Adata Falcon M.2 NVMe SSD Review: Soaring above SATA

Adata’s Falcon is dressed to impress

Adata Falcon
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

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.

Comparison Products

We put Adata’s Falcon against some of the best SSDs on the market, including Seagate’s FireCuda 520 with its PCIe 4.0 x4 interface. Our other comparables all feature a PCIe 3.0 x4 link, except for the SATA Crucial MX500 SSD and WD Black, a 7,200-RPM HDD. Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus, Adata’s XPG SX8200 Pro, WD’s Black SN750, and Seagate’s FireCuda 510 represent top-end competition, while the WD Blue SN550 is one of the best performing DRAMless SSDs we’ve tested. We also threw in the Adata XPG Spectrix S40G that flaunts a DRAM-based variant of the Falcon’s controller with last-gen 64L TLC and tasteful RGB lighting.

Sean Webster
Storage Reviewer

Sean is a Contributing Editor at Tom’s Hardware US, covering storage hardware.

  • 2Be_or_Not2Be
    This is an example of where technology is clearly changed/reduced only to save money for the mfg at the expense of the unknowing consumer. Removing DRAM only benefits the mfg, and it's bad for the consumer, especially when they don't know the technology limitations.

    So that being the case, it should be priced WELL below the pricing of competing solutions with DRAM (like Adata's own SX8200, as mentioned.) Pricing it only $10-20 less is a joke & a rip-off of the consumer, because no one is saying "I'd like to waste more time every single time I use my computer just to save $10".

    P.S. Calling this drive a "prosumer" model is also a joke.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    2Be_or_Not2Be said:
    Pricing it only $10-20 less is a joke & a rip-off of the consumer
    Well, a DRAM chip only costs ~$2, so the manufacturer isn't really saving all that much on the BoM from skipping it and still has to make its otherwise mostly unchanged costs, so it cannot make it all that much cheaper despite the substantially worse user experience.
    Reply
  • gg83
    I have a 1tb adata s40 rgb m.2 and it seems fast. This seems to compete directly with it and the Falcon lacks dram. The dynamic cache must make the difference?
    Reply
  • 2Be_or_Not2Be
    InvalidError said:
    Well, a DRAM chip only costs ~$2, so the manufacturer isn't really saving all that much on the BoM from skipping it and still has to make its otherwise mostly unchanged costs, so it cannot make it all that much cheaper despite the substantially worse user experience.

    Yeah, I'd prefer mfgs stop producing the cheaper tech & keep their profit margins with the existing higher-performing tech. Keep DRAM and drop QLC (also stop the "penta-layer" before that hits production). I've been through the changes from SLC to MLC and then TLC. TLC can mostly keep up the performance to MLC-levels, but QLC is definitely worse. So make the minimum level of flash tech at TLC, and then just work on improving your processes for better gains/profits. Then the consumer is getting the newer tech that actually improves performance, versus the "maybe" of QLC & DRAM-less SSDs.

    Can't wait to switch to Optane/3D-XPoint Now that's where I'd love to see more research going into increasing capacity and lowering prices!
    Reply
  • 2Be_or_Not2Be
    gg83 said:
    I have a 1tb adata s40 rgb m.2 and it seems fast. This seems to compete directly with it and the Falcon lacks dram. The dynamic cache must make the difference?

    Your XPG Spectrix S40G is definitely better than the "Falcon". The onboard DRAM makes a difference in regards to performance.
    Reply
  • gg83
    2Be_or_Not2Be said:
    Your XPG Spectrix S40G is definitely better than the "Falcon". The onboard DRAM makes a difference in regards to performance.
    And it looks kickass!
    Reply