Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 1TB SSD review: A baseline drive for your M.2 2242 needs

Not too short, not too long.

Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 1TB
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 proves capable as an M.2 2242 NVMe SSD, with a Phison E21T controller and 176-layer TLC NAND. It’s one of the best choices out there for drives that use this form factor, though we'd like to see a higher capacity version.

Pros

  • +

    Good all-around and sustained performance

  • +

    Power-efficient

  • +

    TLC NAND

Cons

  • -

    Only available at 1TB (for now)

  • -

    Not many devices need 2242

  • -

    Previous gen Phison E21T controller

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.

The Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 represents the first drive of this form factor to hit our testbed. M.2 2230 form factor SSDs have become all the rage thanks to the immense popularity of Valve’s Steam Deck and Steam Deck OLED, as well as other handheld gaming systems like the Asus Ally and MSI Claw. Gamers have been quick to 'fix' the storage capacity problem (and avoid the price premiums) by doing their own upgrades. However, some devices like the Lenovo Legion Go and a few laptops need something a little different. The uncommon in-between M.2 2242 form factor that they use takes up less board space than 2280 but has the advantage of supporting drives that are able to fit twice as many flash packages as 2230. Surely this should be the best of both worlds!

Unfortunately, most drives in this form factor are OEM specific models that use older, less efficient hardware. This isn’t ideal if you want maximum performance and battery life with a reliable retail warranty. That’s where the Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 comes into play. It’s longer but still single-sided like the Rocket 2230, and it's fully compatible with even PCIe 3.0 M.2 2242 host slots. The drive comes with newer hardware, relative to most existing options, delivering fast and efficient performance, minimizing load times and maximizing battery life. It’s a simple drop-in upgrade for systems that have less than 1TB stock or have an extra M.2 2242 slot on-board.

That brings us quickly to perhaps the biggest downside of the Rocket Nano 2242 right now, as it currently only comes in a 1TB capacity. The M.2 2242 form factor allows for up to two NAND packages for a single-sided drive, so 2TB or even 4TB should be possible, and that will likely come in the future — if not from Sabrent, then from some other manufacturer.

The other notable drawback is the use of a Phison E21T controller. This has been popular on M.2 2230 drives, but it's now being replaced by its faster and newer Phison E27T sibling. Sabrent might be waiting on larger capacity options for the updated controller in order to maximize drive potential. Either way, the Rocket Nano 2242 is not deficient in any way that would preclude its use, unless you really want to push the most amount of bandwidth possible.

If you need 2TB today, you could go for an M.2 2230 solution like the Rocket Q4 2230 and extend the drive via an adapter. If TLC flash is desired, the WD SN740, Black SN770M, and Corsair MP600 Mini E27T are options — we've only tested the latter in 1TB trim, but the 2TB variant should now be available. (Sabrent also has an older Rocket 2232 NVMe that's available in 2TB, but that's a double-sided PCIe 3.0 drive using an even older Phison E13 controller.) A native PCIe 4.0 M.2 2242 drive like the Rocket Nano 2242 is a simpler solution, and additionally has more room for components that can help better spread out any generated heat.

These are factors to keep in mind when reading the review. Another point of interest is that the Rocket Nano 2242 uses different flash than the original Rocket 2230 — and all other tested M.2 2230 drives, for that matter — which yields some interesting results that are worth a closer look.

 Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242  Specifications

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Shane Downing
Contributing Writer

Shane Downing is a Contributing Writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering consumer storage, PC hardware, and AI.

With contributions from
  • Li Ken-un
    The problem with 2242 (thus, also a con not listed by this article) is that the market has consolidated around serving 2280 and 2230 sizes. It’s harder to find enclosures and such supporting sizes in between or longer. The slot will either be too small (2230-only) or you’re going to put the 2242 in a space long enough for 2280.

    That isn’t to say 2242-specific slots/products don’t exist. They do, and I own one: a 12th Gen NUC. But I’ve scoured the market for enough 2242 paraphernalia to know it’s a niche enough market to be a PITA for anyone buying 2242 without a plan for what to do with it.

    IOW, if you don’t already have anything that specifically requires 2242, don’t buy this SSD.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    Li Ken-un said:
    The problem with 2242 (thus, also a con not listed by this article) is that the market has consolidated around serving 2280 and 2230 sizes. It’s harder to find enclosures and such supporting sizes in between or longer. The slot will either be too small (2230-only) or you’re going to put the 2242 in a space long enough for 2280.

    That isn’t to say 2242-specific slots/products don’t exist. They do, and I own one: a 12th Gen NUC. But I’ve scoured the market for enough 2242 paraphernalia to know it’s a niche enough market to be a PITA for anyone buying 2242 without a plan for what to do with it.

    IOW, if you don’t already have anything that specifically requires 2242, don’t buy this SSD.
    360I believe you're incorrect about the "also a con not listed by this article" comment. Unless "Not many devices need 2242" being listed under the Cons column doesn't qualify? :p
    Reply
  • Li Ken-un
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    https://forums.tomshardware.com/attachments/1722922069818-png.360/I believe you're incorrect about the "also a con not listed by this article" comment. Unless "Not many devices need 2242" being listed under the Cons column doesn't qualify? :p
    I think I didn’t see it, but it’s been a long day. I’m too tired to contest. 🫠
    Reply