this G70 Pro sample has given indications that TeamGroup took some efforts to improve reliability. We’ll point these out as we go forward.

The bigger issue for the drive is probably that TeamGroup will likely not have one specific set of hardware for this drive, which means that, while we think you’re probably okay with the mix we got, we can’t guarantee this is the NAND and SSD controller configuration that you’ll receive.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs

MORE: Best SSD for the Steam Deck

Comparison Products

If you’re looking at the G70 Pro, you’re probably also looking at TeamGroup’s A440 series – we have the A440 Pro for comparison – as well as the Inland Gaming Performance Plus or Performance Plus and the WD Black SN850X. These are all high-end Gen 4 drives with DRAM. If you’re willing to compromise on DRAM to save some money but still want high-end performance, there are some good options out there. These include the Addlink A93, the Acer Predator GM7, and the Biwin Black Opal NV7400. We’ve also thrown two newer drives into the mix, which are compelling: the Crucial P310, which uses QLC flash, and the WD Black SN7100, the power efficiency champion.

Trace Testing — 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams. Future gaming benchmarks will be DirectStorage-inclusive and an evaluation for future-proofing is included where applicable.

The G70 Pro falls right in the middle of the pack, which is actually right where it should be. 43µs for latency in 3DMark is quite good, ensuring a good experience with fast game loading times. Any of these drives would be great for games – and probably overkill – but we look for 45µs or less for the best level of responsiveness. The G70 Pro hits this target.

Trace Testing — PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is an industry standard trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices. The results are particularly useful when analyzing drives for their use as primary/boot storage devices and in work environments.

The G70 Pro does better in PCMark 10, coming in near the top with respectably high bandwidth and low latency. This is very good performance for applications, and the drive would be great as your primary drive even in a workstation. It makes use of the DRAM and eight flash channels to deliver relatively high performance, beating perennial favorites like the Black SN850X. This is likely due to the fact that it uses 232-Layer flash, which is newer than anything the slower drives have.

The Black SN7100 and P310 are DRAM-less with four channels, but they use newer flash of an equivalent generation with newer controllers than the G70 Pro. This goes to show that you don’t need a full-power controller to dominate here, but we caution that this does not reflect edge case performance with a fuller drive or in long-term use.

Console Testing — PlayStation 5 Transfers

The PlayStation 5 is capable of taking one additional PCIe 4.0 or faster SSD for extra game storage. While any 4.0 drive will technically work, Sony recommends drives that can deliver at least 5,500 MB/s of sequential read bandwidth for optimal performance. Based on our extensive testing, PCIe 5.0 SSDs don’t bring much to the table and generally shouldn’t be used in the PS5, especially as they may require additional cooling. Check our Best PS5 SSDs article for more information.

Our testing utilizes the PS5’s internal storage test and manual read/write tests with over 192GB of data, both from and to the internal storage. Throttling is prevented where possible to see how each drive operates under ideal conditions. While game load times should not deviate much from drive to drive, our results can indicate which drives may be more responsive in long-term use.

The G70 Pro performs admirably in the PS5. Would we recommend it? Yes, but with caveats. It’s not a bad choice at 2TB and 4TB, but we would recommend getting the version with a heatsink, if possible. The drive might run toasty without it. We also think you can get DRAM-less drives that will perform nearly the same at a lower cost, that won’t need a heatsink, so factor that into any purchase decision.

Transfer Rates — DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom 50GB dataset. We write 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to the test drive, then make a copy of that data to a new folder, and follow up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file. This is a real-world type workload that fits into the cache of most drives.

Taking a quick look at our DiskBench results, the G70 Pro exhibits no issues. Its copy performance is, in fact, quite good, coming close to the top. To be fair, some of the drives near it are DRAM-less, so they should be less expensive and more power-efficient in practice. That said, if you’re looking for the total package, then the G70 Pro will deliver. We would recommend checking our Write Saturation section to see how these drives measure up with longer transfers.

Synthetic Testing — ATTO / CrystalDiskMark

ATTO and CrystalDiskMark (CDM) are free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tools that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how each device handles different file sizes and at different queue depths for both sequential and random workloads.

Looking at ATTO first, we see a disappointing dip most prominently at 512KiB reads with the G70 Pro. The question is: controller or flash? Possibly a bit of both, as we’ve seen weak performance in ATTO on this controller before, but not all drives have had issues. If we’re comparing the XS70, which uses 512Gb dies with four-plane flash, to the G70 Pro, which has 1Gb dies using six planes, then we consider that the superpage size – this would be the size of all pages open across all dies/planes with at least one per flash channel – is quite different.

Parallelization is necessary to reach the best performance with larger files, and the G70 Pro’s flash crosses a threshold between 512KiB and 1MiB, which might explain this dip. In fact, the flash on the 2TB model would prefer I/O larger than 1MiB. The older XS70, as reviewed, would be happier with less. This is an inevitable trade-off as newer flash technology targets larger dies to reduce price and more planes for higher bandwidth to match new interface speeds.

This difference is reflected to some extent in CDM, where QD1 sequential read for the G70 Pro performance is pretty meh. Give it QD8, though, and it’s on top. Unfortunately, low QD is much more common, especially for large file transfers. Of course, you need another drive to match the speed anyway, and if you’re doing heavier workloads, you might actually push more than QD1 where this drive proves to be quite fast. The bottom line is that some of these drives with less-dense flash – like the Black SN850X – or fewer channels – that would be the P310, Black SN7100, A93, Black Opal NV7400, and GM7 – can do better with QD1 reads. On the other hand, the G70 Pro’s newer flash makes it more responsive with QD1 writes, although this is less impressive for everyday workloads.

The good news is that the 4KB latencies are good, and the 4KB random read latency at QD1 is exceptional. This is a ridiculously responsive drive. It’s a bit strange to have a drive that superficially should push bandwidth turn around and give such excellent latency. The discrepancy, given our above explanation about parallelization, is due in part to the fact that a single 4KB operation is only going to hit one die and plane of flash. This could work in the drive’s favor if you are taking advantage of the right workloads. For random reads, everyday workloads, including games and apps, will be very responsive. For larger transfers, push this drive harder if you’re reading from it to better take advantage of its strengths, or alternatively, use it for random writes as you could do with caching.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of pseudo-SLC (single-bit) programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC (three-bit) or QLC (four-bit) flash. Performance can suffer even more if the drive is forced to fold, the process of migrating data out of the cache in order to free up space for further incoming data.

We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds. This process shows the performance of the drive in various states including the steady state write performance.

The G70 Pro has a small cache, coming in around 50GB with a pSLC write speed of 6.7 GB/s that writes for about 7.5s effectively. We’ve seen caches of this size before, usually chosen to improve “quality of service,” which is a fancy way of saying the manufacturer wants to avoid a performance cliff. 50GB is still relatively large for caching random writes, and random writes are what you want to cache the most, and the absolute size will vary a lot less with drive fill, as it’s not taking up a lot of native flash. This means more consistent write performance. A drive might also use a small cache to hide weak flash – weak as in lower endurance – as the highest-endurance portion of the flash can be used for the cache, if you’re doing big writes like we are here, doing writes straight to the native flash can actually induce less wear in some cases. However, we think TeamGroup is just aiming for consistent performance, with the secondary effect being that they can swap flash if needed.

The drive then writes to native flash at almost 2.8 GB/s for 16 seconds. This flash can write faster than this and, given that the drive is 2TB, it could absolutely write in this state – or the pSLC state, for that matter – for a significantly longer time. The 4TB model should be as fast or faster. Still, this is pretty speedy and matches the consistent write experience we would anticipate from the small cache. On the other hand, it does make us wonder why TeamGroup is being so conservative with it. This controller has had some issues in the past, and this might be a way to mitigate those. If so, we’re on board, as this type of performance profile matches the drive’s overall trend quite well.

This is especially true with folding performance at over 1.35 GB/s – quite fast for that state – and given how small the cache is and how short the drive writes even in native mode, the real steady state is closer to our native flash speed at 2.75 GB/s. This is a very good result and supports our earlier assertion that this drive would be great for certain workloads like caching. TeamGroup likely knows this, and if the drive is more reliable for it, all the better. We think that’s worth knowing if you’re a buyer because the IG5236 controller does carry a somewhat negative reputation under normal circumstances.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre stock storage in terms of capacity and performance. Desktops are often more performance-oriented with less support for power-saving features so we show the worst-case for idle.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption but performance-per-watt, or efficiency, is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

For temperature recording we currently poll the drive’s primary composite sensor during testing with a ~22°C ambient. Our testing is rigorous enough to heat the drive to a realistic ceiling temperature but real-world temperatures will vary due to the environment and workload factors.

All this performance comes at a cost. The G70 Pro is not very efficient, although it’s better than the E18-based drive and comes awfully close to the Black SN850X. For a DRAM-equipped, eight-channel PCIe 4.0 drive, it does okay. If you are looking for a power-efficient drive, this isn’t it, although it could be worse.

The drive reports multiple temperatures, but the one we’re looking at is the highest. It hit a maximum of 71°C in our testing, which is surprisingly good, given that this controller starts to throttle at 90°C. That’s almost at our ideal 20°C of headroom. However, the drive is still putting out a lot of heat, and this is under good conditions with a graphene heatspreader. Running this drive naked in a laptop is inadvisable. We continue to recommend getting the G70 Pro with a heatsink or adding a heatsink to the graphene model – you can even put a heatsink over the graphene label, if necessary – to make for a cooler-running drive.

Test Bench and Testing Notes

We use an Alder Lake platform with most background applications, such as indexing, Windows updates, and anti-virus, disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

TeamGroup G70 Pro Bottom Line

The TeamGroup G70 Pro promises a little bit of everything in a challenging SSD market. DRAM? Check. All the best drives have DRAM, or so people have been led to believe, and that simple inclusion puts the G70 Pro up a notch. Newer flash? Also, check for our sample, 232-Layer rather than 176-Layer, and TLC too. In practice, the difference is small, but if you can get newer flash, you should, and TLC is always preferable to QLC. Cooling? It comes with a graphene heatspreader by default, but has a heatsink SKU for those who want one less thing to worry about. With this combo, the drive delivers excellent random read latency, good potential throughput, and with a heatsink, it shouldn't overheat. Plus, it’s available in a wide range of capacities.

There are some caveats here, however. The drive is not power-efficient, so it is bound to run hot even if it doesn’t throttle. It has DRAM and newer flash, but the controller is the less desirable InnoGrit IG5236, one that’s known to be less reliable. The flash is also YMTC, which indicates to us that you might not always get the same hardware on this model. Performance is good, yes, but it’s not completely consistent across all of our tests. While we like that we can get this from 512GB to 8TB, in reality, you’re only going to find the middle SKUs. The drive is best at 2TB or 4TB, and its pricing at 1TB is average at best. We can live with this as 2TB and 4TB are good places to be, no matter what you use this drive for: primary for your operating system, secondary for games or storage, or in your PS5.

Speaking of what you use it for, the drive’s performance profile means it could make a good caching or NAS drive. We would definitely recommend a heatsink in that role. It’s not perfect for such a workload, but it’s probably going to be better than most of the DRAM-less options that are out there, and it should cost you less than the Black SN850X or 990 Pro. While reliability concerns linger with this controller, we feel like TeamGroup has optimized the firmware and pSLC cache towards a more consistent experience over hitting record numbers. This, in our mind, is a good thing and helps make this drive a potential diamond in the rough.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs

MORE: Best SSD for the Steam Deck

"I buy one, check if it's legit or not, and if not, [I] report the seller to eBay. I get my money back, and they (the seller) lose [their] account,” u/HarkKralle said in a comment. “If I couldn't ensure that the money would flow back, I wouldn't do it.”

Another Redditor said that they appreciate what the OP was doing, but they were “99.99% positive” that the scammer would have another account in an hour. The OP replied, saying, “Possible, but even that it's an hour they cannot use to scam people and proof/information for more people that scams like this exist.”

Scams like these have been around for decades now. One commenter even added that back in the ‘90s, they used high-quality 60-minute VHS tapes for their work, but one time received cheap, low-quality tapes that could only hold five minutes of footage instead. The sample that u/Hartkralle showed is also relatively low effort. Because of the ongoing memory and chip shortage, we’ve seen exceptionally good clones of Samsung 990 Pro SSDs, one of the best SSDs you can buy today. They have become so sophisticated that the most reliable way of spotting if they’re fake is to check them on CrystalDiskInfo.

One of the downsides of these fake drives is that you won’t get the read and write speeds that you’d expect from a modern SSD. But the bigger issue here is that using them could lead to complete data loss. For example, the fake drive that u/Hartkralle bought reports a capacity of 16TB, but the microSD card inside it is only 60GB. So, if an unsuspecting user transfers more than 60GB of data, they’d end up corrupting everything stored in the drive.

A 2TB Amazon Basics Portable SSD already costs almost $360, while an 8TB SSD from reputable brands like SanDisk, Crucial, or Lexar already hit $850. So, someone who doesn’t follow developments in the tech industry and stumbles across this cheap drive might think they’re getting a steal, when, in reality, they’re the ones being stolen from. Thankfully, eBay’s consumer protection allows people who were scammed, intentionally or otherwise, to get their money back — that is, if they know they were scammed in the first place.

Unlike the previous generations, 10th Generation BiCS (BiCS10) is explicitly aimed at data center-grade storage, where bit density and performance are more important than cost. Indeed, the new type of memory features a 332-layer active layer architecture, greater than 29 Gb/mm² density, and a 4,800 MT/s data transfer rate to enable extreme performance for data center solid-state drives featuring PCIe 5.0 and 6.0 interfaces. Kioxia and Sandisk plan to offer BiCS9 NAND specifically for client applications.

When we normally describe 3D NAND memory, we usually mention all possible applications, which include high-end consumer SSDs (after all, we are Tom's Hardware, we are hardware enthusiasts!) and data center drives. We did not mention consumer applications for BiCS10 for a very specific reason: Kioxia does not position this generation for client devices and only targets data center-grade drives. Whether or not to expect BiCS10 on a high-performance SSD near you probably depends on supply and demand, given the current market circumstances.

While the BiCS10 332-layer 3D NAND boosts bit density by 59% all the way to over 29 Gb/mm², it also promises to deliver meaningful performance and efficiency gains specifically for enterprise applications. Kioxia claims read latency drops by around 4 microseconds (about 10%), while read energy consumption is reduced by 25%, from roughly 100 mJ/GB to approximately 75 mJ/GB.

According to Kioxia, these improvements stem from a redesigned read scheme that changes how unselected word lines behave during consecutive read operations. In a 332-layer NAND stack, a significant portion of read latency and power consumption is associated with repeatedly charging long word lines from ground (VSS) to the read voltage (VREAD).

Normally, NAND memory discharges its wordlines to ground (VSS) after every read, which is a general-purpose approach that works regardless of what the next operation is. However, there is no need to discharge at all times. Therefore, during continuous read operations, the word lines are not fully discharged in the case of BiCS10. Instead, they are lowered to an intermediate voltage and then raised back to VREAD for the next read, which makes a lot of sense for read-heavy applications (most cloud applications are).

After the initial read, the circuitry reduces the word-line voltage only to an intermediate level instead of completely discharging it to VSS. Before the next access, the voltage is restored to VREAD from that intermediate level rather than from ground. Since the voltage excursion is considerably smaller, the word lines recharge more quickly and require less current, which improves both read latency and energy efficiency. The approach is particularly beneficial for very tall 3D NAND stacks, where long word lines amplify charging delays and power losses during sustained sequential read workloads.

It is interesting to note that Kioxia and Sandisk plan to manufacture their BiCS9 and BiCS10 3D NAND products at different production sites. The newest Fab 2 facility in Kitakami, Iwate Prefecture, will handle production of the flagship 332-layer BiCS10 memory, while the long-established Yokkaichi complex in Mie Prefecture will continue manufacturing the 218-layer BiCS9 generation.

This manufacturing split makes a lot of sense. Fab 2 is equipped with Kioxia’s most advanced production tools, so it is better suited to manufacture the highest-density NAND from Kioxia and Sandisk. Meanwhile, the mature Yokkaichi fabs are well-suited for client-oriented BiCS9 production. The manufacturing facility has largely been depreciated, which enables the company to manufacture mainstream NAND at lower cost and reserve its newest capacity in Kitakami for leading-edge products.

Polymatt sums up their finished USB memory device as a gizmo with “64 iron rings, hand threaded and immersed in silicon oil.” Each ring can store a single bit, providing 64 bits (8 bytes) of total storage capacity. Though this way of providing memory to computer systems seems incredibly archaic, it was good enough for the Apollo spacecraft guidance computers.

Polymatt got a key ingredient for this retro-modern memory stick project by salvaging an old Russian computer for its tiny magnetic rings. Then we see the TechTuber skillfully make each component of the finished magnetic core memory device by hand, by soldering iron, by CNC machine, and using a Bambu Lab A2L 3D printer.

While Polymatt humbly describes the device they made as the “world’s worst USB drive,” that’s only probably true if judged by its capacity-to-weight ratio. In aesthetic terms, it looks great on the desk. Moreover, what it might lack in memory density it makes up for (a bit) by offering persistent (unpowered) storage, and it can even shrug off radiation bursts that would fry most modern memory devices.

Check out the 20-minute video if you want to see every step in the maker process. In comparison to the far larger 128-byte magnetic core memory USB drive made by a Japanese tech enthusiast earlier in the year, Polymatt’s model is rather better finished. As the TechTuber admits, the silicone oil probably wasn’t necessary, but they basically liked the aesthetic. Fair enough. They were also pondering over installing an LED for each bit, but shelved that idea.

The last section of Polymatt’s video is devoted to testing the DIY memory device. Unlike the USB storage you may be familiar with, this drive doesn’t store your discrete computer data files. Rather, it lets you edit a single persistent file dubbed core.txt, stored on the magnetic core memory array. Polymatt also verified the non-powered persistence of this DIY memory device. Unplugging and plugging the power to this USB-connected device proved that it is indeed a non-volatile memory device.

In related homebrew memory news, we are still waiting for Dr. Semiconductor to follow up on his making RAM in a garden shed cleanroom video with the promised ‘PC scale’ sequel.

This is the first recorded instance that a laptop from a major OEM is being sold in the United States with a YMTC SSD, which is particularly curious given that the company was added to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Entity List in 2022. While this prevented the company from acquiring goods and services that were made with or contained American technologies, it does not prevent Lenovo, whose headquarters are in China, from importing such drives into the U.S.

Major PC manufacturers have traditionally relied on established storage chip makers such as Samsung, SK hynix, Kioxia, Micron, and SanDisk, but the ongoing AI buildout has driven prices through the roof. Even Apple, which previously held significant influence over suppliers, is now seeking a blessing from the U.S. government to buy memory chips from the Chinese firm CXMT. Although it’s not on the Entity List, it’s still designated as a Chinese military company, meaning that doing business with it would carry some risk for an American company.

Notebookcheck says that the YMTC drive’s performance “is below average for an SSD in an office laptop,” meaning it could not compete against the best SSDs you can buy today. Most buyers likely won't care about this, especially since the Lenovo ThinkBook 14 G9 IPL is marketed as an office laptop for everyday use. This means that its target market will likely be unfamiliar with specifications like read/write speeds and will probably be satisfied as long as it’s faster than a hard drive.

Lenovo’s deployment of YMTC drives is particularly important because it’s one of the largest laptop brands in the U.S. by volume. In fact, even as PC shipments fell by 7% in the first quarter of 2026, Lenovo’s market share actually grew by 1.2%, making it the third largest desktop and notebook brand after Dell and HP. Since the Lenovo ThinkBook 14 G9 IPL is a relatively affordable laptop designed for office use, it would likely sell many units through enterprise purchases and help increase the adoption of Chinese storage solutions in the U.S.

Since YMTC is also listed as a Chinese military company, institutions looking to buy this particular model may face procurement challenges, especially if they operate in sensitive industries or are government agencies. However, it seems that the memory chip crisis has grown to the point where it’s willing to offer a model it won’t be able to sell in some instances. Nevertheless, this helps ensure that buyers without restrictions have a more affordable option.

Above you can see that GitHub is lending its voice to those who reckon Sony’s move is wrong or, at best, premature. The coding and collaboration platform, owned by Microsoft, states that “In light of recent developments in physical media, GitHub is proud to announce that you can now obtain your public repo on CD-ROM.” Moreover, it appeals to the human side of computing, adding the emotive line “Keep it. Lend it to friends. Pass it on to your children.”

It isn’t April 1^st, so thankfully this is no joke. However, if you check out the above-linked GitHub Your Code, On a CD offer page, it quickly becomes clear this is a very limited in time/scope stunt.

“Order a burned CD of your own public GitHub repo. Yes, a real physical disc you can hold in your hands, no download required,” begins the spiel. But this is a very limited run of 1,000 discs, with applications required between July 2 and July 6 (inclusive). Limit one per person, with availability varying between country/region.

“Your code is physically yours, forever. Until you lose it, let's be real,” says GitHub. At best, these CDs will be framed and put on a wall, some becoming collector’s items or eBay money spinners (discs like 0001 or 0888 would be good ones, if they are numbered). Also, many will be lost or eventually/accidentally discarded, as GitHub seems to know. So this 'protest' is arguably 1,000 doses of expensively shipped e-waste.

Circling back to the context of this GitHub story, it is clear it is a small protest at Sony essentially ringing the death knell for physical media in modern gaming. Consoles were already rolling inexorably down this road with the cheaper digital edition hardware releases, and other games industry players are pushing in the same direction. Digital-only isn’t likely going to end up well for gamers, archivists, second-hand stores, and others – with used game media disappearing from the scene, to name but one impending issue.

• Check out this deal at Amazon

Unlike the Gen 4 990 Pro, the Samsung 9100 Pro SSD boasts sequential read speeds of up to 14,700MB/s thanks to PCIe 5.0. As such, it's one of the fastest drives on the market, perfect for high-performance gaming or heavy professional workloads. By contrast, the 990 Pro is actually more expensive, currently $219 at Amazon, despite the fact that it offers about half the read and write speeds of this drive. While SSD prices are massively inflated, this drive's previous lowest-ever price was $126, so percentage-wise it's a big step up, but in real terms, it's only $80 more expensive than you'd have paid last year pre-AI price crunch. A tough pill to swallow, but if you want a good Gen 5 SSD for a new PC build or your PS5, this is one of the better options.

During Prime Day, we also saw a significant discount on the 2TB version, which was priced at $349. It's now back up to $399, which is still slightly better value per GB but a much bigger outlay overall. At 41% off, this is down from the highest price of $505 in April, but nowhere near the $169 you'd have got it for last year.

This drive is no slouch, and while it's not the out-and-out fastest drive on the market, it leaves most SSDs in the dust, as you can see from our testing data below:

Notably, in PCMark 10 Storage tests, the 9100 scored higher than any other drive we've tested. As mentioned, at the very least this deal is a no-brainer pick over the 990 Pro, which isn't as fast or as cheap (provided your motherboard supports PCIe 5.0, of course).

More Tech Deals

Best Tech and PC deals | Best gaming PC deals | Best RAM combo deals | Best 3D printer deals | Best RAM deals | Best gaming laptop deals | Best gaming monitor deals | Best Wi-Fi Router deals | Best GPU deals | Best SSD deals | Best hard drive HDD deals | Best CPU deals | Best gaming chair deals | Best PC building tool deals | Best PC peripherals deals | Best filament and resin deals | Best motherboard deals | Best CPU cooler deals | Best PC case deals | Best Dell and Alienware deals | Best USB charger deals | Best gaming and productivity laptop deals under $1,000 | Best laptop PC deals

Also, you can join the Tom's Hardware deals Discord for up-to-the-minute hardware deals.

Solidigm originates from Intel's Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group (NSG), the company's NAND and SSD business unit, which used to have a unique technology strategy that differed from that of other flash and drive producers. To that end, it is not surprising that Solidigm also has a unique positioning as it only offers data center drives, most of which are based on floating-gate memory and proprietary in-house designed controllers. Furthermore, Solidigm is a fully vertically integrated company.

At Computex 2026, we sat down with Avi Shetty, who is vice president of AI ecosystem, Solutions & Market Enablement at Solidigm. Before his current position at Solidigm, he spent 14.5 years at Intel's storage division, so he has deep knowledge both about technology and the market. During our conversation, we discussed how Solidigm keeps evolving, including floating-gate NAND memory, advanced packaging technologies, next-generation SSDs, liquid-cooled SSDs, and more.

Anton Shilov: Could you introduce yourself to our readers and describe what do you do at Solidigm?

Avi Shetty: My name is Avi Shetty. I work at Solidigm, where I help lead AI solutions and ecosystem initiatives. My team works with global platform providers, software ISVs, and ODMs to ensure Solidigm solutions are validated, benchmarked, and included in reference designs at both the device and cluster levels, enabling customers to fully utilize our products.

A part of SK hynix that acts independently

Anton Shilov: You were previously a part of Intel. How is the integration going? Are you now fully integrated part of SK hynix, or do you operate independently?

Avi Shetty: Let me provide some background. While Solidigm was established in December 2021, our history goes back decades. Many of us came from Intel's Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group (NSG), which developed Intel’s NAND SSDs for both client and data center markets.

In 2021, SK hynix acquired Intel’s NAND and SSD business and established Solidigm. Since December 2021, we have operated as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of SK hynix, headquartered in Rancho Cordova, California.

Anton Shilov: So, you are part of SK hynix, but still maintain a degree of independence?

Avi Shetty: Absolutely. We operate as an independent subsidiary of SK hynix. Our strategy is focused entirely on enterprise SSDs. Every bit of [floating gate] NAND [at our fab in Dalian, China] we produce goes into enterprise storage solutions.

This is one of the ways we differentiate ourselves from competitors such as Samsung and Micron, which also serve mobile and client markets. We made a deliberate decision to focus exclusively on enterprise storage and AI.

We are also fully vertically integrated. We manufacture our own NAND, develop our own controllers, write our own firmware, and design our own SSDs. While we work with manufacturing partners to build products, we control the entire technology stack.

I also believe we are the only company with access to two different NAND architectures. Through SK hynix we have access to charge trap flash (CTF) technology, and we continue to develop floating gate NAND technology for our high-density QLC SSD products.

Anton Shilov: What is Solidigm's current share of the enterprise SSD market?

Avi Shetty: Approximately 24%. That is enterprise SSDs only. We do not participate in any other NAND markets. As of the first quarter of 2025, plus or minus a few percentage points, our measured enterprise SSD market share is approximately 24%. We evaluate market-share data quarterly and semiannually, and that is the latest figure we’ve publicly discussed.

Anton Shilov: How much of your business today is concentrated in high-capacity SSDs versus higher-performance products?

Avi Shetty: High-density SSDs now represent a significant portion of our business. Because Solidigm is privately held, we do not publicly disclose that breakdown. We report our financial metrics through our parent company, SK hynix.

What I can tell you is that both our 61TB-class and 122TB-class products became customer favorites almost immediately after launch. Demand for high-density storage has been extremely strong.

Anton Shilov: I assume you also work directly with hyperscalers?

Avi Shetty: We work with a broad range of customers globally. That includes U.S. cloud service providers, Chinese cloud service providers, OEMs around the world, NeoCloud providers, software ISVs, and channel partners. We maintain customer support, engineering, and sales organizations globally. Our business spans the Americas, EMEA, China, and the rest of Asia-Pacific.

Anton Shilov: Which customer segment represents the largest opportunity for growth right now? Traditional cloud providers or something else?

Avi Shetty: We intentionally maintain a diversified customer base.

What is interesting is how quickly new segments emerge. For example, the NeoCloud market has existed for some time, but AI-focused infrastructure providers such as CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, and Nebius have become much more important over the last two years.

Before the AI boom, these companies represented only a small portion of demand. Today, they are becoming a meaningful part of the market.

As AI infrastructure continues to expand, Solidigm is adapting both its customer strategy and product portfolio to support these emerging deployments while continuing to serve our traditional customers.

Floating gate NAND in 2026

CTF NAND used by major memory makers has approached 276 - 286 active layers, whereas Solidigm's floating gate flash is still at 192 layers, meaning that the company is somewhat behind some of its rivals in terms of active layers as of mid-2026. It is set to catch up with its next generation that will have over 200 layers, but only in the second half of this year. However, floating gate NAND memory still has a number of advantages over CTF, particularly for applications that Solidigm targets.

Floating gate uses a conductive polysilicon island to store charge, which provides excellent cell isolation — charge stays well-contained and is less likely to spread to or interfere with neighboring cells — and this is particularly important for 3D QLC NAND with very high layer counts. In addition, Solidigm claims that floating gate gives a strong voltage threshold window and better cell isolation, which enables the company to keep scaling QLC more while maintaining good reliability.

Anton Shilov: Are you still producing floating gate NAND, and do you intend to continue?

Avi Shetty: Absolutely. We introduced our first QLC foating gate NAND product in 2018, and today we are on our fourth generation of QLC NAND.

Our flagship high-capacity product currently ships with 192-layer floating gate NAND technology and powers our 122TB SSD.

Anton Shilov: Haven't you also announced a larger drive?

Avi Shetty: We have announced a higher-capacity product and expect it to become available later this year.

Anton Shilov: The 256TB-class drive?

Avi Shetty: Correct. Approximately 245TB usable capacity.

Anton Shilov: So you are going to have a roughly 245TB SSD available this year?

Avi Shetty: Correct.

Anton Shilov: What advantages does Floating-Gate NAND provide?

Avi Shetty: Floating gate NAND gives us scalability. We have consistently been first in the industry to push storage density in standard form factors. We were the first to introduce a 30TB SSD, then a 60TB SSD, and later a 122TB SSD.

We have been shipping the 122TB drive for nearly five quarters. We launched it in the fourth quarter of 2024, and it has since become our flagship product. It is probably our most popular product of 2025.

The reason customers like the 122TB drive is efficiency. When you look at AI data centers, customers want low power consumption, scalability, and performance. While this particular product is a PCIe Gen4 solution, our roadmap continues to increase both density and bandwidth. You will see future products based on PCIe Gen5 and PCIe Gen6.

The real attraction of the 122TB SSD is scale. In a 1U server, you can install 24 of these drives and get nearly 3PB of storage in a single rack unit.

If you look at the AI data pipeline — from training to archiving — the first and last stages require massive datasets. That is where these high-capacity SSDs are being deployed today.

Now we are also seeing growing demand from inference deployments. Inference can run in core data centers or in edge and back-office environments. Those deployments require storage that can efficiently feed GPUs and support workloads such as context storage and KV cache management. High-density SSDs help provide the capacity required for those applications.

Next-generation SSDs: PCIe Gen6 drives with liquid cooling

Anton Shilov: You mentioned PCIe Gen5 and Gen6 [next-generation drives]. I assume you are referring both to next PCIe generations and future NAND generations?

Avi Shetty: Both.

We maintain separate technology and product roadmaps. Earlier, I mentioned that our current QLC NAND is our 4^th Generation technology based on 192 layers. We will continue investing in future NAND generations as well.

On the product side, we are talking about PCIe generations. We currently ship both PCIe Gen4 and PCIe Gen5 SSDs. All of our TLC products are PCIe Gen5 today, while our QLC lineup currently remains PCIe Gen4.

Future QLC products will move to PCIe Gen5, and eventually, we will introduce PCIe Gen6 SSDs as platform vendors such as AMD, Intel, and Nvidia adopt PCIe Gen6 in their systems.

Anton Shilov: You mentioned PCIe Gen6 SSDs. You have not shipped one yet, correct?

Avi Shetty: Correct. PCIe Gen6 products are part of our future roadmap.

Anton Shilov: How close are they?

Avi Shetty: We are not making product announcements at Computex, but you will hear more from us soon.

Anton Shilov: At the moment there is really only one platform that can take advantage of them anyway. Well, two, if you consider Nvidia Vera.

Avi Shetty: That is part of the equation. When we evaluate our roadmap, we consider demand, platform readiness, and overall value to customers.

For example, we have what we call a refresh philosophy. We may introduce a PCIe Gen4 refresh or a PCIe Gen5 refresh that lowers cost or improves efficiency rather than immediately moving to a new PCIe generation.

The question is whether customers gain more value from Gen6 today or from a more mature, lower-cost Gen5 product. Those are the kinds of decisions our planning teams evaluate.

What I can say is that Solidigm maintains a full roadmap covering PCIe Gen4, Gen5, and future Gen6 SSDs across all major form factors, including U.2, E1.S, E3.S, and other EDSFF variants. Our portfolio spans capacities from 2TB all the way to 122TB.

Anton Shilov: Launching an all-new product early still gives you time to validate products with platform vendors.

Avi Shetty: Absolutely. We already work closely with platform providers to validate prototypes long before products are launched. Our engineering teams participate in interoperability events and PCI-SIG workshops to ensure products are ready when platforms become available.

Anton Shilov: That is actually interesting because PCIe Gen6 interoperability workshops have been delayed multiple times. Back in 2024, people expected the ecosystem to move much faster and interoperability workshops to start in 2024, with the list of compatible products emerging in 2025.

Avi Shetty: That is true. A lot depends on platform readiness and ecosystem scaling. PCIe Gen6 by itself is not enough. This is my personal opinion, but to fully benefit from Gen6 storage performance, the industry must also address cooling. That is one reason we invested heavily in liquid-cooled storage.

Last year, we introduced what we believe was the world's first liquid-cooled storage solution for Nvidia environments. It used E1.S PCIe Gen5 SSDs with direct liquid cooling. Historically, liquid cooling was focused on CPUs and GPUs. We extended it to storage by allowing coolant to flow through a cold plate attached to the SSD. The cold plate removes heat directly from the drive. To fully exploit PCIe Gen6 performance, the ecosystem must develop those kinds of technologies as well.

Anton Shilov: So you believe PCIe Gen6 SSDs will require liquid cooling?

Avi Shetty: At least in high-performance AI environments, particularly Nvidia-based deployments, we believe liquid cooling will be necessary.

Next-generation SSDs: PLC NAND

Anton Shilov: Will future NAND generations include both TLC and QLC? And what about PLC?

Avi Shetty: Never say never. We demonstrated PLC technology using floating gate NAND at the Flash Memory Summit several years ago. However, this business requires factory optimization and maintaining a manageable number of SKUs to maximize utilization and profitability.

That said, there absolutely will be opportunities for PLC. We have not announced any specific products or timelines, but there is active PLC development underway inside Solidigm.

Anton Shilov: That is interesting. However, PLC by itself only increases capacity by about 20% compared to QLC and at the same time requires significantly more sophisticated controllers and error correction.

Avi Shetty: That is true. However, those same concerns existed during every previous transition: from SLC to MLC, MLC to TLC, and TLC to QLC.

We were the first company to commercialize QLC NAND. Initially, many competitors questioned its value. Today, the industry increasingly recognizes the total-cost-of-ownership advantages that QLC provides, and multiple vendors now offer QLC products. I think the same process will occur with PLC.

It is also important to consider the broader market. Roughly 80% of storage capacity worldwide is still deployed on hard drives. PLC does not necessarily need to replace QLC on a one-to-one basis. Instead, it can create new opportunities where the advantages of solid-state storage — lower power consumption, higher density, smaller physical footprint, and lower total cost of ownership — become compelling.

You will likely see future solution development involving software partners that help address some of the limitations you are describing.

Anton Shilov: Do you expect retention characteristics to become a major challenge with PLC NAND?

Avi Shetty: Of course. PLC is a new technology, and retention characteristics will differ from what we see with QLC today.

The same is true across all NAND types. SLC, MLC, TLC, QLC, and eventually PLC all have different retention characteristics based on the underlying technology. The existence of those challenges does not mean we stop exploring future solutions. We will continue investing in that area.

Advanced packaging for NAND

Anton Shilov: As I mentioned, PLC only increases capacity by about 20%. Advanced packaging may ultimately have a much larger impact on SSD capacity. Could you discuss where packaging technology stands today and where it is headed?

Avi Shetty: Absolutely. Let me use our current products as an example. The 122TB SSD represents a significant packaging achievement. It is a U.2 drive with 48 NAND packages. Each package contains a 22-die stack. Each die is a 1.33Tb QLC device. Those 22-die stacks are what enable us to reach 122TB in a standard form factor.

Packaging technology remains one of our core investments. We continue developing technologies that allow us to place more dies into each package and deliver higher capacities to customers.

Anton Shilov: What about increasing the number of dies per package?

Avi Shetty: That is one of the primary ways to increase density. You can either increase die capacity or increase the number of dies per package. We intend to pursue both approaches.

Anton Shilov: How many dies per package do you think remain practical?

Avi Shetty: Today we are at 22. Future products will go beyond that, although I cannot discuss specific numbers.

Anton Shilov: What did previous generations use?

Avi Shetty: Depending on capacity requirements, previous products used 4-, 8-, or 16-die stacks. Of course, we are talking about a single NAND package in each case.

Storage-Class Memory, Optane, and Nvidia's Storage Next

Anton Shilov: What about storage-class memory?

Avi Shetty: Like Optane?

Anton Shilov: Not necessarily Optane itself, but something similar — something faster than NAND flash, yet capable of offering significantly higher density than DRAM at a lower cost.

Avi Shetty: Understood. Let me frame it from the perspective of the problem we are trying to solve. If you are asking whether Solidigm is developing a storage-class memory technology similar to Optane, then the answer today is no.

What we are focused on is addressing the requirements emerging from Nvidia's Storage Next initiative. The fundamental challenge is bandwidth. HBM is extremely fast, but it is also expensive and difficult to scale economically. As AI systems continue to grow, the industry needs additional memory and storage tiers that provide greater capacity at lower cost. That creates demand for NAND-based solutions that remain non-volatile while delivering improved latency and bandwidth characteristics.

We have not made any public announcements regarding storage-class memory technologies, but we continuously evaluate future technologies and architectural approaches.

Anton Shilov: So you are exploring concepts that could potentially bridge the gap between traditional NAND and memory?

Avi Shetty: We are evaluating a wide range of technologies that could help us continue delivering leadership products to our customers. When and if we have something to announce, we will do so publicly. At this point, however, we have nothing to disclose.

Anton Shilov: So storage-class memory is not currently a product category that Solidigm is actively pursuing?

Avi Shetty: If you are specifically referring to something similar to Optane, then no.

Optane was based on a fundamentally different technology. It was not NAND. It relied on a phase-change-memory-derived architecture and represented a completely different storage medium. We are not pursuing that type of technology today. What we are investing in is future NAND technology.

Anton Shilov: You think that future NAND technologies could eventually move closer to that space?

Avi Shetty: Exactly. Future NAND innovations could help narrow the gap between HBM, DRAM, and the next storage tier. That’s certainly one of the directions the industry is evaluating as AI systems continue to demand larger memory pools and greater bandwidth.