Tom's Hardware Verdict
The Seagate FireCuda 540 is a standard early adopter PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD, but it does differentiate itself with its superior warranty and strong support. It’s also one of the fastest drives around.
Pros
- +
Very high sequential throughput
- +
Good all-around and sustained performance
- +
Solid warranty, TBW, and software support
- +
3-year data recovery service
Cons
- -
Pricing is high
- -
Poor power efficiency
- -
Niche application
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
The Seagate FireCuda 540 is a fast, reliable PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD that sets itself apart with an excellent warranty. The FireCuda's performance is also good to excellent across the board, including in sustained workloads, which helps gear this drive for future DirectStorage game titles. It requires a PCIe 5.0-capable motherboard to take full advantage, particularly one with built-in M.2 cooling as the drive arrives bare, and pricing is also on the high end. Seagate’s attention to detail on this drive makes it a good fit for workstations, too, if you can apply your own cooling.
The initial instinct is to compare the FireCuda 540 to the Corsair MP700, a drive that shares the same hardware and also goes with the bare-drive approach. The E26’s reference heatsink, used on the Inland TD510, comes with a small fan for active cooling that’s annoying to power, noisy, and generally useless, so doing away with that is a good plan. It also makes sense to let the user decide how to cool the drive, as matching aesthetics is important with high-end machines. Having a different option, as does the Crucial T700 and Gigabyte Aorus 10000, is viable, but Seagate wanted something simple with this drive.
In my opinion, that works in Seagate’s favor. The three-year data recovery service is an excellent addition that sets it apart from the MP700. The TD510 has an extra year of warranty, but the FireCuda 540 compensates with a higher TBW endurance rating. This drive avoids risk by using the standard pSLC caching configuration, but attention is also paid to flash quality, including mitigating the possibility of counterfeit hardware. It manages to differentiate itself in a challenging space by focusing on what Seagate does right, and the fingerprints on it suggest the company’s experience in enterprise played a role.
However, these benefits come at a cost. The recovery service and higher TBW come with an elevated price tag. The TBW rating, in particular, may seem outlandishly high, but FireCuda drives historically have been excellent for write caching. The conservative pSLC cache design helps with that type of workload, too. The drive also supports hardware encryption which is often lacking in consumer products. Overall, these deviations help separate the FireCuda 540 sufficiently from the pack, but you have to judge whether or not it’s worth the price premium to get an added bit of security.
Specifications
Product | 1TB | 2TB | 4TB |
---|---|---|---|
Pricing | $189.99 | $319.99 | TBD |
Form Factor | M.2 2280 | M.2 2280 | M.2 2280 |
Interface / Protocol | PCIe 5.0 x4 | PCIe 5.0 x4 | PCIe 5.0 x4 |
Controller | Phison E26 | Phison E26 | Phison E26 |
DRAM | LPDDR4 | LPDDR4 | LPDDR4 |
Flash Memory | 232-Layer Micron TLC | 232-Layer Micron TLC | 232-Layer Micron TLC |
Sequential Read | 9,500 MB/s | 10,000 MB/s | TBD |
Sequential Write | 8,500 MB/s | 10,000 MB/s | TBD |
Random Read | 1.3M | 1.49M | TBD |
Random Write | 1.5M | 1.5M | TBD |
Security | TCG Opal 2.01 (SED) | TCG Opal 2.01 (SED) | TCG Opal 2.01 (SED) |
Endurance (TBW) | 1000TB | 2000TB | 4000TB |
Part Number | ZP1000GM3A004 | ZP2000GM3A004 | ZP4000GM3A004 |
Warranty | 5-Year (3-Year Rescue) | 5-Year (3-Year Rescue) | 5-Year (3-Year Rescue) |
The FireCuda 540 is available at 1TB and 2TB, but Seagate plans to also have a 4TB option in the future. The first two are priced at $189.99 and $319.99, respectively, on Amazon at the time of review, but the MSRP is lower. Actual selling prices will likely be even lower as the 540 faces drives like the Inland TD510, which is available for $269.99 for 2TB at the time of writing. The TD510 comes with a heatsink, but the reference design can be unnecessary or even detrimental depending on your build; plus, the FireCuda has a trick up its sleeve.
This trick would be the three-year Rescue Data Recovery Service which has been a nice feature for Seagate’s hard drives, including the IronWolf Pro and the FireCuda. This service includes a single attempt at data recovery with your data shipped back encrypted if successful. Data recovery from SSDs is different and can be more challenging than from HDDs, but there are plenty of cases where it’s possible to forensically restore SSD data with the right tools. I confirmed with Seagate that it is able and willing to go to such lengths, which could include utilizing donor SSD controllers. This is a big selling point for any SSD.
The FireCuda additionally has the standard five-year warranty and also 1000TB of writes warrantied per TB of storage. This TBW rating is higher than on many similar drives. While it’s rare to do this many writes within the warranty period, past FireCuda drives like the 530 have been popular for use in NAS and/or for write caching due to compatibility and conservative pSLC caches. Seagate confirmed a focus on making the 540 a reliable drive for a wide range of workloads. This is why it’s not surprising the drive supports 4KiB sectors (4Kn) and hardware encryption (SED) via TCG Opal 2.01.
The FireCuda 540 is rated for up to 10,000 / 10,000 MB/s for sequential reads and writes and 1.49M / 1.50M random read and write IOPS. These are likely conservative values, as the hardware can do more. Seagate tested with CrystalDiskMark at Q8T1 with a 1MB block size for the sequential specifications and Q32T16 at 4KB for the random, all on a fresh-out-of-the-box (FOB) drive.
Software and Accessories
Seagate offers downloads for two storage applications via its website: DiscWizard and SeaTools. The former is useful for imaging, cloning, and backups. The latter acts as an SSD toolbox with diagnostic tools. Together, these should cover most of your needs.
SMART readings on the FireCuda 540 include host writes for TBW but, according to the product manual, also reference values for erase counts, which can be useful in determining actual wear and write amplification. Additionally, if the drive reaches a certain state - listed as being down to the last 5% of spare blocks - it will enter a read-only mode so that data can still be safely retrieved.
A Closer Look
The FireCuda 540 arrives bare and without a heatsink. It’s designed to work with the aesthetics of your system by mating with whatever cooling solution you deem worthy. This can be nice as it doesn’t require you to remove a pre-installed heatsink and, further, doesn’t add unnecessary cost by adding a separate heatsink that you might not use. The drive does require cooling to operate properly, so it is not ideal for most laptops. It will work in a PlayStation 5 with an appropriate heatsink, but it is not the ideal choice; less expensive drives can provide the same experience.
The 540 has the standard expected layout with an SSD controller, a DRAM package, and four NAND packages. This would also be true of the 4TB model, which is unavailable. Seagate stated that 4TB can be challenging to achieve as the flash requires a certain level of stability, and the production of the flash is still being ramped up. Seagate’s focus is on ensuring a reliable product through testing before pushing it out the door, which is also a factor in the delay.
The FireCuda uses the Phison E26 SSD controller, an enterprise-derived design that we’ve tested many times before. Seagate uses custom firmware on this drive which includes protection against counterfeiting. If you buy a FireCuda 540 like this one, you can be assured of genuine hardware. Counterfeiting has become a significant problem in the SSD market, for example, through the use of recycled flash. One requirement for drives to achieve and maintain the high speeds required by the E26 is that the flash is of a quality grade, something Seagate takes seriously.
The Micron FBGA code on this flash is NY181 which indicates 4Tb, 232-Layer TLC (B58R) NAND packages. Each one of these has four 1Tb dies (QDP) for a total of 2TB with four packages. This flash can run between 1600-2400 MT/s, and the E26 can handle it throughout that range. However, there are limitations on performance, which has created multiple tiers of drives.
Seagate has stated that there are multiple reasons for this, but essentially it is challenging to achieve the right balance between speed, write endurance, and reliability. Faster I/O speeds put extra pressure on the controller and flash, which can lead to higher heat generation and additional thermal cycling stress. The flash on the FireCuda 540 utilizes an on-die thermal sensor with a maximum temperature of 90C for optimal stability, which helps emphasize that these drives are designed to be cooled in entirety.
The DRAM, which is LPDDR4 from SK hynix, is also rated for a maximum of 90C, although this is not usually a problem as DRAM on SSDs is not heavily labored even with dense workloads. LPDDR4 is a good choice in any case as it is more efficient.
MORE: Best SSDs
MORE: Best External SSDs and Hard Drives
MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs
MORE: All SSD Content
Shane Downing is a Freelance Reviewer for Tom’s Hardware US, covering consumer storage hardware.
-
lmcnabney At 5x the price of the cheaper 4x4 modules this is just a toy for the rich so they can save maybe a whole second every time they load a modern game.Reply -
dk382 Seagate's Firecuda series have always been great SSDs. It's a shame that they always seem to be in such low supply and priced so high. My Firecuda 510 still barely has a dent in its health rating after four years of use, three of which was as an OS drive.Reply -
everettfsargent Could someone please explain iometer and sequential writes to an ssd? Also after a full write to a disk should not the test stop?Reply
Elsewheres it has been suggested to use ms windows diskspd cli instead. And elsewheres it has been suggested that iometer in a decade old or even older?
Writing more then 100% to an ssd makes no sense whatsoever. Someone please explain. You can somewhat see this in both the 2gb and 4gb seagate 530 ssd's at roughly 450 and 900 seconds into each test.
Finally, one would need to read from a much faster drive into ddr memory (ok, so maybe not, because you can copy directly from one storage medium to another, i. e. a raid volume for example) before writing to a secondary drive such as these ssd's, that would be realworld throughput. Just moving the same bits over and over from memory, i guess would work, and that is what i am assuming is meant by a synthetic benchmark. However writing past 100% of a physical drive's size is not meaningful to me for any real filesystem where the write volume is not normally overwritten ever as far as i know.
Thanks in advance. -
hotaru.hino
Not sure if this answers your question, but the methodology for that test in particular was explained at https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/details-for-sustained-sequential-write-performance-test.3603980/#post-21790529everettfsargent said:Could someone please explain iometer and sequential writes to an ssd? Also after a full write to a disk should not the test stop?
Elsewheres it has been suggested to use ms windows diskspd cli instead. And elsewheres it has been suggested that iometer in a decade old or even older?
Writing more then 100% to an ssd makes no sense whatsoever. Someone please explain. You can somewhat see this in both the 2gb and 4gb seagate 530 ssd's at roughly 450 and 900 seconds into each test.
Finally, one would need to read from a much faster drive into ddr memory (ok, so maybe not, because you can copy directly from one storage medium to another, i. e. a raid volume for example) before writing to a secondary drive such as these ssd's, that would be realworld throughput. Just moving the same bits over and over from memory, i guess would work, and that is what i am assuming is meant by a synthetic benchmark. However writing past 100% of a physical drive's size is not meaningful to me for any real filesystem where the write volume is not normally overwritten ever as far as i know.
Thanks in advance. -
everettfsargent hotaru.hino,Reply
Thanks i can see where everything is "zeroed" out so to speak. Also this test appears to be universal at least for the early part of the test where the dram cache is nit filled yet as most manufacturers apoear to quote similar numbers for max read/write speeds.
The only real reason i asked was in looking at the iometer results as a function of time and doing a mental integration (very roughly mind you) of that time series and going, wait a minute that is over 100% of a full capacity ssd drive write???
Also, a sequential write or read makes perfect sense for newly formatted spinners but makes absolutely no sense for ssd's.
I will now go back to lurking mode but would appreciate any additional information or insights (im thinking this is only useful for new unused blank ssd's).
It does make for a nice time series though, just not one for a drive past 100% of its capacity (brand new or otherwise). -
everettfsargent I even have more questions now. Pcie 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 and dram caches. What is being written to, dram or physical ssd media, and the number of layers in these new 5.0 ssd's (that may explain the heat issues seen in this newest generation of 5.0 ssd's). More layers, same horizontal memory footprints (same M.2 physical dimensions), higher MBps on average (due to more layers?) equals more heat to dissipate?Reply
I currently think the iometer test is somewhat meaningless in real world tests and is only meaningful when moving very large amounts of data in one go (and where the dram cache is exceeded). -
dimar Would be nice to have some SSDs that stay at 30 deg C without heatsink, so I don't have to worry burning down my laptop or office desktop.Reply -
MattCorallo The 540s seem to have a firmware data corruption bug. I've tried a few of these after RMA'ing them repeatedly - pop a Firecuda 540 in a ceph cluster and watch ceph start to throw hundreds of data corruption rejections. Given Ceph is really just a "pretty high flush workload", I'd bet you can get the same result writing a ton to btrfs/zfs with `while true; do sync; done` running in the background and then trying to read it back or even high-writes PostgreReply