Seagate FireCuda 120 SATA SSD Review: Fast, Expensive, and Enduring

Blazing speed meets high endurance

Seagate FireCuda 120
(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 the Seagate FireCuda 120 up against some of the best SSDs on the market, including the SK hynix Gold S31, Crucial MX500, WD Blue 3D, Samsung’s 860 EVO, and 870 QVO. We also tossed the WD Red SA500 and Seagate IronWolf 110 into the mix for direct comparisons to other 4TB models.

Sean Webster
Storage Reviewer

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

  • Flayed
    Talking about SSD endurance, I've had my 860 Evo for a year now and the total bytes written are 7140.4GB. I don't think I'm in the demographic for a high endurance drive :P
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Flayed said:
    Talking about SSD endurance, I've had my 860 Evo for a year now and the total bytes written are 7140.4GB. I don't think I'm in the demographic for a high endurance drive :p
    Outside of a corporate database, almost no one is.

    Of my current 7 drives:
    C - 500GB 850 EVO: 54.733TBW, 38k POH
    E - 250GB 840 EVO: 4.750TBW, 73k POH
    K - 250GB 840 EVO: 5.3TBW, 72k POH
    G - 1TB 860 EVO: 3.5TBW, 17.5k POH
    I - 1TB SanDisk Ultra II: 1.6TBW, 17k POH
    F - 500GB 860 EVO: 1.1TBW, 20k POH
    H - 1TB Intel 660p: 4.2TBW, 13.1k POH


    Cumulative total:
    75.1 TBW, 235k POH, (AKA 9,700 days, 26.8 years).
    Reply
  • evdjj3j
    I don't think fast means what the author thinks it means.
    Reply
  • seanwebster
    evdjj3j said:
    I don't think fast means what the author thinks it means.
    Slow compared to NVMe for seq transfers sure. At least it isn't a slow DRAMless SSD. It's fast for SATA.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    seanwebster said:
    Slow compared to NVMe for seq transfers sure. At least it isn't a slow DRAMless SSD. It's fast for SATA.
    Average for SATA III. And at $190 for 1TB, over priced.
    Current 860 EVO is $110 for 1TB.
    Reply
  • seanwebster
    USAFRet said:
    Average for SATA III. And at $190 for 1TB, over priced.
    Current 860 EVO is $110 for 1TB.
    Way overpriced
    Reply
  • escksu
    I have to say endurance is never an issue for mainstream end-user drives. You will easily get around 200-300TBW for 500GB drive, 250GB probably 100-150TBW.

    If you have to write 200TB of data onto your 500GB drive, you probably need a bigger drive instead. I used to have an Adata 500GB but its too small due to the ridiculous of space needed by games today, esp. online games (eg. WOT, WOWS, MWO etc...). I usually play them 1-2 times a week. Not that often but having to reinstall every time I play is too tedious. So, bought 1TB drive and resolve the space issue.

    Of course, there are situations where uses will need to keep writing to the drive (eg. video editing), but this isn't what most end-users do on a daily basis.
    Reply
  • Glock24
    escksu said:
    I have to say endurance is never an issue for mainstream end-user drives. You will easily get around 200-300TBW for 500GB drive, 250GB probably 100-150TBW.

    If you have to write 200TB of data onto your 500GB drive, you probably need a bigger drive instead. I used to have an Adata 500GB but its too small due to the ridiculous of space needed by games today, esp. online games (eg. WOT, WOWS, MWO etc...). I usually play them 1-2 times a week. Not that often but having to reinstall every time I play is too tedious. So, bought 1TB drive and resolve the space issue.

    Of course, there are situations where uses will need to keep writing to the drive (eg. video editing), but this isn't what most end-users do on a daily basis.

    Endurance may not be an issue for regular users, but reliability is. I've seen dear ADATA and Kingston drives, bit I've yet to see a dead Samsung, Crucial, Intel or Sandisk SSD.

    Also the cheap SSDs than come with cheap laptops are really crappy, probably DRAMLESS or QLC or both. I saw a Dell that's like 6 months old and the 256GB Kioxia drive it comes with is already al 90% health with very light use.

    As a comparison, I've got Samsung 840 (non-Evo) 120GB drives in office PCs with over 6 years of use and they show ~93% health.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Glock24 said:
    Endurance may not be an issue for regular users, but reliability is. I've seen dear ADATA and Kingston drives, bit I've yet to see a dead Samsung, Crucial, Intel or Sandisk SSD.

    Also the cheap SSDs than come with cheap laptops are really crappy, probably DRAMLESS or QLC or both. I saw a Dell that's like 6 months old and the 256GB Kioxia drive it comes with is already al 90% health with very light use.

    As a comparison, I've got Samsung 840 (non-Evo) 120GB drives in office PCs with over 6 years of use and they show ~93% health.
    Indeed.
    The only one of my SSD's that showed any slowdown was a Kingston. And I wouldn't buy an ADATA at all.
    The 2x 840 EVO I have in this system are still showing 100% health after 6 years.
    Reply
  • gg83
    How can Seagate compete with these high prices? The competition is close enough and much cheaper. Is endurance that important?
    Reply