Adata SD810 External SSD review: 20Gbps speed on a budget, but not for pros

Impressive for the price, as long as you don't count sustained write speeds

Adata SD810 External SSD
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

Adata's SD810 is priced low for a 20Gbps USB drive, and it performs well in many benchmarks. But after about a minute of fast writes, its SLC cache fills up and you'll be dealing with hard drive-class speeds.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Competitive price

  • +

    Good performance on most tests

  • +

    5-year warranty

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    Roughly 230MBps write speeds once cache is exhausted

  • -

    Cache lasted about a minute in Iometer test

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Adata's SD810 external SSD may sport modern 20Gbps (USB 3.2 Gen2 2x2) speeds, but its metal-wrapped and plastic-capped exterior design dates back to at least 2017. Still, it feels solid, offers IP68 water resistance (with its cap in place), and is almost as small as drives with more modern designs, like Crucial's X10 Pro, one of the best external SSDs you can buy. 

So we'll give Adata a pass on the SD810's dated design, especially considering its budget-friendly price for a 20Gbps drive. The drive is technically offered in capacities from 512GB up to 4TB, but when we wrote this, only the 1TB model ($89) and 2TB ($159) were readily available in the U.S. Crucial's 20Gbps X10 Pro sells for about $110 for 1TB, and $166 for the 2TB model. That gives the Adata drive an advantage on price, especially if you can find it on sale for a bit less. When we wrote this, Amazon was selling the 1TB SD810 that we tested for $85 and the 2TB model for $140.

So is the Adata SD810 a great lower-cost alternative in the niche (but certainly crowded) USB 3.2 Gen2 2x2 external SSD space, or should you spend your storage money on another drive? We'll have to put the SD810 through our benchmark testing to say for sure. But first, here are its specs, straight from Adata. 

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Matt Safford
Managing Editor

After a rough start with the Mattel Aquarius as a child, Matt built his first PC in the late 1990s and ventured into mild PC modding in the early 2000s. He’s spent the last 15 years covering emerging technology for Smithsonian, Popular Science, and Consumer Reports, while testing components and PCs for Computer Shopper, PCMag and Digital Trends.

  • cryoburner
    It's possible that the 2TB model has a larger cache, and so would write in the 1,800MBps range longer, but if the cache is dynamic, it's also going to drop once the drive gets close to full.
    I imagine the cache is likely dynamic and gets smaller with a fuller drive, but why not test that with various levels of free space remaining on each of the drives tested? And how long does it take for the cache to recover back to full performance after the sustained writes have stopped? There seems to be a lot of relevant information missing, at least if the cache is going to be discussed in the review as a major talking point, with suggestions that it supposedly makes the drive unsuitable for "professional use".

    Realistically, running out of cache after somewhere around 100GB of sustained 1.8GB/s writes over the course of a full minute on a 1TB drive will probably not be a particularly common scenario, even for most "professional" use cases. And even if it does happen on rare occasions, it shouldn't exactly be that big of a deal. Writing around 100GB within a minute is fast, but even when the cache is filled, writing another 100GBs of data within 6 or 7 minutes isn't exactly going to be a problem outside of some niche usage scenarios. Even if you were to initially copy a full 1TB of data to the drive to completely fill it, the process would only take about an hour, and that's not likely something that many are going to do on a daily basis.

    And a drive that has less free space remaining might have less cache available, but how much less, and how does that compare to the other drives when at similar levels of free space? Some may maintain a larger minimum size for the cache, but none of that appears to be answered in the review, so it's kind of hard to draw a complete picture of how each of the drives compare in terms of sustained write performance under different conditions.
    Reply