A Reddit user posted in the PCMR subreddit to complain about the RMA process for their broken Silicon Power RAM. According to u/permanentlytemporary, they had a problem with the 2x8GB RAM sticks, which they bought for $54.97. However, Silicon Power reportedly charged the user a 15% depreciation fee. While they did not mention when they bought the memory modules, the purchase price indicates this was before the memory shortage gripped the industry, likely in the third quarter of last year.

Given the state of the RAM market, the user was hoping for a replacement — it’s unclear what happened after the company received the RAM kit, but Silicon Power reportedly decided to refund the client instead. Unfortunately, the refund is based on the client’s purchase price, not on the kit's current price. With the 16GB (2x8GB) Silicon Power DDR4-3200 RAM kit now priced at $140.97 on Amazon, the Redditor would have to shell out more than 2.5 times the original cost of the RAM. To add insult to injury, Silicon Power slapped the Redditor with a 15% depreciation fee, meaning they’ll only receive $46.72.

Unfortunately, the depreciation fee follows the company’s policy, which states, “If a product is confirmed to be defective under this (sic) our Limited Warranty, we will, at our sole discretion, provide one of the following remedies… A partial refund of the original purchase price. Any refund amount shall be determined by us based on factors including, but not limited to, product availability, length of product use, the extent of damage, or other reasonable business considerations. Cash refunds equal to the original purchase amount are not guaranteed.”

Two other remedies include a full replacement of the defective product or a full refund of the original purchase price, but it’s unclear why Silicon Power did not choose either.

The Redditor has said they’ve already bought replacement RAM, so this move won't keep them from using their PC. However, they said that they were disappointed with the response, especially given that the refund amount will not even buy one 8GB Silicon Power DDR4-3200 stick, which costs $69.97 on Amazon. In the end, the user probably has no choice but to accept this deal to avoid the hassle of dealing with the company’s RMA system again, which they said “felt like it was from 2002.”

Memory and storage manufacturer Silicon Power just released the Hypera microSDXC Express Card designed for the Switch 2, arriving in 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB capacities. The company says that this memory card can hit read speeds of up to 800 MB/s and write speeds of up to 700 MB/s — this reduces download, install, and load times on the new handheld, allowing you to seamlessly play AAA titles without worrying about buffering. It was also tested for reliability, ensuring that it will withstand the rigors of daily use so that you don’t lose data due to the card’s failure.

• Where to buy Nintendo Switch 2 microSD Express cards during Amazon Prime Day 2025

The Nintendo Switch 2 supports older microSDXC standards, so you can view screenshots and watch videos. However, if you want to expand its paltry 256GB built-in storage and install multiple AAA titles, you need a microSDXC Express Card. This standard is far more expensive than the older UHS-I and UHS-II standards, but you’d need the SSD-like performance it delivers to avoid frustration with your new console. Most manufacturers only offer microSDXC Express Cards up to 512GB, which might be pretty limiting if you play several titles. So, Silicon Power’s 1TB capacity is an excellent choice if you plan on collecting games and keeping them ready on your device.

Although the Hypera is made for the Nintendo Switch 2, it’s also compatible with the UHS-I standard. This lets you use it on other devices that don’t support the microSD Express standard just yet, like older consoles, cameras, and smartphones. This makes it quite a flexible storage device, allowing you to use it for content creation, transferring large files, and even recording 4K video on your current equipment, but it is also ready for use with future gear.

We expect more manufacturers to start including this standard in their products, especially as the popularity of the Switch 2 drove demand for this memory card to the limit. Thankfully, companies that made these memory cards quickly scaled up their production to meet demand, allowing you to easily buy Nintendo Switch 2 microSD Express cards if you know where to look — we even spotted one on sale in Walmart, but you'd better act quickly before stocks run out.

Silicon Power has unveiled two brand new XPOWER high-performance DDR5 memory modules, the company's first to feature Clocked Unbuffered DIMM technology, as well as an UDIMM module.

Both the XPOWER Cyclone DDR5 RGB CUDIMM and XPOWER Cyclone DDR5 RGB UDIMM feature Intel's Extreme Memory Profile (XMP) 3.0 for one-click overclocking. Both also feature Power Management IC (PMIC) for improved efficiency and stability, as well as On-Die ECC.

The new Cyclone DDR 5 modules feature a 2mm aluminum heatspreader, which Silicon Power says can lower heat by more than 10 degrees C/50 degrees F, as well as an RGB light bar and a striking white aesthetic.

Silicon Power says that its CUDIMM version of the XPOWER Cyclone offers speeds ranging from 8200MT/s to 9200MT/s (based on its own internal testing). There's also CUDIMM's customary built-in Client Clock Driver (CKD) module that Silicon Power says delivers improved signal integrity and tighter timing control.

There's also full support for Intel Core Ultra desktop processors (Series 2) and Intel Z890 series platforms.

The new XPOWER Cyclone DDR5 RGB CUDIMM is available in 48GB capacity (24GBx2) at speeds of 8200/8400/8800/9200 MT/s. There's no word yet on pricing or availability.

We put the Silicon Power Xpower Zenith RGB DDR5-5600 memory kit through the wringer and found that it has great overclocking headroom that makes it a contender for our list of best RAM. Silicon Power doesn't have an ample selection of DDR5 memory products yet. In addition to your typical run-of-the-mill memory modules, the Zenith series also hails from the company's Xpower gaming division. Silicon Power introduced the Zenith series with its DDR4 memory kits. The company has since expanded the Zenith series to the latest DDR5 standard. Like the previous generation, Silicon Power's Zenith DDR5 memory kits will give consumers the choice of a standard trim or an RGB trim. Regardless of the flavor, Zenith DDR5 memory kit capacity varies between 16GB (2x8GB) to 64GB (2x32GB), whereas the available frequency spans from 5,200 MT/s to 6,000 MT/s.

Silicon Power didn't bother redesigning its Zenith RGB DDR5 memory modules. They look the same as the Zenith RGB DDR4 counterparts. If the company didn't specify the type of memory on the heat spreader, consumers wouldn't have a way to tell them apart. Silicon Power always offers the Zenith DDR5 memory with and without RGB in white or black colors.

Regardless of the version, the memory boasts a non-intrusive aluminum heat spreader with a height no taller than 38.5mm (1.52 inches). Overall, it's a clean design with minimum marketing. The RGB version of the Zenith DDR5 memory relies solely on your motherboard's lighting software. It's compatible with Asus Aura Sync, Gigabyte RGB Fusion, MSI Mystic Light Sync, and ASRock Polychrome Sync.

The Zenith RGB DDR5-5600 C40 is a 32GB memory kit that comprises two 16GB DDR5 memory modules. They are single-rank memory modules with SK hynix H5CG48MEBDX014 (M-die) integrated circuits (ICs). Each chip is 2GB in capacity, so there are eight of them on each memory module. The power management IC (PMIC) is from Richtek, specifically, the 0D=8K J4N solution.

The memory defaults to DDR5-4800 with very loose timings at 40-40-40-77. It's a memory kit that caters to Intel processors, so only one XMP 3.0 profile is onboard. Activating the profile will make the memory modules hit DDR5-5600 and set the timings and DRAM voltage to 40-40-40-76 and 1.25V, respectively. See our PC Memory 101 feature and How to Shop for RAM story for more timings and frequency considerations.

Comparison Hardware

The Intel system runs the Core i9-13900K on the MSI MEG Z690 Unify-X with the 7D28vAA firmware. In contrast, the AMD system pairs the Ryzen 7 7700X with the MSI MPG X670E Carbon WiFi changed to the 7D70v176 firmware. The Corsair CUE H100i Elite LCD liquid cooler keeps our Raptor Lake and Zen 4 processor operating temperatures under check.

The MSI GeForce RTX 4080 16GB Gaming X Trio tackles the more graphics-intensive workloads, ensuring that there isn't a graphics bottleneck in our gaming RAM benchmarks. The Windows 11 installation, benchmarking software, and games reside on Crucial's MX500 SSDs. Meanwhile, the Corsair RM1000x Shift ATX 3.0 power supply provides our systems with clean and abundant power, directly feeding the GeForce RTX 4080 with a native 16-pin (12VHPWR) power cable. Lastly, the Streacom BC1 open-air test bench is vital to organizing our hardware.

Intel Performance

The Zenith RGB DDR5-5600 was slightly slower than the ToughRAM XG RGB DDR5-5600. Silicon Power's memory kit fell behind its rival in almost all performance and gaming benchmarks, except for Watch Dogs: Legion.

AMD Performance

The ToughRAM XG RGB DDR5-5600 continued to prevail on the AMD platform, outperforming the Zenith RGB DDR5-5600 in just about all the workloads. The Zenith RGB DDR5-5600's strongest showing was in the HandBrake x265 conversion test, which faintly outpaced the ToughRAM XG RGB DDR5-5600.

Overclocking and Latency Tuning

SK hynix M-die ICs are hands down the best for overclocking right now. We easily pushed the Zenith RGB DDR5-5600 memory to DDR5-6800 with 1.4V. The CAS Latency (CL) had no issues going from 40 cycles to 34 cycles. However, we had to increase the tRCD and tRP from 40 cycles to 45 cycles to achieve stability. Overall, it was a great overclock and well within expectations from the M-die ICs.

Lowest Stable Timings

Most users that want an SK hynix M-die memory kit will likely overclock it. Nonetheless, seeing how tight the timings can get on the Zenith RGB DDR5-5600 memory kit is interesting. By applying a 1.4V DRAM voltage, we tweaked the timings to 28-34-34-76.

Bottom Line

The Xpower Zenith RGB DDR5-5600 C40’s out-of-the-box performance is nothing to marvel at. Instead, the memory kit’s greatest asset is its SK hynix M-die which enables it to hit high frequencies.

There are two aspects to consider, though: Nothing in life is guaranteed, so neither is overclocking headroom. Even though Silicon Power employs SK hynix M-die ICs, you are still at the mercy of the silicon lottery since no two memory kits overclock s the same. Furthermore, there is no reassurance that the company will continue using M-die ICs on this model. It certainly isn't unheard of for vendors to swap raw materials during a product’s midlife due to difficulties in securing supply. 

The Xpower Zenith RGB DDR5-5600 C40 retails for $78.97 on Newegg. The black version is also available with the same price tag. You can save a few bucks with the non-RGB version, which sells for $73.97.

• MORE: Best RAM
• MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide
• MORE: All Memory Content

Right now at Amazon, users can find the Silicon Power P34A60 2TB SSD for its lowest price yet. This SSD has been going for around $95 lately but today it’s discounted to just $75. This puts the final price at around four cents per GB. The drive has a rated read speed of 2,200 MBps and a write speed of 1,600 MBps. For a budget, DRAMless PCIe 3.0 SSD, this is a great value.

This offer is for the 2TB version but other capacities are available, as well, including 128 GB, 256 GB, 512 GB, and 1TB versions. We reviewed the Silicon Power P34A60 when it debuted, testing the 512GB capacity and noting its competitive performance and power efficiency. 

While the P34A60  is not as fast as mainstream PCIe 4 drives, this is an excellent deal for expanding storage on a budget. It should be more than suitable for average users and even gamers looking for more space to expand their libraries. 

On our tests with the 512GB capacity, the drive loaded Final Fantasy only a second slower than the speedy Adata XPG SX8200 Pro.

According to Silicon Power, the drive is supported with an endurance of 1,200 TBW . Users also receive a limited 5-year manufacturer’s warranty with the purchase. If this deal doesn't appeal to you, check out our complete list of best SSD deals and our list of the best SSDs overall.

November 18, 2022 Update: We've updated this article with new testing for the 1TB Solidigm P41 Plus SSD on page 2.

Original Review published October 17, 2022:

The Solidigm P41 Plus is the successor to the Intel 670p, using the same QLC flash but going with a DRAM-less, PCIe 4.0 design. While QLC has its limitations in sustained performance, the hybrid pSLC cache does a good job of masking this weakness. The drive is not particularly power-efficient, but it does run cool and is ideally suited to general laptop and desktop PC use, like its predecessor, without breaking the bank. The drive’s new controller has proven capable, but stiff competition remains in the market, including from such drives as Crucial’s P3 Plus.

Solidigm officially formed in December of last year as part of the larger Intel-SK hynix deal that found SK hynix buying Intel’s NAND and SSD business. Solidigm is a subsidiary of SK hynix, a company that has recently brought out two excellent SSDs: the Gold P31 and the Platinum P41. 

The new P41 Plus uses the same flash as the Intel 670p, but SK hynix has its own 176-layer QLC based on a different architecture. The drive’s controller is also new but has the same focus as the 670p’s - strong everyday performance. Combined, this makes the P41 Plus a drive designed for OEMs, prebuilts, laptops, budget builds, and more.

Solidigm has done its homework, taking Intel’s foundation from the 660p, 665p, and 670p drives and applying its own knowledge to produce a competent SSD. Solidigm released a wealth of information during a webinar before the drive’s release. Particular focus is paid to the drive being designed for real-world workloads. Solidigm also provides a decent software package for the P41 Plus, including a driver that introduces additional functionality to deliver a better everyday experience, like a new type of caching feature. 

Does it live up to the hype? Recent PCIe 4.0 SSDs have gone above and beyond with new controllers and flash. However, it may be challenging to find a foothold in the current market for Solidigm, especially as prices continue to drop. The SK hynix parent has made popular drives but often struggled to achieve global availability. Time will tell for Solidigm, but the P41 Plus does appear to be a good first effort.

Specifications

The Solidigm P41 Plus is available at 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB. This matches its predecessor, the Intel 670p, and Solidigm doesn’t offer a 4TB option like the Crucial P3 Plus. This drive uses the same flash as the 670p and a similar, if newer, controller, albeit without DRAM. Performance is rated up to 4125/3325 MBps for sequential read and write, respectively, and up to 390K/540K IOPS for random read and write. This isn’t quite as fast as other mid-range PCIe 4.0 SSDs. Solidigm may have opted for consistency and reliability over peak performance.

Solidigm backs this with a five-year warranty and 400TB of write endurance per TB of capacity. This level of write endurance is fairly good for QLC, easily beating the P3 Plus. It also comes out of the gate with a lower MSRP for all capacities, making it an affordable option. However, as with the 670p, it is probably best avoided at 512GB unless budget is a top priority. Higher capacities can make better use of the dense QLC, and the correspondingly larger pSLC cache helps better hide poor native performance.

Software and Accessories

Solidigm offers a few pieces of software for the P41 Plus, including the Solidigm Storage Tool (SST), the Solidigm Firmware Update Tool (SFUT), and the Solidigm Synergy Sofware (SSS). The SST acts like an SSD toolbox with GUI and has command line (CLI) functionality, offering information about the drive, including SMART with utilities for secure erase, firmware updating, and other diagnostics. The SFUT is a bootable tool for USBs or CDs that you can use to update the drive’s firmware.

Aside from the SST, the SSS includes a storage driver for the P41 Plus, which offers additional functionality. Specifically, this allows for an improved communication path between the host and storage. This optimizes how data is stored by using host metadata to discover the type of data being stored and also how the user tends to use that data. Such a driver, via NVMe, also allows the host to manage caching (HMC), prefetching, and queuing of data to improve performance transparently. The P41 Plus also can do read caching from pSLC.

This type of tiered caching is reminiscent of the Enmotus FuzeDrive, which could have separate pSLC and QLC sections. In that case, performance and endurance could be improved, but a special driver was also required. Solidigm states on its website that its driver can improve performance by up to 21%. Although we tested this feature, it didn't have an impact on our typical benchmarks. Real-world improvements may exist, but this will vary on how you use the drive.

A Closer Look

The P41 Plus has a label on the front and the back. The front label displays the subsidiary’s logo and name with the use of an attractive purple hue for a backdrop. The rear label has more information on the drive. It is a single-sided SSD with a controller and just two NAND packages, made possible by using dense QLC.

The controller is a Silicon Motion (SMI) SM2269XT. This controller has appeared on the Micron 2400 OEM series of SSDs, coupled with Micron’s 176-layer QLC with those drives. This controller’s performance characteristics place it against competing products such as the InnoGrit IG5220, the Phison E21T, and WD’s proprietary design on the SN770.

SMI is a bit late to the game with its new PCIe 4.0 controllers, partly because of the shift from a Cortex-R5 to a Cortex-R8 base. The latter achieves significantly better performance per clock, although there are other differences. So it’s not necessarily more efficient, but the 12nm dual-core design of the SM2269XT should keep it competitive.

The flash packages are labeled 29F08T4A0CQK2. This tells us it’s from Intel, 8Tb or 1TB per package, and of the 144-layer (K) generation. This is now Solidigm NAND, although SK hynix has its own 176-layer QLC, as presented at ISSCC 2022. This particular 144-layer flash is also used on the Intel 670p, utilizing a floating gate architecture. SK hynix’s QLC is, instead, charge trap flash, much like Micron’s 176-layer QLC. All of this flash is essentially comparable in performance.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs and Hard Drives

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products 

At 1TB the P41 Plus has more competition as there are several strong TLC-based alternatives. This includes the Silicon Power UD90, based on the Phison E21T controller that also powers the P3 Plus, and IG5220 drives like the HP FX900 and Patriot P400. An alternative QLC drive is the Sabrent Rocket Q4 which uses the eight-channel, DRAM-equipped Phison E16. Samsung’s 980 represents the best DRAM-less PCIe 3.0 option. Popular in this segment is the WD SN770. The SK hynix Platinum P41 represents the very best in PCIe 4.0 SSDs.

Trace Testing - 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams.

The P41 Plus does very well here, showing in particular that the older hardware on the Rocket Q4 has difficulty keeping up with newer drives.

Trace Testing – PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices.

The P41 Plus finishes third in PCMark, too, still far behind the SN770 and Platinum P41 but doing well against the other drives.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom, 50GB dataset. We copy 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to a new folder and then follow-up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file.

The P41 Plus struggles a bit more here at 1TB, generally unable to keep up with the TLC drives. It just edges out the 980 in copies but is otherwise underwhelming. Older QLC, even with DRAM, shows its age in the Rocket Q4.

Synthetic Testing - CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tool that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. This tool gives us insight into how each device handles different file sizes.

The P41 Plus is not designed for sequential performance, although that is not necessarily a huge concern. This drive may be ideal as a primary drive in a laptop where you are probably not going to be doing a lot of high-speed transfers that would exceed the drive’s capabilities. Nevertheless, it is no match for faster drives. Random performance in general is pretty good, particularly for a QLC drive, which should make for a comfortable “real world” experience.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data.  Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds.

The 1TB P41 Plus writes in pSLC at around 3.075GBps for over 44 seconds, suggesting a cache of at least 135GB. Officially this is specified to be 150GB. As with the 2TB SKU, this is a hybrid cache with some static pSLC and the rest dynamic. As the static portion is dedicated, it is smaller at 1TB; it is possible to see the static portion for the first few seconds of writes. QLC speeds are at most 250MBps, about half as fast as with the 2TB, which makes sense as the 1TB drive has half the number of flash dies.

QLC drives are best with capacity so we do recommend at least 1TB if possible, although 2TB may be a safer bet. The 1TB P41 Plus fares sufficiently here and in other tests but needs to be cheaper than the TLC options. The P3 and P3 Plus make more sense at 4TB if you need capacity, of course, but the P41 is a good PCIe 4.0 replacement for the 670p. Slow sustained performance is often a concern with QLC so you should buy more capacity than you need. With write performance it is clear that 2TB would be more comfortable, but the drive is good enough at 1TB.

As with the 2TB SKU, the 1TB model can use pSLC as a read cache if the drive is less than half full. Solidigm’s Synergy Storage Driver should help improve performance for everyday activities.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre storage.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

We also monitor the drive’s temperature via the S.M.A.R.T. data and an IR thermometer to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Remember that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

No surprises here as the P41 Plus’s efficiency at 1TB is close to what it was at 2TB. We see really great things from the other PCIe 4.0 drives, which makes the P41 Plus appear a bit lackluster in comparison. It’s still better than older QLC drives and most PCIe 3.0 SSDs as well. This is not a huge factor if most of the time your PC is idle, but especially if you have multiple drives it may be beneficial to step up to something that can transfer faster and more efficiently.

The FX900 shows what is possible with new hardware. Not shown is the Crucial P3, which with QLC is super efficient, albeit restricted to PCIe 3.0 bandwidth. The SN770 proves again why it was such a nice surprise for reviewers.

As with the 2TB model, it is difficult to get this drive warm enough to throttle. The cache is too small and the QLC too slow. The P3 and P3 Plus have a larger cache but are also slower outside of it, and likewise proved to be relatively cool-running. Combine that with single-sided SKUs and you have a drive that would work great in any environment without additional cooling.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs and Hard Drives

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Solidigm P41 Plus SSD (1TB)

RATING: ★★★ (3 Stars)

PROS

+ Nice first product from Solidigm
+ Good support with a reasonable warranty
+ Hybrid pSLC cache with read capability

CONS

-  DRAM-less with largely mediocre performance
- Entering a crowded market

OUR VERDICT
The 2TB Solidigm P41 Plus is a competent first effort that yields a capable mid-range PCIe 4.0 SSD built on QLC. The hybrid cache and strong support make it attractive, especially as it runs cool, but the market is crowded and its performance is largely average. If priced right, it’s a good budget primary SSD. 

Comparison Products (1TB)

As the Solidigm P41 Plus is essentially the successor to the Intel 670p, we compare it to that drive. QLC alternatives include the Crucial P3 Plus, the Sabrent Rocket Q, and the Sabrent Rocket Q4. WD’s SN770 is a direct competitor with TLC. We also compare our best drive from Solidigm’s parent SK hynix, the Platinum P41. Lastly, we have the Crucial P5 Plus.

Trace Testing - 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams.

The P41 Plus ends up in the middle of the pack, which is actually a good showing. It beats all of the other QLC drives, demonstrating the ability of new hardware to improve performance significantly. The exception would perhaps be the P3 Plus, which uses a new controller and new QLC, although it does well enough and is, in any case, intended to be a budget drive up to 4TB.

Trace Testing – PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices.

As expected, the P41 Plus again performs near the middle of the pack, doing well enough even to encroach a bit on the TLC SN770. The SN770 is a strong example of a mid-grade PCIe 4.0 TLC drive. So many strong options can make it difficult to pick the right drive, but QLC tends to be the better option for capacity, while many budget TLC drives are aimed at 1TB.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom, 50GB dataset. We copy 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to a new folder and then follow-up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file.

The QLC drives generally underperform during the read workloads in this test, a consequence of slower native read latency and potentially fewer planes due to density. Most flash is trending towards a four-plane design, and TLC usually requires more dies to reach any given capacity. In addition, QLC requires higher read precision due to having more bits per cell, which inevitably slows the average response time. There have been innovations in this area, such as with independent plane reads and more intelligent write behavior — for example, writing hotter data in lower pages that are read more quickly.

This is different for writes as these tend to fall in single-bit pSLC that is generally of a similar speed for consumer flash, whether it be TLC or QLC. With sufficient dies, you are limited by the interface and/or the controller by its bus speed. Copy performance can reveal a little bit more as it will be bottlenecked a bit by QLC read performance. As such, the P41 Plus is pretty close to the 670p, which uses the same flash. Older QLC falls more behind and TLC, in general, does well. Perhaps the most interesting result is from the P3 Plus, as it uses Micron’s rival QLC, but performance is pretty close.

Synthetic Testing - CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tool that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. This tool gives us insight into how each device handles different file sizes.

Sequential performance is bound by the interface, such that the PCIe 4.0 QLC drives — the P41 Plus, P3 Plus, and Rocket Q4 — clearly beat the 670p and Rocket Q. However, the P41 Plus is at the bottom versus the other two. One reason is that Phison controllers are known for peak sequential performance. This puts the P3 Plus atop these three drives as it also has newer flash than the Rocket Q4. The TLC drives, particularly the Platinum P41 and P5 Plus, easily outperform the QLC options.

Performance in random workloads tends to be more important, and the P41 Plus shines here. It is important to remember that the P41 Plus is a successor to the 670p. The 670p also uses an SMI controller, albeit with different cores and DRAM. Historically, SMI controllers have done well with random read performance, so it isn’t surprising to see these two drives near the top during testing with low Queue Depths (QD). More surprising is the random write performance, which has the P41 Plus on top during the low QD test. High QD is, as of yet, less critical but varies with the controller's horsepower.

Several factors influence total latency. Most of the delay is when reading or writing from flash, as it is the slowest link in the chain. The impact of DMA buffers and bus transfer times are relatively small, as can be ECC. In this case, with low QD writes, the strong performance of the P41 Plus may stem from the new controller. The Cortex-R8 allows for wide power calibration for potentially very fast access times, although, as suggested above, on paper, it is less efficient under load than the R5.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data.  Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds. 

The P41 Plus uses a hybrid cache like the 670p, although this can be difficult to discern. Keen observers will see the pSLC cache pattern is slightly different for the first few seconds. The 2TB P41 Plus writes at around 3.25GBps for 83 seconds, equalling a cache of about 270GB. Officially, it’s declared to be 300GB with a substantial static portion. Static and dynamic pSLC cache have different characteristics, but the importance here is that the drive will always have some dedicated pSLC cache even when the drive is very full.

Once the pSLC cache is full, the P41 Plus begins writing directly to the QLC, which is much slower at around 400MBps. It matches the 670p but outperforms the P3 Plus. The SN770, with its massive cache but TLC flash, ends up about the same outside of pSLC. QLC drives are known for poor sustained performance, although this 144-layer flash is known to be the best on the market. Nevertheless, the P41 Plus’s cache should be sufficient under normal workloads.

Although a pSLC cache typically operates as a write cache, it is not uncommon for drives to use some of the pSLC for read caching. This is one reason drives may be reluctant to empty and recover the cache, another being that unnecessary pSLC cycling can increase wear. Solidigm takes this further with the P41 Plus — if a specific driver is installed. Then, if the drive is less than half full, the pSLC can act as a read cache for the “hottest” data, tracking it with its own driver versus Microsoft’s native NVMe option. It should be noted that, at this time, DirectStorage relies on Microsoft’s native driver.

PSLC writes faster than native QLC, but it also reads up to several times faster in terms of typical latency, so this can be a nice feature. This is especially true as general use is read-heavy, and certain data will be read more often, such as boot or OS data. Solidigm’s software can prioritize such data to make the cache more effective. However, there are certainly downsides to needing a driver for this feature if using a non-Windows OS. Additionally, there will be some overhead in tracking this information, such as potentially higher DRAM demands, but in practice, it should be negligible on a modern system.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre storage.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

We also monitor the drive’s temperature via the S.M.A.R.T. data and an IR thermometer to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Remember that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

The 2TB P41 Plus has good idle power consumption, and although this matters most in battery-limited laptops, any proper NVMe drive should pull very little power when idle. Still, every bit helps on a desktop. In terms of efficiency, however, the P41 Plus is merely average. It does beat the older QLC drives but falls short of the P3 Plus, SN770, and Platinum P41. On the other hand, the Crucial P3, not shown here, proved to be super-efficient as a PCIe 3.0 version of the P3 Plus.

This is still a good showing, and we would absolutely recommend the P41 Plus for laptop use. However, there are reasons why it would be less efficient than the P3 Plus. We’ve already mentioned controller differences earlier in the review. There are also flash differences, including the I/O rate and architecture. For example, charge trap flash may be more power-efficient with simpler programming, although many potential factors exist. It’s possible Micron’s 176-layer QLC is a bit more efficient.

In either case, we did not expect the P41 Plus to have significant thermal issues. We measured it at 34C when idle. After writing 500GB of data, the drive peaked in the mid-60Cs. The drive is not fast enough post-pSLC to cause a throttling effect due to heat buildup.

 Test Bench and Testing Notes 

We use an Alder Lake platform with most background applications such as indexing, windows updates, and anti-virus disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

Conclusion

The Solidigm P41 Plus looks to replicate Intel’s QLC SSD success and improve upon it. Much of the philosophy is the same, but Solidigm has also taken a streamlined approach: Make a simple, accessible drive aimed at real-world performance, and make it affordable, thus taking the lessons learned from the 660p line to make a better budget SSD. Solidigm backs it with good software and support but isn’t afraid to innovate. While requiring a unique Windows-based driver for full functionality is not ideal, it is at least an interesting concept to pursue.

Some might say that Intel’s QLC line was not a particularly smashing success. In fact, QLC has been slow to gain market share. However, its rise is inevitable, and investment in the technology now will pay off down the road. The 670p, in particular, was a solid drive, but newer technology and techniques can make it even better. Crucial’s P3 and P3 Plus have shown that you can get 4TB affordably with QLC on drives that perform well enough. The P41 Plus is perhaps a bit different, serving better as a primary budget drive, and more options are usually a good thing.

Still, there are probably too many good options in the SSD market right now, especially for PCIe 4.0. It is a good problem to have, but it may mean you have to be more selective when choosing a drive. The P41 Plus is a good option for prebuilts and, if priced right on sale, will be compelling as a single-drive option, particularly for laptops. The real-world performance, especially with light usage, is solid, even without the read cache feature. This is a good start for Solidigm, even if it’s not earth-shattering or super exciting.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: Best External SSDs and Hard Drives

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

The Silicon Power UD90 is the first drive we’ve had on our testbed with Phison’s new E21T SSD controller. If you only need 1TB of capacity, this is a relatively inexpensive PCIe 4.0 drive that would work great in a Playstation 5 or desktop PC. Thanks to the DRAM-less controller and 176-layer TLC flash, it’s also power efficient enough to work great with laptops. It comes with a fairly decent warranty and some software support, too, earning a spot on our list of Best SSDs. However, we do recommend additional cooling, if possible.

The UD90 finds itself up against tough competition from drives we’ve recently reviewed, including the HP FX900 and Patriot P400. If you’re looking for a high-end PCIe 4.0 drive, there are better options, but this segment is the better value for your dollar. Many top-tier PCIe 3.0 drives with DRAM have come down significantly in price, so the real question is if it’s worth compromising with a drive like the UD90. For the PS5, absolutely; for PCs, it depends. These newer drives can be very efficient for laptops and make good primary or secondary drives for desktops, assuming you don’t need more than about 1TB of space.

The UD90 uses the same flash as many other great drives we’ve reviewed, but it has a new controller. We’re seeing more competition in this space as Silicon Motion has its SM2269XT controller on the way, too. This is a good thing as you have more choices, but it can make it challenging to pick the perfect drive. Perhaps the most significant factor here is cost, and the UD90 should launch at a very attractive price point on Amazon. Let’s see how it measures up to the excellent but more expensive FX900.

Specifications

The UD90 comes in three capacities of 250GB, 500GB, and 1TB. Silicon Power has informed us that it intends to launch with just the 1TB SKU in the U.S. The smaller SKUs are for other regions and markets for now. This drive reaches peak performance at 1TB, and that capacity tends to be the “sweet spot” for mid-range drives like this, so this is not too terrible. Some users prefer smaller drives for the OS in multi-drive builds, but it’s hard to get the most out of a fast PCIe 4.0 drive without a higher capacity for more flash and interleaving.

The 1TB drive reaches 4.8/4.2 GBps for sequential read and write and 570K/600K IOPS for random read and write, both respectively. These numbers are firmly in the mid-range against drives like the FX900 and P400, which use a different controller but the same flash. It’s faster than entry-level PCIe 4.0 drives like the S50 Lite and SN750 SE. The UD90 is warrantied for five years and 600 TB of data writes (TBW) at 1TB, which is pretty solid.

Silicon Power says this will arrive at $94.99, making it very competitive in its intended market segment. This is a bit cheaper than the HP FX900 and the Patriot P400, making it a good budget choice or alternative for the Playstation 5 as well as for cheaper PCIe 4.0 builds.

Software and Accessories

Silicon Power has a download of its “SP ToolBox” available on its site. This piece of software offers information about the drive, including SMART and other diagnostics. It’s basic but better than nothing. You can clone and image the drive with free software options.

A Closer Look

The UD90 has a label on top showing basic information about the drive, such as the capacity and serial number. Under the label, we see the controller in the middle along with a PMIC, flanked by two NAND packages to either side. There is no DRAM. This type of layout can have some advantages, for example as WD touted with its WD Black and SN750, but the average user can just look at it and imagine a balancing of heat dissipation.

The Phison E21T is Phison’s new PCIe 4.0 DRAM-less controller, positioned to compete with InnoGrit’s IG5220 and SMI’s SM2269XT. It also competes with WD’s proprietary controller used on the SN770. This controller has four channels with a bus speed of 1600 MT/s, capable of using current and upcoming TLC and QLC flash. It has Phison’s 4th-Gen LDPC error correction, end-to-end data path protection, and RAID error correction through Smart ECC 2.0. Encryption support for TCG OPAL 2.0 and Pyrite is optionally available but not activated on this drive.

Performance-wise, this controller can hit up to 5/4.5 GBps for sequential read and write, respectively, and up to 780K/800K random read and write IOPS, also respectively. This matches up nicely with the IG5220, which we’ve seen in past reviews of drives like the HP FX900 and Patriot P400. This is our first review of a drive using the E21T, but we expect to see more drives using this controller. We also expect it to be competitive.

The flash packages are labeled IA7BG94AYA which means they contain dies of Micron’s 176-layer TLC. Each package should host four dies, that is 4DP or QDP, at 64GB per die. The total of sixteen dies is ideal for this four-channel controller, allowing peak interleaving at 1TB.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

We compared the 1TB Silicon Power UD90 to direct rivals like the Patriot P400, HP FX900, and SN770. The rest of the field includes high-end PCIe 4.0 drives including proprietary designs with the Crucial P5 Plus, Samsung 980 Pro, and SK hynix Platinum P41. Lastly, the Kingston Fury Renegade represents drives built on Phison’s E18 controller with 176-layer flash. This excellent flash is found in five of the eight 1TB drives on this list.

Trace Testing - 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams.

The UD90 performs favorably here, beating the P400 and FX900. The SN770 manages to pull away from its peers. This test isn’t the be-all and end-all for gaming performance, which in fact tends to be the same for any SSD. Load times can vary, but in general, the advantages are pretty small.

Trace Testing – PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices.

The UD90 again beats the FX900 and P400 in this test but falls behind the high-end PCIe 4.0 drives. This is still a strong showing for what is basically a budget drive. Once again, the SN770 punches above its weight.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom, 50GB dataset. We copy 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to a new folder and then follow-up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file.

The UD90’s first misstep is here, but it’s not a big one and not unexpected. DiskBench results are limited by a drive’s bandwidth potential, and as such, the lower-end drives like the SN770, FX900, P400, and UD90, fall behind on reads and copies. The UD90 still remains pretty close to its direct rivals. If you absolutely need the fastest file transfers, you should be looking at a high-end PCIe 4.0 drive.

Synthetic Testing - ATTO / CrystalDiskMark

ATTO and CrystalDiskMark (CDM) are free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tools that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how each device handles different file sizes.

Phison controllers tend to do well with sequential reads in ATTO, and the UD90’s new controller is no different. It’s actually up there with the Fury Renegade and Platinum P41. Its sequential write performance is a bit more modest, but it still matches or beats most drives. This is a very strong showing for a drive of this caliber. Phison’s E21T controller is a bit late to the game, but it was worth the wait: This is more than a suitable replacement for the E16, popular in budget PS5 drives.

Sequential results in CrystalDiskMark are limited by the interface or controller bandwidth, as determined by its channel count and bus speed, leaving the UD90 in the lower tiers. However, it’s still faster than any PCIe 3.0 drive. Random low queue depth 4K performance is good, as we’d expect from this flash with an optimized controller, but it falls behind with reads versus the FX900 and P400. In practice, this might not mean much as all of these drives are very quick here, but InnoGrit’s IG5220 controller is better optimized for that all-important metric.

Higher queue depth 4K results are a mixed bag, but this drive isn’t intended for those sorts of workloads. However, we do still see lagging with reads in particular. Nevertheless, these numbers are good and beat anything from the last generation of DRAM-less NVMe drives.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data.  Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds.

The UD90 writes in its fastest, pseudo-SLC state at over 4.6 GBps for almost 15 seconds. This implies a dynamic cache of around 69GB which, although presumably shrinking with drive usage, is sufficient to absorb random and smaller sequential writes. The UD90 then drops down to around 1.8 GBps for another eight minutes of writes. Then, finally, it hits its slowest state at about 275 MBps.

We can reasonably compare this to its peers and see that it has a significantly smaller SLC cache, a faster middle state, and a very slow worst-case scenario when SLC must be emptied. It nevertheless manages to outwrite the FX900 given enough time, but this is not a typical workload. Therefore, this design seems closer to something like a Phison E12-powered drive, as in our Corsair MP510 review, than launch Phison E16 drives like the Sabrent Rocket 4.0.

DRAM-less drives often have large SLC caches to hide their weak native performance states, but a more conservative design (as with newer DRAM-equipped E16 drives, like the MSI Spatium M470) can offer better consistency. Most users will not see the worst a drive has to offer, but dynamic cache inevitably shrinks with drive usage, and sustained writes will eventually slow down the drive. The UD90 offers a nice, balanced approach, with higher speeds in the middle state than we see on E12 and E16 SSDs, although in practice what we see with the FX900 and P400 might offer a slightly better user experience.

The UD90 did not recover its SLC cache quickly, instead bouncing back to its middle state, which is still plenty quick. This drive can better handle bursty writes, especially random ones, as befits normal consumer usage. You'll need to jump to a high-end model if you want faster performance in sustained write workloads.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre storage.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

We also monitor the drive’s temperature via the S.M.A.R.T. data and an IR thermometer to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Remember that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

The UD90 is extremely efficient in our power consumption test, right up there with the FX900 and Platinum P41. Although this result is limited by testing only a file copy, it does demonstrate that this drive is quick enough to finish tasks without much delay. A DRAM-less, four-channel controller design like this, coupled with an efficient 176-layer flash, is bound to be an excellent choice for laptops.

Its top power state is rated for 5W versus 3.5W for competitors, but it is more efficient in its other states with the trade-off of higher overall enter and exit latencies for idle. It can also move between active states freely with little delay. These numbers are only a guideline, anyway, but do offer a general idea of drive responsiveness and power draw. In practice, this is a flexible and efficient design.

We measured the drive temperature at idle and under sustained writes, both via SMART and with a temperature gun. The UD90 idled in the mid-40s degrees Celsius but reached 81C as measured by SMART and 73C as measured by gun after 380GB of sustained writes. Although not a realistic workload, this suggests that additional cooling could benefit this drive.

Test Bench and Testing Notes

We use a Rocket Lake platform with most background applications such as indexing, windows updates, and anti-virus disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

Conclusion

The Silicon Power UD90 is yet another winner in a stream of affordable, DRAM-less SSDs that manage to exceed expectations. Improvements to controller design and flash have allowed manufacturers to offer efficient, powerful drives at a reasonable price point. Of course, these aren’t the fastest drives — they don’t saturate your PCIe 4.0 connection, and in everyday use, they might not be a huge upgrade over older PCIe 3.0 drives that had DRAM. However, they work with the PS5 and offer a great experience on PC — if only at limited capacities.

The UD90 compares favorably with drives like the FX900 and P400, plus other popular drives like the ADATA Atom 50. It scores a bit better with peak sequential read performance over bigger block sizes but tends to fall behind a bit during random read workloads. This probably doesn’t mean much to most users, and it more than passes the threshold for an excellent user experience. The SLC cache is more conservative than what’s found on its peers, including the SN770, which does suggest it should be more consistent across a range of workloads and fill rates, but it will not absorb as many writes at maximum speed.

Silicon Power backs this drive with an SSD toolbox and decent support; no three-year, low-endurance warranty here. We think it may benefit from a heatsink, but it is probably not required — most other drives in this segment also lack full heatsinks. This drive should be cheaper at launch than its competition. That makes it a fantastic budget choice and hard to beat, but be aware it may not be possible to get it at capacities other than 1TB in the U.S.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

The Patriot Viper VPR400 is a mid-range PCIe 4.0 SSD designed with a bright aesthetic in mind. The stylish heatsink features bright RGB lighting, and the SSD has software support for RGB sync. The VPR400's hardware is similar to two other drives we have reviewed, the HP FX900 and Patriot's own P400, so it’s effectively a gaming-oriented version of the latter. The P400 proved to be a stalwart drive with good performance for its price. Like that drive, the VPR400 is DRAM-less, but it comes equipped with a fast controller and newer flash that deliver solid performance in tandem with the bright lighting, earning a spot on our list of Best SSDs.

RGB is still all the rage, especially in the “gamer” space, although some drives do not support color control like the VPR400. The downside to this feature is that, historically, drives with RGB tended to run hotter with a higher risk of throttling. We'll test the drive in both the on and off states. The VPR400's heatsink, while aesthetically pleasing, doesn't seem well-designed for heat dissipation. That said, we didn't have much trouble with the P400 overheating.

The SSD market is becoming a bit oversaturated, especially in the mid-range, and more drives are on the way. New SSD controllers and flash are also on the horizon. It’s important for individual drives to stand out; therefore, Patriot has chosen to focus on RGB with the VPR400. If you only want the performance, you can opt for the cheaper P400 or one of its competitors, but if you're interested in adding some RGB to your M.2 port, this might just be the right fit for your build’s theme.

Specifications

The Patriot VPR400 comes in three capacities of 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB. At the time of review, only the 512GB and 1TB SKUs were available and documented. Compared to drives like the P400, the VPR400 comes with a significant premium in the interest of aesthetics: you’re paying more for the heatsink and RGB. The drive is otherwise standard fare for its hardware in terms of performance. The warranty, at least, is quite good, with a full five years of coverage with endurance of up to 800 TB of data writes (TBW) at 1TB.

Software and Accessories

Patriot offers an RGB sync app for download on its website, and it's compatible with the RGB sync systems from ASRock, ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI. Patriot also cites support for their Viper toolbox, a typical SSD application for information and utility use. Patriot additionally says that the VPR400 has an advanced temperature control function.

A Closer Look

The VPR400 has a black heatsink on top with sixteen windows for LEDs to shine and an informative label on the back. The thermal padding appears to make relatively good contact. Under the heatsink, we see the controller and two NAND packages, with no DRAM present. We can also spot the LEDs.

The VPR400 uses the InnoGrit IG5220 SSD controller, which has proven quite popular. It’s present in the HP FX900 and Patriot P400, two drives we have previously reviewed. The VPR400 is, in fact, quite similar in layout to the latter. However, the P400 and FX900 had the BAA revision of this controller. This SSD has the BCA revision, with the difference appearing to be in the material of the integrated heatsink (IHS). It’s possible this will demonstrate better heat dissipation with the VPR400. The IG5220 does not run particularly hot, but it is still a fast controller, and this drive does have RGB lighting that typically adds a bit of heat. 

The VPR400 uses Micron’s 176-layer TLC flash, known as B47R. This flash is also on the P400 and FX900, as well as numerous other drives like the P5 Plus. Presumably, this SSD uses the standard 512Gb or 64GB dies, or eight per 8DP/OCP for a total of sixteen dies at 1TB. This is an excellent amount to saturate the IG5220 controller with four dies for each of its four channels.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

We compare the 1TB Patriot Viper VPR400 to the Patriot P400 and HP FX900, two drives that have the same type of hardware. We also include the Silicon Power UD90, which uses a rival Phison E21T controller. The WD Black SN770 is also included because it is a strong competitor in this segment. Lastly, we have three high-end drives: the SK hynix Platinum P41, the Samsung 980 Pro, and the Crucial P5 Plus. As usual, we test all drives at the same capacity.

Trace Testing - 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams.

The VPR400 actually seems to do better than its two direct peers in this test. It falls behind the rest, but its performance is still adequate.

Trace Testing – PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices.

In contrast to the 3DMark results above, the VPR400 comes in dead last in PCMark. The differences in these tests may be down to optimization or firmware, particularly as the VPR400 is specifically designed for gaming.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom, 50GB dataset. We copy 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to a new folder and then follow-up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file.

The VPR400 lands exactly where we’d expect it to in this bandwidth-limited test: right in the middle. It performs well against its direct competitors, including the UD90 and SN770.

Synthetic Testing - ATTO / CrystalDiskMark

ATTO and CrystalDiskMark (CDM) are free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tools that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how each device handles different file sizes.

There are no surprises with the ATTO tests — the VPR400 matches the P400. It’s also a fair match for the SN770. What we do see is the UD90 pulling away in sequential read performance, a Phison staple that indicates the E21T SSD controller has a shared lineage with the popular E18.

The VPR400's sequential performance is also solid in CrystalDiskMark. Performance in random workloads lags a little bit, particularly with writes, but reads tend to be more important, and these results are good on the whole. This hardware combination - controller and flash - has proven itself to be consistently above par. Nevertheless, the SN770 and UD90 remain competitive.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds.

The VPR400 has three distinct performance states with SLC, TLC, and folding modes. The primary mode of pseudo-SLC writes at 4.65 GBps for up to 73 seconds, indicating an SLC cache of around 340GB. This is a bit larger than what is found on the FX900 and P400. Its TLC state at 2 GBps is correspondingly much shorter before hitting the 500 MBps bottleneck.

The VPR400 is clearly optimized a bit differently than those two peers, although the difference would not usually be noticeable in practice. This flash is quite fast in its native state, which makes for relatively quick writes for a four-channel controller. In addition, the large SLC cache should catch most things even if the drive is fuller. That being said, the SN770 matches it quite well, while the UD90 would be more consistent.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre storage.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

We also monitor the drive’s temperature via the S.M.A.R.T. data and an IR thermometer to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Remember that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

We’ve charted the VPR400’s power consumption both with and without the LEDs illuminated. Unsurprisingly, the drive is more efficient without the LEDs enabled. As expected, it comes close to the P400 in that state, rivaling the SN770. However, the drive consumes significantly more power with the RGB enabled, although this is probably not a concern with use in a desktop PC.

We also tested thermals under both conditions. With RGB disabled, the drive idled around 50C with a maximum of around 69C after an extreme amount of writes; no throttling was seen even after 600GB. With RGB enabled, the idle temperature rose to the mid-50s Celsius, hitting over 73C with sustained writes. This was sufficient to engage throttling after about 420GB of writing. So we can say that the heatsink does work and helps compensate for the extra LED heat sufficiently for its intended use.

Test Bench and Testing Notes

We use a Rocket Lake platform with most background applications such as indexing, windows updates, and anti-virus disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

Conclusion

The Patriot VPR400 is essentially more of a good thing, serving as a Patriot P400 with a better warranty, a heatsink, and RGB. The RGB lighting syncs with most major platforms with Patriot’s software, as well. The InnoGrit IG5220 is a proven SSD controller and Micron’s 176-layer TLC remains the best flash on the market. What’s not to love?

Part of the problem is that this market segment is becoming crowded and competitive. There are other drives with the same hardware, sure, but also WD’s stellar SN770. Moreover, we have newcomers like Silicon Power’s UD90, which uses Phison’s new E21T controller, nipping at the heels. The VPR400 certainly stands out with its looks and the performance is nothing to ignore. However, it doesn’t really do anything new.

Patriot says a 2TB SKU is forthcoming, which would be nice as we don’t see that with the P400 or HP’s FX900 (yet), but it's still missing at the time of writing. That’s okay as 1TB is the sweet spot with this type of drive, but then we have to start looking at the price. The VPR400, as priced today on Amazon, is simply far too expensive unless you absolutely need matching RGB for your build. We do appreciate the heatsink and metal heat spreader, but ultimately it’s not a lot more effective than plain drives with the same hardware.

If you’re looking for a budget drive or even an entry-level PCIe 4.0 SSD, this is simply not the drive for you. It’s more along the lines of the Lexar SL660 Blaze, a portable drive with RGB, in the sense that it’s aimed at the gamer aesthetic. Patriot does separate the VPR400 a bit from its own P400 with a better warranty, but similar drives like the FX900 plus ADATA’s Legend 840 and Atom 50 already do that at a competitive price. That’s not to mention the SN770, which for the average gamer, assuming they don’t care about RGB, is a safer bet.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Silicon Power’s XS70, also known as the XPower XS70, is rated up to 7.3 GBps of bandwidth, which is effectively the limit of consumer PCIe 4.0 SSDs. This drive is capable of up to 1 million IOPS, which matches expectations, and comes with a five-year warranty. Silicon Power markets the XS70 as a gaming drive, with specific attention given to the attractive aluminum heatsink. 

Silicon Power is another third-party SSD manufacturer that also makes other products, predominantly flash-based drives that vie for a spot on our list of Best SSDs. The company's most popular SSDs are and were the P34A60 for budget or entry-level, and the perennial mainstream P34A80. The latter was one of the first SSDs based on the Phison E12 controller and it maintained the original hardware layout for a significant period of time. Eventually, it transitioned to using the Phison E12S or Silicon Motion’s SM2262EN controller. Such swaps are common in the industry, but this made the drive less desirable.

Still, the availability and reasonable pricing of the P34A80 put Silicon Power on the map. The company continues to produce mostly Phison-controlled drives, like the UD70 and US70, but the XS70 is certainly the premium part of their product stack.

Silicon Power positions it as a PlayStation 5 (PS5) option as we have seen from competing products, like the Kingston Fury Renegade and Inland Gaming Performance Plus, and it has the newest flash and an attractive PS5-compliant heatsink. The option of a 4TB capacity is nice, particularly because the Gaming Performance Plus doesn't come with this spacious option.

Let’s see if the XS70 measures up.

Specifications

The XS70 is rated for sequential speeds of up to 7.3/6.85 Gbps read/write and 1 million random read and write IOPS, matching competing drives. The drive comes in 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB capacities. Pricing varies from $0.12-0.19 per gigabyte with the upper limit approached only with the 4TB SKU; this premium is typical, particularly with TLC. The pricing is quite competitive. if you search Silicon Power's spec sheets hard enough, you'll find that the endurance is rated for up to 700 TB of write data per TB of capacity (with the exception of 3PBW at 4TB).

As with all SSDs, there is an “up to” qualifier for performance metrics. It’s worth noting that sequential reads are taken from the native flash, in this case 3-bit MLC or TLC, while sequential writes come from the SLC write cache. Speeds are limited by the amount of interleaving, that is the amount of flash (NAND) dies available for parallelization, such that sequential writes, for example, should be lower at 1TB. Likewise these metrics may rely on a certain queue depth or level of threading, often at unrealistic values.

Therefore, the wise consumer should pay attention to overall hardware and design, which includes the mutability of hardware. That is to say, be aware that results are often under ideal circumstances that will vary in actual usage and, further, manufacturers may modify the hardware down the road.

SP also informed us that the XS70 does not support TCG Opal. Self-encrypting drives (SED) can utilize AES-256 encryption to protect the contents through hardware. This includes an option for a cryptographic erase which throws away the key, being a faster option for a sanitize. Data can also be scrambled after this process.

While we do try to check for this support on drives, it’s worth noting that this feature, while optional for most controllers, is often not present on consumer drives. This can be for product segmentation but also because software encryption is often a preferred approach. For example, Microsoft removed SED support for Bitlocker back in late 2018 because poor firmware implementation allowed malicious decryption. This did require physical access. Worth noting here is that modern drives often have encryption in-flash as well, so attackers cannot access data by removing the physical NAND chips.

Software and Accessories

SP’s XS70 arrives in minimal packaging with no additional accessories. Software support is also nonexistent. This is not a huge deal for experienced users as they can rely on free software, for example CrystalDiskInfo (CDI) or Macrium Reflect Free. Also, gaming drives like this may end up in a console, so the lack of software may not be super important. Modern drives tend not to be reliant on firmware updates, although it is nice to have a SSD toolbox.

A Closer Look

The XS70 utilizes the common M.2 2280 form factor, with an attractive, aluminum heatsink in black and silver. One complaint some enthusiasts have is that heatsinks are often more about looks than performance, meaning the design is not conducive to airflow. While many SSDs do not require a heatsink in the first place, high-end PCIe 4.0 drives can start to run quite warm, especially in poorly-ventilated environments or inside a console. This one gets the job done despite itself. SP claims it’s up to 40% cooler, but our testing has it running hotter than the Inland Gaming Performance Plus. The thermal padding also did not have quite as good contact.

Under the cover we see the traditional layout of four NAND packages, the controller, and DRAM cache, with the flash and DRAM likely mirrored on the back side.

Phison’s E18 controller has appeared many times on our testbench. It’s a popular, if not the most popular, choice for high-end PCIe 4.0 drives. Phison took the consumer SSD market by storm with its E12 controller, and while we feel the E16 was a nice stop-gap solution — which has actually remained of at least niche use with the PS5 — the E18 really begins to push the envelope.

DRAM consists of SK hynix DDR4 in the 512M x 16b configuration, for a total of 2GB with two 1GB modules. We have seen older E12-based drives come with either DDR3 or DDR4, and many drives also had DDR3L or DDR4L as options. Effectively the difference here is in power consumption, keeping in mind that DRAM cache on a SSD is utilized for metadata storage and access. This means the latency advantage is most important, and “true latency” is a factor of both bandwidth, through clock speed, and native latency, the latter of which usually increases generationally. DRAM ICs also tend to support a range of speeds and latencies.

The flash is Micron’s 176-layer B47R TLC NAND which is being produced in good volume at this point. We will see competitor flash of this generation soon, even as flash manufacturers are already looking ahead. The QLC options in particular should be interesting. Regardless, Micron’s B47R remains the best consumer option on the market and it pairs excellently with Phison’s E18 controller. We have seen that in past reviews as it’s been compared to very similar drives utilizing Micron’s 96-layer B27B instead.

As with the Inland Gaming Performance Plus the flash is running at 1200 MT/s. This is not a hard limitation on the controller as Phison lists up to 1600 MT/s per channel on their data sheet for the E18. As flash tends to operate in an 8-bit mode this translates to 1600 MBps per channel maximum, given sufficient flash, although there’s significant overhead due to other bus data such as commands and addresses. This is especially true for write operations which require acknowledgement. In any case, it’s plenty of bandwidth to saturate four lanes of PCIe 4.0.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

We compare the XS70 to the top PCIe 4.0 drives, including those with the same hardware. The Kingston KC3000, Seagate FireCuda 530, and Corsair MP600 Pro XT all have Phison’s E18 SSD controller paired with Micron’s 176-layer TLC. The other usual suspects are Western Digital’s (WD’s) Black SN850, the Crucial P5 Plus, and the Samsung 980 Pro. Lastly we have the recently-added Inland Gaming Performance Plus that's a direct “gaming” competitor in this space. It has the same hardware with a similar focus on PS5 compatibility and a cooling heatsink. These drives are all 2TB. 

Trace Testing - 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams.

A gaming drive should do well on this benchmark, and the XS70 does. This is as expected since other E18-based drives, especially those with 176-layer flash, have dominated here. Loading times still rely heavily on latency, so it’s nice to see good performance there. Bandwidth might become more important on the PC in the future due to DirectStorage, but the E18 has it covered.

Trace Testing – PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices.

PCMark 10 presents itself as a more “real world” benchmark and it is at least useful for illustrating optimization differences. It’s one place we see the P5 Plus and Black SN850 pull away from the Phison-controlled drives, for example. In any case, the XS70 almost precisely matches the Inland Gaming Performance Plus, as we would expect.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom, 50GB dataset. We copy 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to a new folder and then follow-up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file.

The E18 controller is known for strong sequential performance and we see that here. This is a somewhat realistic burst test, but check the sustained write results to get a better picture for larger transfers. The XS70 throws us no surprises here.

Synthetic Testing - ATTO / CrystalDiskMark

ATTO and CrystalDiskMark (CDM) are free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tools that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how each device handles different file sizes.

The XS70 shows strong performance with sequential workloads at queue depth 1 within the ATTO test suite, particularly at higher I/O block sizes. This matches expectations from other E18-based drives, regardless of the flash used.

The XS70 also precisely matches E18-based drives with 176-layer flash in the CrystalDiskMark (CDM) tests, although this is one area where WD’s Black SN850 stands out a bit. CDM is a very popular tool for reviewers and enthusiasts as it can give a quick look at performance to see if there’s anything wrong with a new drive, if nothing else.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data.  Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds.

The XS70’s SLC caching scheme is reminiscent of the more conservative ones seen in drives like the FireCuda 530, the MP600 Pro XT, and the Inland Gaming Performance Plus. This includes a fast SLC mode, writing at around 6.9 GBps for up to 32 seconds, indicating a cache size of roughly 220GB. This is about one-third of the drive’s native flash being capable of SLC mode, given an empty drive, as opposed to the full-drive SLC caching found in products like the KC3000.

The second performance phase, typically direct-to-TLC, is slower but still much faster than drives with older flash and/or larger caches. Micron’s 176-layer TLC is quite fast in native mode, hitting speeds that would exceed typical PCIe 3.0 limits for consumer drives. This continues on for some time and is also where the drive goes back to when allowed to idle for some time. That is, recovery is not particularly swift, but the drive remains relatively responsive compared to many others.

The final performance state, which is easier to hit when the drive is fuller because there are fewer free blocks and the SLC cache is much smaller, is a bit less than half the native write speed. Cache that shrinks with drive usage is known as dynamic, although it’s also possible to use static or dedicated SLC — which notably is not actual, native SLC — or a hybrid structure as with Samsung’s TurboWrite. It’s worth noting that, due to how flash operates, NAND already performs worse when the drive is fuller, so SLC caching can exacerbate the situation if the cache is exhausted.

The slower state is bottlenecked by 'folding,' which is the copyback mechanism of data from SLC to TLC blocks, with freed SLC blocks converting to TLC. Flash tends to be cycled into SLC mode based on effective wear. This can introduce additive wear or write amplification since data is rewritten. This is related to over-provisioned space, also, because dynamic SLC shares its garbage collection zone with native flash, so erased SLC blocks eventually operate as TLC. In any case, this state is slower because incoming data is first written to SLC, then read from SLC, then finally written to TLC. One reason it’s important to respect this performance state is that latency is increased particularly for incoming information as it must be transferred before being read.

Technical details aside, a more conservative SLC caching scheme — as on the XS70 versus the KC3000 — ensures more consistent performance, particularly in edge cases as with sustained writes on a fuller drive. Steady state or equilibrium performance is also better. This is ideal for a premium drive that’s used for more serious workloads. Of course most consumers, and certainly those focused on gaming, don’t need to be concerned with this. Strong burst performance offered by a large enough SLC cache is usually sufficient.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre storage.

Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

We also monitor the drive’s temperature via the S.M.A.R.T. data and an IR thermometer to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Remember that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

Power consumption, efficiency, and thermals are only becoming more important in the consumer SSD space. Power draw is increasing in gaming machines and we have PCIe 5.0 SSDs on the horizon. One advantage of newer flash, which includes putting peripheral circuitry under the array but also increasing layer count and die density, is that power efficiency is going up. Controllers still run hotter under peak performance (for example, with longer SLC writes), so SSDs are more often coming with robust cooling solutions. Gaming drives like the XS70 are no different; the drive comes with a thick heatsink, but remains able to fit in the PS5.

The XS70 pulled about as much power as other similarly-equipped drives but still taking more average power than the 980 Pro and Black SN850. This certainly comes from the emphasis on performance in sequential work with the E18 controller, and the large-cached KC3000 is notably the least efficient. The XS70’s considerable heatsink is more stylized than it is effective. That is to say, the drive ran notably hotter than the more functional design on the Gaming Performance Plus. We saw temperatures as high as 73C, although throttling was not an issue.

Test Bench and Testing Notes

We use a Rocket Lake platform with most background applications such as indexing, windows updates, and anti-virus disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

Conclusion

Silicon Power’s XS70 finds itself in an increasingly competitive space. We’ve recently reviewed two direct competitors in the Kingston Fury Renegade and the Inland Gaming Performance Plus, but aside from the “gaming”-oriented marketing there are simply a ton of high-performing PCIe 4.0 drives on the market. Gaming at the moment, whether on PC or console, does not benefit much from this extreme level of bandwidth. This may change in the future, particularly when DirectStorage arrives, but there is a limit to how much of a premium you should pay for a small advantage.

Likewise, putting a fancy heatsink on the drive — even if it is PS5-compatible — doesn't make an SSD a gaming drive. It certainly can help with throttling in difficult environments, although a well-ventilated case with a workload that has a minimum sustained writes should have no issues, even with a bare drive. This is especially true with the more efficient 176-layer flash we see on this drive. That said, the drive is attractive and a heatsink does offer some cooling even if it’s mostly for looks, although perhaps form should not be prioritized over function. The real question is: how much value does it add when considering the price?

Luckily, the XS70, as priced during the writing of this review, is affordable relative to the other options. Considering it has high-end hardware and a 4TB option, this is no small favor. Silicon Power of course had this advantage also with the P34A80, so it’s nice to see the company returning to that approach. One can only hope they don’t decide to switch the hardware later as they did on that drive. As is, it’s equally capable as any competitor and only lacking in the software department. To be fair, that's not critical for PS5 usage in any case.

The SLC cache design is also more conservative (the cache is smaller), allowing for higher post-SLC performance. This is not usually relevant for gaming usage, although it can be nice to have in some cases with a fuller drive and extreme updates. That being said, it enables the drive to be used for much heavier workloads if the need ever arises. Considering that higher-capacity drives are on the way and a user might prefer that for a gaming drive, this does add some long-term versatility.

On the whole, there’s little not to like about this drive, and we rather like the design and pricing. It doesn’t offer anything special over other drives that use the same hardware, but that’s not a bad thing. We can easily recommend this drive as a premium option for any user, particularly at 2TB.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Silicon Power has launched a new series of DDR4 memory kits under the company's Xpower gaming brand. Consumers will be happy to know that the Zenith memory kits are available in both RGB and non-RGB flavors.

Designed to compete with the best RAM on the market, the Zenith and Zenith RGB come bearing a 10-layer PCB that's passively cooled with an iron-grey aluminium heat spreader. Regardless of the format, the memory module stands 38.5 mm tall so compatibility with air coolers shouldn't be an issue. In the case of the Zenith RGB, it features an user controllable RGB light bar that plays nice with with the four major motherboard brands, including Asus Aura Sync, Gigabyte RGB Fusion, MSI Mystic Light Sync, and ASRock Polychrome Sync.

Silicon Power commercializes the Zenith and Zenith RGB in a single module and dual-channel packages. The first is available from 8GB to 32GB, while the latter spans from 16GB (2x8GB) to 64GB (2x32GB).

Memory frequency options on the Zenith and Zenith RGB are very limited. Consumers can only pick from three data rates: DDR4-3200, DDR4-3600 or DDR4-4133. Silicon Power didn't reveal the entire specification sheet for the memory kits so only their CAS Latency (CL) value is known.

The DDR4-3200 and DDR4-3600 memory kits arrive with CL16 and CL18, while the DDR4-4133 memory kit features CL19. The voltage requirement for the DDR4-3200 and DDR4-3600 memory kits is 1.35V and 1.4V on the DDR4-4133 memory kit. They support XMP 2.0 so setup is a breeze.

Silicon Power backs its Zenith and Zenith RGB memory kits with a limited lifetime warranty. The company didn't reveal the pricing or availability for the new memory though.

Silicon Power’s US70 is one of the cheapest PCIe 4.0 SSDs on the market, offering up to 5GBps of throughput for those just looking to speed up their computing experience by upgrading from a slow SATA SSD, or worse, an HDD. Not only is it fast, but it is also rated to endure up to 3.6PB of writes. However, despite all the value it offers, it lacks quite a bit in the looks department.

Silicon Power’s US70 is a generic E16-based SSD with Kioxia’s 96L TLC flash. The company designed the SSD to deliver near-bleeding-edge Gen4 performance, but that was before the release of recent beasts like WD’s Black SN850 and Samsung’s 980 Pro. Still, while not quite as fast as those newer models, it’s much cheaper and comes packing some hefty endurance ratings that place it up there as one of the most enduring consumer SSDs you can buy – its endurance rating is three times higher than both the WD Black SN850 and Samsung 980 Pro. 

Specifications

The US70 is available in limited capacities of 1TB and 2TB with street prices of $175 and $320, respectively. Silicon Power’s US70 is rated to deliver up to 5/4.4 GBps of sequential read/write throughput and can sustain 750,000 random read/write IOPS.

Unlike some SSDs that leverage static or hybrid cache architectures, Silicon Power’s US70 comes with a large dynamic SLC write cache that spans one-third of the device’s available capacity. Silicon Power’s US70 quickly and predictably flushes its cache to enable consistent performance not only days after your last workload but also within only minutes.

With Phison’s fourth-generation LDPC ECC, the US70 is not only backed by a five-year warranty, but Silicon Power rates the US70 to endure up to three times as many writes as Samsung’s 980 Pro at both capacities. The US70 supports Trim,  S.M.A.R.T. data reporting, and has secure erase capability, but it lacks AES 256-bit hardware encryption.

Software and Accessories

Silicon Power supports the US70 with a very basic SSD toolbox that isn't comparable to the sophisticated level of Samsung’s Magician or WD’s SSD Dashboard. Silicon Power’s SSD Toolbox allows you to monitor the device’s health and temperature as well as run some simple diagnostic tests.

A Closer Look

Silicon Power’s US70 comes in an M.2 2280 double-sided form factor at each capacity, meaning there are components on each side of the PCB, preventing it from being used in the most ultra-slim devices that require single-sided SSDs. The US70 is definitely lacking aesthetically with an unappealing sticker over top of the components, and the blue PCB is hard to match with other components.

Silicon Power’s U70 leverages Phison’s PS5016-E16 PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.3 SSD controller. This quad-core controller incorporates dual 28nm Cortex R5 CPUs and CoXProcessor 2.0 technology to enable fast and consistent write performance and better efficiency. The controller affords the US70 end-to-end data path protection, Active State Power Management (ASPM), Autonomous Power State Transition (APST), and the L1.2 ultra-low power mode with support for thermal throttling if needed.

Unlike cheaper alternatives like Adata’s XPG Gammix S50 Lite, the controller in the US70 leverages a DRAM buffer for FTL table mapping. There are two SK hynix 8Gb DDR4 DRAM ICs clocked at 1,600 MHz on our 2TB sample, one on each side of the PCB, while the 1TB model should come with half of that.

The US70 has a total of four NAND packages, two on each side of the PCB, with each package containing eight 512Gb dies of Kioxia’s 96L TLC (thirty-two in total). The flash interfaces with the controller at speeds of 800 MTps over eight NAND channels. The flash features a dual-plane architecture for higher interleaving performance.

We tested the Silicon power US70 against the best SSDs on the market. With the Samsung 980 Pro leading the pack and Sabrent’s Rocket NVMe 4.0, Rocket Q4, and Adata’s XPG Gammix S50 Lite also sporting PCIe 4.0 x4 interfaces, there’s some fast competition in this round-up. We also included some PCIe Gen3 performers, like Samsung’s 970 Evo Plus, Crucial’s P5, WD’s Black SN750, and the Rocket Q. Additionally, we threw in a SATA Seagate FireCuda 120 for good measure.

Comparison Products

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

Final Fantasy XIV Shadowbringers is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

With a total time of 10.91 seconds, the US70 scores sixth place in this game benchmark, falling behind not only Samsung’s 980 Pro and the very responsive Adata XPG Gammix S50 Lite also the Samsung 970 Evo Plus, Crucial P5, and WD Black SN750. It did outperform the Sabrent SSDs, edging out ahead of the Rocket NVMe 4.0 by a hair.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom blocks of data. Our 50GB dataset includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. Our 100GB dataset consists of 22,579 files, with 50GB of them being large movies. We copy the data sets to new folders and then follow-up with a read test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file and 15GB movie file.

Silicon Power’s US70 delivers exceptional file transfer and read performance that places it as one of the faster SSDs on the market. Scoring second in both our 50GB and 100GB copy tests, the US70 boasts very impressive performance. The US70 delivered respectable results even when reading back our large test files, taking third place in those tests.

Trace Testing – PCMark 10 Storage Tests

PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices. The quick benchmark is more relatable to those who use their PCs for leisure or basic office work, while the full benchmark relates more to power users.

Once again, the US70 delivers impressive performance with scores that place it second in both the Quick and Full System Drive benchmarks. The large dynamic SLC cache and massive write performance help it advance over most PCIe Gen3 NVMe SSDs, but it is not quite on the same level as Samsung’s latest and greatest.

Trace Testing – SPECworkstation 3

Like PCMark 10, SPECworkstation 3 is a trace-based benchmark, but it is designed to push the system harder by measuring workstation performance in professional applications.

Silicon Power’s US70 performs very similarly to that of Sabrent’s Rocket NVMe 4.0, completing the benchmark in a total time that lagged the Sabrent by just one second. With a simple dual-core controller, Adata’s XPG Gammix S50 Lite delivers faster results and completed the benchmark roughly a minute and a half faster than the Phison E16-powered SSDs.

Synthetic Testing - ATTO / iometer

iometer is an advanced and highly configurable storage benchmarking tool while ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

The Silicon Power US70’s sequential performance at a queue depth (QD) of 1 proves very strong, and it delivers some of the best performance we have seen with peak performance of roughly 5/4.3 GBps of sequential read/write throughput. The US70's responsiveness in random workloads is also up there with some of the best, but it's not quite as fast as Samsung’s 980 PRO nor Adata’s XPG Gammix S50 Lite at a QD of 1. At a QD of 128, the US70's performance peaks at roughly 600,000 / 565,000 random read/write IOPS.

Sustained Write Performance & Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data.  Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds.

Silicon Power’s US70 can absorb over 333GB of data at a rate of 4.2-4.3 GBps before slowing down, making it a speedy SSD in write workloads, which is a big advantage for large file transfers. It also recovers very predictably, flushing the SLC cache at a rate of 16GB every 30 seconds. 

Power Consumption & Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, ultimately saving energy.

We also monitor the drive’s temperature via the S.M.A.R.T. data and an IR thermometer to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Bear in mind that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

Phison’s E16 NVMe SSD controller is a revamped E12 model with a Gen4 PHY, which helps speed up its bandwidth considerably, but it isn’t as efficient as newer Gen4 designs with faster-operating flash. Samsung’s 980 Pro attains top marks in power efficiency, while the US70 scores sixth place overall due to high average power consumption and even higher peak power consumption. The US70's Idle power draw could be optimized slightly, but it's fairly low when ASPM is enabled.

Idle temperatures range from 36-38 degrees Celcius, which is lower than Crucial’s P5 and WD’s Black SN850. Still, when we hit the drive with a bunch of reads and writes, controller temperatures can rise to temperatures of over 80C, which could trigger thermal throttling without proper cooling, such as enough airflow or a heatsink. 

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Top-tier SSDs like Samsung’s 980 Pro or WD’s Black SN850 perform at another level due to their new grounds-up designs and even faster flash. Even so, Silicon Power’s US70 is a fast PCIe 4.0 x4 SSD that delivers responsive speeds for its price point.

Compared to the Samsung or WD Black, the US70 is an excellent value for those who don’t necessarily need bleeding-edge performance but still want responsive performance and the ability to brag about their PCIe Gen4 SSD. The US70 is a perfect match if you're looking for a new scratch disk to edit your 4K and 8K media, and it's also a great fit for gamers.

Silicon Power’s US70 traded blows with other Phison E16 competitors at an average of $25 cheaper for the 1TB model, and a substantial $80 cheaper than a drive like Sabrent’s 2TB Rocket NVMe 4.0. Not only does it offer the same level of performance as those more expensive models, but it also offers the same level of endurance. 

In fact, the 1TB drive can withstand up to 1.8 petabytes of writes, and the 2TB model can absorb a staggering 3.6 petabytes, all within the no-strings-attached five-year warranty. As such, the US70's reliability rating beats both Samsung and WD, and you don’t need to register your device for warranty coverage like you have to with Sabrent’s SSDs.

For those looking to save a few bucks over the best, the US70 makes a great alternative pick, but if you're looking to save even more, Adata’s XPG Gammix S50 Lite is also a great pick that can’t be overlooked. The Adata is still our top value pick, but Silicon Power’s US70 makes that choice hard. At $140 for the 1TB model and $260 for the 2TB model, the Adata is much cheaper, and it's high-speed random performance even outperformed the US70 in SPECworkstation 3’s testing, but at a much lower price point. In the end, the amount of money you spend dictates the amount of speed you get.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

If you've purchased yourself an AMD X570 or B550 motherboard along with an accompanying Ryzen 3000 CPU, it'd be a shame not to use its PCI-Express 4.0 storage capabilities. There aren't all that many options available yet, but now, Silicon Power is joining the fray with its new US70 M.2 SSD.

PCIe 4 NVMe SSDs boast truly absurd speeds. Whereas PCIe 3.0 SSDs capped out at about 3500 MB/s, the US70 is capable of read and write speeds of up to 5000 MB/s and 4400 MB/s, respectively. That's not fully saturating the PCIe 4.0 bandwidth yet, but for now, most affordable controllers simply haven't evolved to that point yet.

With built-in wear leveling, bad block management, over-provisioning, SLC caching, and TRIM commands it's up to speed with all the latest features one can expect from an SSD.

Capacities only include 1 TB and 2 TB models. The US70 features 3D NAND, although it's not exactly clear what kind of NAND is baked into it. Given that it uses SLC caching, it clearly isn't SLC NAND, so we're leaning towards TLC NAND as a cost/performance effective option. It's also not clear which controller this SSD uses.

The SSD doesn't come with a built-in heatsink, and given its speeds, we reckon this will be among the more affordable PCIe Gen 4 SSDs available. It will come with a 5-year warranty.

Capable of SATA-like speeds and available in capacities of up to 2TB, Silicon Power’s Bolt B75 Pro Portable SSD is both speedy and spacious. It even features encryption software for enhanced data security when you’re on the go. It’s also priced quite competitively, although it isn’t without its quirks.

Silicon Power’s Bolt B75 Pro is marketed as quite a durable device. The company says it’s military-grade shockproof, with a design that was inspired by a WWI-era German Junkers F.13 transport plane. And with military design in mind, it is quite secure with 256-bit encryption software for added security.

Specifications

The Bolt B75 Pro is available in capacities of 256GB, 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB. It utilizes a USB 3.2 Gen 2 type-C interface to deliver speeds of up to 520/420 MBps read/write. 

The drive features a standard three-year warranty, but lacks an official endurance rating at the time of writing. It is both Mac and PC compatible, as the Bolt B75 pro comes formatted as exFAT out of the box. Note, though, that our testing was completed with the drive formatted as NTFS.

Software and Accessories

The Bolt B75 Pro comes with two one-foot long USB cables, one type-C to type-C and the other type-C to type-A. Both power the device off the USB bus.

Silicon Power’s SP Widget software is compatible with this drive and available for download. With it, you can configure backups, enable the AES 256-bit encryption, and more.

Closer Look

The Bolt B75 Pro measures 124.4 x 82.0 x 12.2 mm and weighs in at 105 grams. The sleek aluminum casing features a multi-side power indicator light.

The drive is easily disassembled via four Philips head screws. But while the housing is sleek it’s a bit less durable than we expected. The exterior features a lightweight aluminum-alloy finish, which we were able to bend rather easy. This is unlike much tougher LaCie externals drives we’ve tested in the past. 

Opened up, we find inside houses a SATA-to-USB PCB featuring an ASMedia ASM234cm bridge chip and a SATA SSD that is secured using double-sided adhesive foam. Once we dig a bit deeper, we see that the Bolt B75 Pro is powered by a Silicon Motion SM2258XT SATA controller and Intel 64L TLC NAND flash. Being a Silicon Motion XT controller, that means this SSD does not feature any DRAM, which helps to help keep down cost, but can also negatively impact performance.  

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

Today, we throw Silicon Power’s Bolt B75 Pro up against a few other external SSDs and an external HDD that we have recently tested. As the slowest competitor, we include the LaCie Mobile Drive 2TB HDD. Next, we include the Kingston HyperX Savage EXO and SanDisk Extreme, both USB C external SSDs that operate at SATA speeds. Additionally, we included two faster options, the Lexar SL100 Pro, a USB 10Gbps product, and Samsung’s Thunderbolt 3 powered X5 external SSD. 

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

DiskBench is a storage benchmarking tool that allows us to test the transfer or copy performance of a storage device with real data. We test external drives with three file transfers that consist of 25GB of photos (10GB of iPhone jpgs and 15GB of RAW photos from a Canon 6D), 50GB of movies, and 25GB of documents. First, we transfer each folder from a 1TB NVMe SSD to the external device; then we follow up by reading a 3.7GB 7-zip file and a 15GB movie back from the device. 

Unlike Kingston’s HyperX Savage EXO, the Bolt B75 Pro delivers some respectable results for a flash-based external. Write performance is just behind the SanDisk Extreme by a few seconds and leaps and bounds better than what the LaCie Mobile Drive can withstand. The Bolt was able to write at a rate of 449-487 MBps. During file reads, it comes in third overall, edging out over the other SATA based externals. 

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

In PCMark 8, Silicon Power’s Bolt B75 Pro wasn’t able to surpass the HyperX Savage EXO. But still, it proved itself to be quite fast for application use. With a total score of 4,913 points and an average bandwidth of 195 MBps, it ranks fifth overall and is significantly better than what any HDD could deliver.

Synthetics - ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

The Bolt B75 Pro hit its rated speeds and then some here. In reads, it hit a max of 567 MBps and while writing, it hit 507 MBps. This is similar to the SanDisk Extreme and HyperX Savage EXO.

Synthetics - iometer

iometer is an advanced and highly configurable storage benchmarking tool that vendors often use to measure the performance of their devices.

Results from sequential performance testing in iometer match that of ATTO. Speeds of 560/510 MBps read/write were achieved. With a fourth-place ranking, random performance is pretty decent too. At a queue depth of one, Silicon Power’s Bolt B75 Pro is capable of up to 4,300 IOPS read performance and has the second-highest write performance, 16,500 IOPS. Also, peak random figures come in at 22,000 / 39,000 IOPS read/write.

Write Saturation and Temperature

Write speed and temperature are two important and inter-related metrics for external devices. We threw in this one last test to measure the performance of the drive over a 15-minute window, writing to the full span of the drive. When possible, we also log the temperature of the drive via the S.M.A.R.T. data to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. This test also reveals if the drive has a pseudo-SLC cache, which is a small portion of faster-programmed flash that absorbs incoming write workloads. Bear in mind that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

For the first twelve minutes and forty-five seconds of writing, the Bolt B75 Pro wrote at a rate of 485 MBps for a total of 375GB. Beyond that, however, write speed decreased significantly. Once the dynamic SLC cache is full, write speed averaged 70 MBps, with lows as low as 5-6 MBps. 

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

 Silicon Power’s Bolt B75 Pro aims to offer up speedy flash in plentiful capacities in the form of a sleek and durable external storage. And it is quite cheap for an external SSD. But, like some other recent “Pro” type storage products we have reviewed, it doesn’t quite live up to that name.

One disappointing aspect was its encryption method. Based on Silicon Power’s Widget software, it works on a per-file or per-folder basis, uses up system resources, and takes a long time to encrypt. This is not as streamlined as what Samsung or Seagate have configured for their externals, which encrypt on a drive level. Using the latter method,  entering just one password unlocks the whole device and everything works instantly.  

Aesthetically, sure,the Bolt B75 Pro is made of an aluminum alloy and is advertised as military-grade. However, the Bolt B75 Pro isn’t as rugged as the company would lead you to believe. It’s better than plastic, but the casing can bend and twist rather easily. It’s also advertised as being scratchproof, but a dull pair of scissors seems to nick and scratch the casing without much effort. The drive looks good but isn’t so tough. Nor does it feature any sort of weather, water, dust, or crush resistance ratings like some more portable solutions like SanDisk’s Extreme and Extreme Pro. 

When using the Bolt B75 Pro, its performance is mixed. While we recorded average flash-based read and write speeds when transferring files to and from the external SSD, extended write testing showed things can go downhill fast. As we demonstrated, the DRAMless SSD powering the Bolt B75 Pro can degrade to speeds slower than a hard drive, just 70MBps on average after the dynamic pSLC cache exhausts due to its DRAMless architecture. 

However, when putting the drive under some consumer workload traces in PCMark 8, the storage test revealed some fairly competitive application and game load performance. So, if you don’t plan on writing hundreds of gigabytes of data often, then the write slowdowns will happen extremely rarely if at all. But, for those actual pros or prosumers who need to write large batches of files fast, look to alternatives or even toward building an external yourself. 

Current pricing places the Bold B75 Pro just ahead of what most SATA SSDs cost by a few dollars. This doesn’t make it the best deal in external storage, though it is quite competitive for an external SSD. Depending on the capacity, opting for a better-quality DRAM-based SATA SSD and an external enclosure may be a more valuable route if you are looking for more consistent performance. Or, spend a bit more and get a higher performance external SSD like the Samsung X5.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Silicon Power, a Taiwanese manufacturer, today announced a new SSD: The P34A60. Unlike a solid handful of recent SSDs we’ve seen come out, this one only works on the ‘older’ PCI-Express 3.0 bus instead of the newer 4.0 specification, but it does utilize all four lanes the M.2 slot has access to.

The unit supports NVMe 1.3, and will read at up to 2200 MB/s and write at up to 1600 MB/s. The unit also comes with ECC features and low-density parity check functionality.

Being an M.2 SSD based on the 80mm long specification, next to fitting in almost all modern desktops, it will also fit in quite a few modern laptops.

Capacities available include 256GB, 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB. The units also support RAID functionality, so pairing them up for increased performance or increased redundancy is certainly an option.

At the time of writing, pricing has not yet been announced. Given that this unit does not run on the new PCI-Express 4.0 standard, we wouldn’t expect it to be all too pricey.

A recent entry into the enthusiast DRAM market, Silicon Power did solid work to produce its P/N SP016GXLZU320BDB DDR4-3200 kit. With the same type of lifetime limited warranty, similar pricing, and a performance edge so miniscule as to be inconsequential compared  to its closest competition, buyers will probably pick their brand based on aesthetics. On that front, you should of course go with what you like, but the XPower Turbine makes a strong case for itself in the looks department, too.

Silicon Power put its toe in the door of the enthusiast DRAM market just a few months ago, so it will probably forgive us for thinking of it as a storage device firm. So new is its XPower Turbine RGB DDR4 that the firm didn’t even have boxes printed for its 2x 8GB kit when it sent our samples. The package inside still had space for two DIMMs however, and an updated photo from one of its sellers shows that the lack of dual-channel-kit packaging has since been resolved.

What you’ll get in a single¸slightly revised version of the above boxes are two DDR4-3200 DIMMs with mid-tier CAS 16 timings, each topped with a white light diffuser and wrapped in a brushed aluminum heat spreader, for around $92 USD. Unfortunately, it’s not currently available for a realistic price in U.K.

The full set of  primary timings are 16-18-18-38, and the modules require 1.35V to assure those timings are stable at its DDR4-3200 XMP. Buyers who suddenly find out too late that their boards can’t support that XMP will still get a reasonable DDR4-2666 configuration, and those who figure out too late that their Core i3-8350K is limited to DDR4-2400 should be pleased to note that the modules are also programed for that. While these fallback settings are all superior to the DDR4-2133 offered by some of Silicon Power’s competitors, we still think it best to figure out what your hardware can support before ordering new parts.

Silicon Power does not provide any download links for RGB software, but instead relies on applications provided by motherboard makers to support their own RGB lighting. Aura Sync, RGB Fusion, Mystic Light Sync and Polychrome Sync are all listed as compatible, and the Aura Sync for our motherboard worked as expected.

Comparison Hardware and Test Configuration

We compared Silicon Power’s XPower Turbine RGB to our most-recent 2x 8GB DDR4-3200 C16 kits from Teamgroup, Adata, and Gigabyte, using Fractal Design’s Celsius S24 to keep Intel’s Core i9-9900K processor cool at a fixed 4.80 GHz frequency on Asus’ Maximus XI Hero . Toshiba’s OCZ RD400 NVMe SSD and MSI’s GTX 1080 Armor OC reduce non-DRAM bottlenecks.

Overclocking and Latency Tuning

XPower Turbine RGB falls only slightly behind our top DDR4-3200 C16 overclock. DDR4-3600 should be easy for most of these kits to reach, apart from the Delta Tuf Gaming RGB, and the three top contenders all reached at least DDR4-3733.

We excluded DDR4-4000 from our benchmark results since none of these kits could reach it. The lowest (quickest) stable timings for the XPower Turming RGB are like those of the Adata and Aorus kits, apart from the Adata kit’s ability to run DDR4-3466 at C16 rather than C17.

Benchmark Results

Three kits that have the same DDR4-3200 16-18-18 XMP values provide identical bandwidth in Sandra, though the latency measurements appear far flung.

XPower Turbine RGB edges out its competitors by ultra-narrow margins in F1 2015 and 7-Zip, which are our two benchmarks for which memory performance has the greatest impact.

Final Thoughts

With the performance race so close that nobody could likely be bothered to chose any of these kits based solely on that metric, aesthetics and pricing will likely drive their buying decision. We added our recently-tested DDR4-3200 C14 results to the performance baseline just to show how narrow the margins are for kits priced around 60% higher.

The big loss comes to Aorus RGB Memory, since the kit we tested last year is still stuck with last-year’s pricing. Of course the Aorus kit also has the aesthetic benefit of including two dummy modules (to make all four slots appear filled), but at this price most users could simply by two of the other kits and bump up from 16GB to 32GB in the process.

As for the XPower Turbine RGB, it costs $3 more than the cheapest kit in a value chart where that small a difference can still impact outcomes. Of course, most buyers will spend at least $5 to get the kit that best matches their preferred appearance, and for RGB buyers the XPower Turbine RGB could be a treat.

Photo Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide

MORE: All Memory Content

With 15 years of storage experience under its belt, Silicon Power will finally branch out next year into the highly competitive gaming market. With the launch of the brand's Xpower Turbine RGB DDR4 memory kits announced today, the Taiwan-based manufacturer aims to captivate eSports professional players and gaming enthusiasts.

Xpower Turbine RGB DDR4 modules are built with a 10-layer PCB and rely on a low-profile metallic heatsink for passive cooling. With a height of 37mm, there should be minimum compatibility issues with large air CPU coolers. The modules are also equipped with controllable RGB lighting that is supported on the majority of motherboards including Asus' Aura Sync, Gigabyte's RGB Fusion, MSI's Mystic Light Sync and ASRock's Polychrome Sync ecosystems.

Silicon Power offers the Xpower Turbine RGB DDR4 memory kits in dual-channel configurations with capacities of 16GB (2x 8GB) and 32GB (2x 16GB). At the moment, the kits are available in three frequencies: 3200MHz, 3600MHz and 433MHz. Surprisingly, Silicon Power failed to mention the complete timings and only revealed the CAS Latency. 

The Xpower Turbine RGB DDR4-3200 kit comes with a CAS Latency of 16, while the DDR4-3600 and DDR4-4133 kits have a 19 CAS latency. Silicon Power highlighted that the DDR4-4133 kit operates at a voltage of 1.4V.

Xpower Turbine RGB DDR4 memory kits come equipped with Intel's Extreme Memory Profile (XMP) for a fast and painless setup. They are backed by a limited lifetime warranty. 

Silicon Power didn't clarify pricing or availability for the Xpower Turbine RGB DDR4 memory kits. Its product page says it'll be on sites includes Amazon and Newegg, but we don't see them listed yet. 

MORE: Motherboard Buying Guide

Silicon Power announced two NVMe SSDs, the first for the company, based on the Phison PS5008-E8T DRAMless controller. Both drives share the same specifications and come with identical components from what we can tell. One carries a three-year warranty and the other comes with a five-year warranty. 

This is the first Phison PS5008-E8T retail product announcement that we've seen, and it comes on the heels of several companies shipping the PS5008-E8 armed with a DRAM cache. The E8T controller makes up for the lack of a DRAM to cache the table map by using a small amount of your host system memory (your RAM) to map the location of data on the flash. Support for Host Memory Buffer was added to Windows 10 in the Fall Creators Update in the last quarter of 2017.

Silicon Power didn't give us many performance details about the two new NVMe SSDs. The only performance numbers listed are sequential reads at 1,600 MB/s and sequential writes at 1,000 MB/s. The performance increase with each capacity increase, but we suspect the 1,600/1,000 rating is only for the largest model, 512GB. The P32A80 and P32A85 ships in three sizes, 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB.

The company does list a number of features for this series, such as being the "perfect SSD for Ultrabook Upgrades", easy installation, and the warranty for each model. The feature that caught us off guard is the mention of RAID. We've yet to see the HMB feature supported on Intel's PCH chipset RAID or in the new vROC system that uses the CPU as a RAID controller with support for RAID 0, 1, and 5. RAID with HMB-enabled SSDs should work with Microsoft's Storage Spaces, a pure software array. This is an area we will have to explore in the future.

Silicon Power didn't list any recommended prices or dates for availability.

Features & Specifications

We've discussed DRAMless SSDs for the last few years, but they are finally coming to market. If you've cruised Newegg's SSD section in the last couple of months, the 240GB Hyundai Sapphire stood out. It's the lowest-priced 2.5" 256GB-class SSD on the market, and at $50, it sells for $20 less than other products. We stumbled across Hyundai at CES and quickly arranged for a sample.

The NAND fabs dream of the day when flash is a part of every OEM system. CPU performance, the amount of system memory, and storage capacity are the big three marketing points for desktop PCs. Flash has gained market share in notebooks, but the percentage of desktops shipping with SSDs is still abysmal. It's a hard sell to convince a casual user to pay more for 256GB of flash than they would pay for a 1TB HDD. It will be easier to market solid-state drives as more casual users become aware of the benefits, but that doesn't mean they will pay significantly more for the technology in a low-cost notebook selling at a large retailer. 

In 2015, we learned that OEM system builders had asked the SSD industry to deliver 256GB SSDs in volume for $30 to $40 per unit. At that price, the system builders can promote flash without adding to the cost of the system. In a market where margins are less than $100 per system, any added expense cuts into the profit.

The solution is to streamline the entire SSD for the lowest price point, which begins with the controller. Products like the Samsung 850 series utilize 8-channel SSD controllers. Faster NAND propelled 4-channel controllers into competition with regular 8-channel SSDs, but with lower R&D and manufacturing overhead. Two-channel designs are the next phase. They take advantage of advanced manufacturing processes that include a small amount of SRAM memory inside the controller, which helps eliminate the need for DRAM.

Hyundai Technology is not the same company that builds automobiles, nor is it the previous parent company of Hynix. General Procurement, Inc. (out of Santa Ana, CA) licenses the Hyundai name. The company is new to flash-based products but also sells notebooks along with USB and SD cards. The company makes several general claims about the advantages of its solid-state drives over HDDs, like increased multitasking performance, energy efficiency, file transfer speeds (via Dynamic Write Acceleration), and reliability. Some of the claims don't line up with our initial DRAMless SSD findings.

Hyundai Technology offers both Cobalt and Sapphire SSDs. Both share the same product specifications and warranty information. There is very little data about either series on the website or Newegg's product page.

Specifications

Hyundai Technology lists the Sapphire in four capacities that range from 120GB to 960GB. To date, we've only spotted the Sapphire in 120GB and 240GB capacities.

The Sapphire 240GB sample we received uses the Marvell 88NV1120 controller. The controller is attractive to vendors because it's a DRAMless part designed to reduce manufacturing and component costs. The product page lists the NAND as 2D TLC / 3D TLC without any technical specifications. We suspect this drive will have a variable BOM (Bill Of Materials), so customers will receive "luck of the draw" components. 

On its website, the company lists the sequential read/write performance at 500/300 MB/s. Newegg lists the sequential write performance as 423 MB/s, slightly higher than the Hyundai website, but the retail package lists 430 MB/s. Random performance is not listed on either site or the package. To gain further insight into the Hyundai Technology Sapphire we turned to the Marvell website and our notes from a private meeting that took place in June 2015.

Marvell 88NV1120 Controller Features

The drive uses Marvell's ARM-based 88NV1120 2-channel dual-core controller. This is the first time we've tested the new Marvell controller. It's a fascinating part that can operate in either SATA AHCI mode or NVMe mode over a PCIe 3.0 x1 connection. The NVMe variant uses the 88NV1140 model name.

• SATA 6Gb/s support
• 2 channel / 4 CE
• TA DevSlp support
• Dual-core Cortex R5 CPU’s
• Embedded SRAM with hardware accelerators to optimize IOPS performance
• ONFI3 and Toggle2 NAND support
• 3rd Gen LDPC NANDEdge error-correction: 15nm TLC and 3D NAND support using LDPC technology to boost endurance and reliability
• BGA SSD and M.2/2.5 slim form factor support with thermal optimization and small package size
• 28nm low-power CMOS process

Marvell’s specifications state the company designed the controller for Toshiba NAND, so the Sapphire most likely uses 15nm planar TLC. We've yet to see Toshiba's 3D NAND, called BiCS, in a consumer SSD. We do know that Apple uses the flash in the latest iPhone products. 15nm planar TLC costs less than BiCS, so the low price point verifies our assumption without a firm confirmation.

Pricing And Availability

The Hyundai Sapphire was sold out at the time of writing. Just a few days before, we found the 240GB drive at Newegg selling for roughly $55 and the 120GB model for roughly $40. The drive seems to come and go on Newegg regularly. That's to be expected given the low price point. The $71.99 OCZ TL100 240GB (another DRAMless product) is the closest non-refurbished 256GB-class SSD on Newegg.

Warranty And Endurance

Hyundai Technology covers the Sapphire with a five-year warranty. The company doesn't list any endurance specifications, and that may be something to worry about.

At Computex 2016, a flash controller manufacturer warned us about DRAMless SSDs shipping with low-endurance planar TLC NAND. 1xnm planar NAND has far less endurance than 3D NAND. The vendor told us that some of the new NAND only has 100 P/E cycles.

"Since they are designed for low-cost OEM systems they just have to survive the warranty cycle. In many cases that is one year."

Marvell's 3rd generation LDPC technology increases the endurance far beyond 100 program/erase cycles per cell, but if you write a lot of data, you will want to keep an eye on drive wear. Gamers with large Steam libraries that automatically update may be among the most susceptible. 

Monitoring endurance and other SMART attributes may be an issue with this drive. We couldn't find a single program that could read the amount of data written to the flash or the amount of data sent from the host. We tried CrystalDisk Info, SSD-Z, SSD Life, and HDD Sentinel. DRAMless SSDs may require more wear leveling, and they certainly increase the amount of write amplification because they only cache a small amount of flash translation layer on the tiny embedded SRAM. Without a monitoring utility, using this drive is like driving a car without a fuel gauge.

Product Packaging

Hyundai put together an attractive package for the Sapphire, but it lacks basics that we like to see, like warranty information. Nearly all these drives will sell through online retailers until Hyundai gains some brick and mortar exposure. Before that happens, retailers will step in and insist upon warranty information on the package. Many retailers have policies that require such information.

A Closer Look

The Marvell 88NV1120 2-channel controller is tiny compared to the 8-channel controllers we often test. A third party packaged the flash, so we don't get to see the Toshiba part numbers. There are four packages total, two on each side. The drive uses all four CE per channel for maximum performance in the 240GB capacity.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparisons & Benchmarks

Comparison Products

There are only a handful of retail brand-name DRAMless drives. Newegg lists several low-cost drives from Asian companies like Silicon Power, Kingspec, KingDian, and others. At least one of these companies has a reputation for selling products with variable BOMs. That means every component is interchangeable, including the controller and NAND, even if the product comes to market with the same model number.

We tested the Hyundai Technology Sapphire against brand name products with verified components. The Corsair Force LE 200 240GB uses a Phison S11 DRAMless controller. We covered the OCZ TL100, SanDisk SSD Plus and SanDisk Z410 in our 11-Drive DRAMless SSD Roundup article. These products use NAND from Flash Forward, which is SanDisk and Toshiba's joint venture.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

The Hyundai Sapphire performs like a traditional SSD during relatively simple workloads. The sequential read test results are similar to any modern SATA 6Gb/s SSD. The Sapphire suffers a slight dip at queue depth (QD) 1, but performance increases as the workload intensifies.

Sequential Write Performance

The Sapphire has a strong SLC caching algorithm that allows the drive to recover in the very brief idle time between each run. We see the low QD1 performance again, but it increases as we scale the workload. The slope spurred us to go back and check the chipset dynamic speed settings to ensure they were still disabled. There are two separate controls; host-based and device-based. It appears that the drive may implement its own aggressive power reduction features. We disable the host settings on many of the tests to find the maximum performance, rather than simply allowing the chipset to reduce performance. 

Random Read Performance

"Hard disk replacements" is a marketing term for DRAMless SSDs. The Hyundai Sapphire has poor random read performance compared to other SSDs, but it still delivers a 200x QD1 random read increase over the best consumer HDDs. The Sapphire's performance scaling is slow in this workload. It nearly reaches 14,000 IOPS at QD32.

Random Write Performance

We are very impressed with the SLC cache algorithm that Marvell designed for this controller. The two SanDisk DRAMless SSDs suffer inconsistent performance because the SLC buffer fills quickly and takes much longer to flush the data.

80 Percent Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

Mixed sequential workloads pose a threat to performance in DRAMless designs. The controller has to access a wide range of map data, but it only stores a small amount of it in the SRAM cache. Companies have worked on compression technology to store more of the map in the limited memory capacity, and that seems to be one of the key technology features that increase performance.

80 Percent Mixed Random Workload

Sequential data requires less mapping data than random data, so map updates are less frequent. With random data, the drive accesses the map much faster because each new request requires a new map read or write. The Sapphire suffers from low random write performance, which has an impact on the mixed workload performance. Even with only 20% writes, the increased latency pulls down overall performance. 

Sequential Steady-State

The vendors did not design DRAMless drives for heavy usage. We still ran the steady-state tests, but mainly to look for any stability issues. All the drives passed with varying degrees of success. You will not want to run any of these products at (or near) full capacity. This is the undocumented SSD hurdle. SSDs with a lot of free space provide a pleasurable user experience, but filling the drive hurts performance. The LBA table map grows as you populate the drive with data. DRAM and SRAM are faster than NAND, so with a smaller cache, you have less usable space before drastically decreasing the performance of the drive. Therefore, we've yet to see a 1TB DRAMless SSD, although companies promise such devices are coming soon.

Random Steady-State

It's possible to drive many of the DRAMless SSDs down to very low IOPS during a severe workload. This causes the drive to stutter or hang. The system reacts like an old HDD system that has to wait for the drive to spin up after it transitioned into sleep mode.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

The Hyundai Sapphire provides inconsistent performance. In some application tests the drive performs well compared to the others, but in other tests, it falls well short of the competition.

Application Storage Bandwidth

We average the results and present the data as a single throughput value. The Hyundai Sapphire falls short of the other DRAMless SSDs, but we expected this result after viewing the low mixed random performance. Random performance plays a significant role in the user experience, and there is a direct link between mixed random performance and real-world applications. 

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

It's difficult to measure DRAMless SSD performance because there are so many factors at work. The TLC drives rely heavily on SLC cache burst performance, and the dynamic cache capacity varies based on the amount of data on the drive. The previous workloads we conduct before the measurement also have an impact on test results.

We only want to examine the moderate workloads where the drives have ample idle time between each test. We test the drives near full capacity to increase the stress and background operations. The sequential steady-state test data confirms the low performance, but in this version, we see the impact on application performance.

None of the drives perform all that well, but it's important to remember that these products are HDD replacements and not designed to replace existing SSDs. The results are around 5x better than a high-performance HDD.

Total Service Time

The Hyundai Sapphire 240GB delivers the best DRAMless user experience, but that's not to say it will satisfy enthusiasts and power users with the performance. There is a larger increase in service time during each recovery pass than we see high-performance SATA SSDs like the Samsung 850 series and SanDisk Extreme PRO.

Responsiveness Test

All of the drives are very close in this new test. The Hyundai Sapphire is only slightly less responsive than the Corsair Force LE 200. The Sapphire does require more power to complete the same scripted tasks.

Notebook Battery Life

The storage system plays a larger role in notebook battery life than most users assume. All modern system components are built for bursty workloads, so the component drops into a low power state after the burst passes. This is also true for the storage, but with SSDs, there is more to storing data than reading and writing. The drives have to perform background activity to manage data, spread it across the NAND die to increase performance, and then shuffle the data from time to time to ensure retention without voltage drift errors. The extra data manipulation often consumes more power than the initial write. We don't measure power consumption in snapshots because it doesn't show the ongoing power consumption that actually drains notebook battery life.

The Hyundai Sapphire delivers a 305-minute battery time on our Lenovo Y700-17, which is one of the worst scores we've measured with a SATA SSD. We did not expect this. Marvell has used the 28nm manufacturing node for several years now. The process was expensive to implement, and Marvell made a big deal about using the technology to reduce power consumption compared to other products, some of which still use a 5xnm process.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

For many of our readers, the Hyundai Sapphire won't even appear on the shopping radar for personal use, but we all have people to buy for from time to time. The Sapphire sticks out at Newegg due to the large price difference against the competition, at least when it's in stock. For two months, we saw the drive during our SSD price audit we use to create our Best SSDs monthly column. The drive intrigued us, but it became a project after stumbling on Hyundai Technology at CES.

We didn't know what to expect because there isn't a lot of public information available about the Sapphire. For all we knew, the drive had an older SandForce controller. I'm glad we did take the time to test the very low-cost drive because it gave us a fresh look at the growing DRAMless market. There are several new products at Newegg and Amazon from Asian companies entering the US market with low-cost SSDs. I suspect many of those products use DRAMless designs, but there is no guarantee that what ships today will be the same configuration that ships tomorrow. The Asian SSD market and media don't hold the companies to the same high standards as we do in North America and Europe. All the companies building products for China and other less developed countries do not use the same tactics, but the bar is much lower.

Hyundai Technology is a US-based company, so we hope it doesn't play the same game as the imported products. Retailers import all SSDs, but company practices often change by region. Having a trusted low-cost SSD provider will go a long way with end users. When it comes to SSDs, many of the more established brands have let us down over the years. Once the trust is lost, it's difficult to recover, regardless of price. We will have to keep an eye on Hyundai and see if the company can build a solid reputation in the SSD market.

The Sapphire isn't a bad SSD for the price. It ships with a five-year warranty and is very cheap. Hyundai didn't try to advertise the drive for anything more than it is. That goes a long way. The drive is not a performance powerhouse, but it’s a good SSD for your parents to surf the web with and check email.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

On Tuesday, Silicon Power updated the Thunder T11 series, a line of external SSDs that connect via Thunderbolt. The company says this external storage solution is ideal for professionals who attach importance to speed performance, such as photographers, videographers, video gamers and professionals.

"Featuring advanced Thunderbolt technology and exceptional product design, SP Thunder T11 has acquired great attention and support from worldwide professional designers and Apple fans since its debut last year," states the PR. "Thunder T11 also proved its superiority with the recognition from red dot award: Product Design 2014, which is the most influential and prestigious design award all over the world."

The Thunderbolt-equipped SSDs feature an aluminum enclosure designed to protect files at a fraction of the weight. The drives have read speeds of up to 380 MB/s and write speeds of up to 340 MB/s. And thanks to Thunderbolt's 10 Gb/s connection, files are piped to and from the user's desktop three times faster than a USB 3.0 external hard drive.

"Thunder T11 is not only the lightest but also the smallest Thunderbolt SSD on the market. Featuring extremely small and featherweight design, Thunder T11 is half the size of ordinary storage devices and only weighs 65g (2.30 ounces)," states the product sheet.

The specs show that these Thunderbolt-based SSDs measure just 2.91 x 2.44 x 0.60 inches, and is offered in Starlight Blue and Silver colors. The Thunder T11 is also now sold in two capacities: 120 GB and the new 240 GB model. The drives are even bus powered via the Thunderbolt interface, so there's no worrying about plugging a power adapter into an electrical outlet.

For more information about the new external SSD, head here.

Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Looking for a storage solution for your Thunderbolt-equipped desktop or laptop? Silicon Power has the ideal product for customers who need something fast and portable: the Thunder T11 solid state drive. The device is certified by both Intel and Apple, allowing customers to use it on a Thunderbolt-equipped Windows-based or Mac OS system.

"Thunderbolt technology can come in small palm size packages for true mobility," said Jason Ziller, Intel's Director of Thunderbolt Marketing. "We are pleased with Silicon Power's support for Thunderbolt technology and bringing Thunderbolt mobile storage to the next level for professional consumers."

Silicon Power believes that the Thunder T11 is the lightest and smallest Thunderbolt-based SSD on the market, measuring 74 x 62 x 15 mm and weighing a mere 0.1433 pounds. The drive arrives only in a 120 GB capacity, encased in a silver aluminum casing with "an incredible cooling system." And because it's based on NAND Flash, the drive should be completely noise free.

"Featuring extremely small and featherweight design, Thunder T11 is half the size of ordinary storage devices and only weighs 65g," reads the company press release. "Moreover, Thunder T11's Aluminum enclosure is designed to protect your files at a fraction of the weight but more importantly it offers an incredible cooling effect. In addition, Thunder T11 is entirely silent during the operation, which is particularly critical to users who work in a noise-sensitive environment."

Despite the theoretical 10 Gb/s connection speed, the new Thunderbolt drive has read speeds of up to 380 MB/s and write speeds of up to 340 MB/s. Other features include a bus-powered design (Thunderbolt provides the power), support for Windows 8/7/XP, support for Mac OS 10.3.x or later, a three year warranty, and certification for CE, FCC, BSMI and a few others.

The actual pricing and availability weren't provided, but typical outlets include Amazon, Newegg, Frys, PC Connection, Adorama and MicroCenter.

Silicon Power introduced a new external hard drive, the Stream S03, which has a unique folding design. That doesn't mean the device actually folds, but instead sports a form factor that looks as if the device were a black magazine folded neatly into a rounded portable carrying case with a matte finish.

"[It's] inspired by the concept of page folding as a way of keeping the precious and meaningful moments," the company said. "S03’s unique folding design emphasizes the idea of instilling more human touches into the storage device."

The external drive is based on USB 3.0, and features a multicolor LED in the asymmetric page-fold corner. If the drive is plugged into a USB 3.0 port, then the LED shines blue. If plugged into a USB 2.0 port, the LED will switch to red. It's all in the little details.

"SP Stream S03’s matte finish provides solid protection against fingerprints and stains," the company said. "Inheriting the streamline design from the Stream Series, S03 is built with the curved corners and ergonomics chamber on both sides, allowing users to handle with ease."

The curvy drive is offered in two flavors: 500 GB and 1 TB. It also comes with a hibernation mode to save power, and a new version of the company's free SP Widget software that provides seven major backup and security functions, such as 256-bit AES file and folder encryption. Its overall size is 4.822 x 3.05 x 0.523 inches, and it weighs a mere 0.31967 pounds.

For more information about the new Stream S03 external drive, head here. Silicon Power partners here in the United States include Amazon, Newegg, Micro Center, Frys.com, Adorama and PC Connection.

If you're looking for a portable hard drive with a little style, Silicon Power has launched the Diamond D20, powered by the high performance of USB 3.0 connectivity.

For now, the Diamond D20 external drive arrives only in a 500 GB capacity, but with access to the company's free SP Widget software featuring seven major backup and security tools. Unfortunately, the company didn't provide actual availability and pricing, but participating retailers typically include Amazon, Newegg, Frys and several others.

Silicon Power's primary design focus with the Diamond D20 is seemingly on style and portability. It sports a light-weight, ultra-slim form factor for easy carrying like shoving it into a pocket. The solid aluminum metal casing even features a carbon-like texture, rounded corners and an anti-scratch surface, protecting the drive against bumps and ugly dings.

"The SP D20 can make you free from worrying about fingerprints, scratches or dents when carrying it around," the company said. "Coated in contrasting colors of black and white, the D20 is elegantly simple and exquisite. The D20 creates a new sense of digital fashion trend, ideal for those who looking for storage on the go."

Additional product features include an LED that indicates power on and data transfer activity, a power-saving sleep mode, and a three-year warranty. When connected to a USB 3.0 port, it offers transfer speeds up to 5 Gb/s wereas a USB 2.0 connection only allows a max speed of 480 Mb/s. This external drive weighs a mere feather-like 0.297 pounds and measures just 4.856 x 3.070 x 0.413 inches.

For more information about Silicon Power's new external drive, head here. It's compatible with Windows 8 down to Windows XP, Linux 2.6.31 or later, and Mac OS 10.5 or later (only USB 2.0 currently supported).

_{Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback}

On Wednesday Silicon Power introduced the newest member of its SSD portfolio, the SP Velox V50. The company claims it sports "the latest controller technology" so your desktop or laptop feels brand new after replacing that tired, clunky mechanical hard drive. The Velox V50 is available now in 32 GB, 64 GB, 128 GB and 256 GB capacities at participating online retailers.

This new 2.5-inch SSD connects via a SATA 3 (6 Gb/s) interface, providing read speeds up to 530 MB/s and a surprisingly low 200 MB/s maximum write speed. But the company is seemingly banking on a combination of firmware and a unique, advanced controller circuit design that will allow the SSD to maintain long-standing IOPS performance under extended periods.

On the specs front, the new SSD supports TRIM command and Garbage Collection technology. It's also NCQ and RAID ready, and uses ECC technology to guarantee data transmission reliability. Other features include a built-in SMART monitoring system, low power consumption (which is especially important in laptops), and no HDD annoyances like seek errors, latency delays and platter-based noise.

The overall dimensions of the new Velox V50 are 3.93 x 2.75 x 0.374-inches, and it weighs roughly 0.138 pounds. It has a vibration resistance test score of 20G and a shock resistance test score of 1500G maximum. It's offered in Iron Grey only, and arrives with a three-year warranty.

For more information about Silicon Power's new Velox V50 SSD, head here. Online retailers that will carry this drive include Amazon, Newegg, Adorama, Micro Center, PC Connection and Frys. So far the Velox V50 isn't appearing on the listed vendors, but Amazon is currently listing a number of other Silicon Power alternatives.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Silicon Power expands its lineup of SATA 3 SSDs with the addition of the 9-mm Velox V55 and the 7-mm Slim S55 2.5-inch SSDs. The company claims that both offer incredible performance at an affordable price, the former best suited for desktops and larger laptops and the latter "Slim" model ideal for Ultrabooks and ultra-slim notebooks.

"Dedicated to providing high quality products for the budget minded consumers, SP is proud to present V55 and S55," the company said. "[They] are ideal for computer enthusiasts, gamers and multitaskers wishing to take their computing experience to a new level; they can boot a computer in seconds and load applications in a much shorter time."

The Velox V55 arrives in 60 GB, 120 GB and 240 GB capacities, connecting via a SATA 3 (6 Gb/s) interface. Performance ranges depending on the benchmark, but the max read speed ranges between 510 MB/s and 550 MB/s, and the max write speed ranges between 440 MB/s and 470 MB/s. Features include a built-in SMART monitoring system, support for TRIM and Garbage Collection, NCQ and RAID support, and more.

The Slim S55 is offered in 60 GB, 120 GB and 240 GB capacities. Again, depending on the benchmark, the  max read speed ranges between 510 MB/s and 550 MB/s, and the max write speed ranges between 440 MB/s and 470 MB/s. The features are identical to the Velox V55 model, only this SSD is thinner and lighter, weighing just 74g compared to the Velox's weight of 79g.

Both SSDs are offered in black and sport a sleek aluminum case. The company didn't provide pricing and availability, but Amazon is currently selling the Velox V60 120 GB model for $130 and the 240 GB model for $240. The Slim S60 SSD is also on sale at Amazon for $145 for the 120 GB model and $170 for the 240 GB model. The V55 and S55 SSDs should appear soon.

_{Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback}

Silicon Power said on Tuesday said that it has added a new model to its line of 7-mm 2.5-inch Slim Series of SSDs. Called the Slim S50, it supposedly packs an all new controller that is "unlike any other solution in the market". Coupled with the latest firmware and advanced controller circuit design, the company said the SSD enables stable IOPS performance under an extended period.

The specifications provided by Silicon Power don't really offer any insight into the controller aspect, only that the SSD provides read speeds up to 530 MB/s and (seemingly slow) write speeds up to 200 MB/s via a SATA 3 (6 Gb/s) connection. The drive has been implemented with ECC technology to guarantee reliable data transmissions, and support for both TRIM and Garbage Collection technology.

"The SP S50 is more reliable and durable than tradition hard drives," the company said. "Weighing only 63 grams with a mere 7-mm thickness, the S50 is one of the lightest of its kind and is the ideal solution for users looking to upgrade their ultra slim notebook and desktop."

Silicon Power said the SSD is NCQ and RAID ready, and features a built-in SMART monitoring system. The drive itself measures 100- x 69.85- x 85-mm, and comes in four capacities: 32 GB, 64 GB, 128 GB and 256 GB. It's also backed by a three-year warranty, and is also both anti-vibration (20G) and shockproof (1500G Max), the company said.

So far the drive hasn't shown up on Silicon Power's list of retailers (Amazon, Newegg etc), so stay tuned for pricing and availability.

_{Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback}

Silicon Power introduced on Tuesday the newest edition to its Diamond series of 2.5-inch portable hard drives, the Diamond D03. This drive's biggest selling point is likely its USB 3.0 interface which enables a speedy transfer rate of up to 5 Gb/s. Connected to a USB 2.0 port, it's still rather spunky, pushing data at speeds of up to 480 Mb/s.

"Following the modern and sophistication design of the Diamond series, the new D03 expresses urban fashion with geometric design and is lined with an urban checkered pattern," the company said. "The Diamond D03 is covered in a solid aluminum metal structure providing better durability and heat dissipation than the standard plastic case."

The specs claim that it weighs only 147g, making it 30-percent lighter than your standard mechanical hard drive. It also measures 75.5 x 117.55 x 14-mm, making it easy to slip in your pocket or laptop bag while on the go. Even more, the surface is specially treated to resist scratches and fingerprint marks to reduce the occurrence of dents and other damages from daily usage.

The Diamond D03's list of features also include a built-in LED status indicator allowing users to instantly identify power supply and activity status. It's even equipped with a power-saving hibernation mode for customers who keep their external drives plugged in for long periods of time (guilty). Finally, owners can download the free SP Widget software which offers seven major back-up and security functions like 256-bit AES file and folder encryption.

The Diamond D03 is available in 500 GB, 750 GB and 1 TB capacities, and is backed by a three year warranty. The actual device specs are listed below:

- Dimensions：75.5 x 117.55 x 14 mm
- Weight：147g
- Standard Compliance：USB 3.0 / 2.0
- Data Transfer Rates:
    Max. 5 Gb/s (USB 3.0 Mode)
    Max. 480 Mb/s (USB 2.0 Mode)
- Power Supply：DC 5V (Power supplied through USB)
- Operating Temperature：5℃~ 55℃
- Storage Temperature：-40℃~ 70℃
- Supported Operating Systems：Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Linux 2.6.31 or later, Mac OS 10.5 or later (only USB 2.0 currently supported)
- Color：Black
- Three-year warranty

_{Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback}

September is just about over, and before you know it, you'll be beating up kids for their candy on Halloween night, then stuffing your face full of turkey just weeks after that. During all that excitement, you'll need to figure out what kind of holiday gift to purchase for that special someone before time runs out.

Silicon Power has a solution for the geek at heart, perfect for that faceless nerd sitting on the other side of Skype or that geeky ghoul dazed and drooling in front of a brightly lit LCD screen parked in a dark (dungeon) office downstairs.

Enter the LuxMini 720 and Touch 830, two festive sticks of flash dressed up in red, white and silver. They're limited edition, so that designation itself should perk up any collector of gadgets. Even more, the Touch 830 model sports Chip on Board (COB) packing technology, supposedly making it waterproof, vibration proof and dust proof.

"LuxMini 720 limited edition is built-up in an exquisite metallic case with silky touch," the comp[any said. "The combination of holiday red and joyful festival patterns genuinely gives out a sense of warmth in this winter. It’s the ideal gift choice for your special someone."

The Touch 830 features a stainless steel casing in titanium black, and is carved with "exquisite" seasonal icons, creating a sense of Northern European holiday spirits, the company said. Sounds like these two sticks are quite exquisite.

Silicon Power is offering both drives in 8 GB and 16 GB capacities. Every SP flash drive product guarantees a lifetime warranty as well as SP Widget application software which provides seven major back up and security tools.

On the pricing front, these holiday editions didn't appear on Amazon and Newegg, but the non-decorative LuxMini 720 16 GB model costs $9.99 on Newegg, and the Touch 830 16 GB stick is roughly the same price. So far it's unknown if Silicon Power plans to charge extra for the Limited Edition versions, so stay tuned.

Regardless, here is a list of features and the tech specs of each:

LuxMini 720 Limited Edition Product Features
-  The exquisite aluminum surface casing
-  Plug and play, no additional power source required
-  SP Widget free download, providing 7 major back-up and security function
-  No driver needed except for Win 98/ 98SE
-  Compliant with RoHS requirements

LuxMini 720 Limited Edition Product Specification
-  Dimensions: 54.6mm x 16.8mm x 7.2mm
-  Weight: 10g
-  Interface: compatible with USB 1.1 and 2.0
-  Support OS: Windows XP/Vista/7, Mac OS 10.3.x, Linux 2.6.x
-  Durability: 10,000 insertion/removal cycles
-  Color: Holiday Red
- Lifetime Warranty

Touch 830 Limited Edition Product Features
-  Stainless steel casing for a distinct shine
-  Waterproof, vibration-proof and dust-proof
-  Utilizes Chip-On-Board (COB) advance packaging technology
-  True plug and play, no external power required
-  Compliant with RoHS requirement
-  SP Widget free download, providing 7 major back-up and security function

Touch 830 Limited Edition Product Specification
-  Dimensions: 35.0 x 12.3 x 3.5 mm +/-0.3mm
-  Weight: 4g
-  Interface: Universal Serial Bus 1.1 & 2.0 compatible (USB)
-  Durability: 10,000 insertions (minimum)
-  Support OS: Windows 7, Windows Vista, WinXP, Win2000, Mac 10.3.X above, Linux 2.6.X above
-  Operating Temperature: 0°C ~ 70°C
-  Storage Temperature: -40°C ~ 85°C
-  Color: Titanium Black
-  Lifetime Warranty
 

_{Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback}

Silicon Power said on Friday that its Sky Share H10 drive is now available in 500 GB and 1 TB capacities. It's an external 2.5-inch HDD with an integrated battery, and designed to store and share files to laptops, iOS and Android mobile devices on-the-go. Connectivity is accomplished either via USB 3.0 or over an 802.11 b/g/n Wi-Fi connection.

The gadget was actually one of ten listed in our Best of Computex 2012 back in June. The overall design, according to the company, is based on the concept of touch. The circular curvature surrounding the power switch signifies that once it is activated, data transmission can be shared as free and simple like ripples. Up to eight devices can be connected simultaneously, making it a makeshift, pocket-sized media server for streaming pictures, video and music.

Silicon Power said the Sky Share H10 includes built-in 2T2R antenna to provide 1.5 times faster wireless data transfer than similar products in the market. The specs reveal that the gadget will actually transfer data wirelessly at speeds up to 300 Mb/s, and up to 5 Gb/s over the USB 3.0 connection. It uses a built-in rechargeable 2600 mA/h Lithium Battery, offering up to 5 hours play.

The overall device dimensions are 133 x 86 x 23.5-mm, and the gadget weighs a mere 255g, making it rather easy to carry while on-the-go. Even though the gadget can support up to 8 gadgets at a time, the Sky Share H10 can only accommodate three iPads simultaneously. The apps for iOS and Android are free – laptops and desktops merely use a web-based interface to access the files over a Wi-Fi connection.

Currently the drive isn't appearing on Silicon Power's website, so stay tunes for actual availability and pricing. In the meantime, here's the actual list of specs including formats supported by the iOS and Android apps:

- Capacity: 500 GB, 1 TB
- Dimension: 133 x 86 x 23.5-mm
- Weight: 255g +/- 5%
- WiFi Interface: IEEE 802.11 b/g/n Standard
- Built-in 2T2R Antenna, up to 300 Mb/s
- Built-in USB 3.0 (Compatible with USB 2.0), Up to 5 Gb/s Transfer rate (USB 3.0 Mode)
- WiFi connection: up to 8 users
- WiFi Connection range: up to 100 Feet
- Power Supply: DC 5V/2A (Power supplied through AC-to-DC adapter)
- Battery: Built-in 2600 mA/h Lithium Battery (Up to 5 hours play)
- Operating Temperature: 5℃ ~ 45℃
- Storage Temperature: -10℃ ~ 70℃
- Wireless security: WPA+WPA2
- Operation system: Support Win 7, Win XP, Win Vista, Mac OS X (10.5.X+), iOS 4.2+, Android 2.3+
- Supporting devices: iPod, iPhone, iPad, Android smart phone, Android Tablet, Notebook, PC, Mac
- Browsers: Support Safari 5 or later version, Webkit (Android), Internet Explorer 8 or later version, Firefox, and Google Chrome
- File system: FAT32/NTFS
- Supporting File type:

iPhone/iPad App (free download):
Video: .M4V, MP4, .MOV
Photo: JPG, BMP, PNG, GIF
Music: MP3
Document: DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF

Android Smart phone App (free download):
Video: .M4V, MP4
Photo: JPG, PNG
Music: MP3, WMA
Document: DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF

Web UI: (For Laptop, Tablet, Smart phone…etc)
Play any file supported by your device applications

_{Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback}

On Friday Monster Digital announced the launch of its Daytona Series of 2.5-inch solid state drives, measuring just 7-mm thin and offering up to 480 GB of storage space. Pricing starts at $99.99 USD, and they're available now on Amazon, Fry's Electronics and PC Mall.

While the actual specs are unavailable, the company claims the drives offer read speeds up to 550
MB/s and write speeds up to 515 MB/s. They're packaged in a "super thin" 7-mm universal fit stainless steel case and consume less than 5W in an active state, and less than 200mW in an inactive state.

The new line of SSDs arrives in four flavors: 90 GB ($99.99), 120 GB ($109.99), 240 GB ($229.99) and 480 GB ($479.99). Features include airtight data security via 256-bit AES encryption, Reduced Write Amplification and Over Provisioning, and support for TRIM. All four drives come with a 3-year warranty.

Monster Digital is also selling a version of its 120 GB, 240 GB, and 480 GB Daytona drives featuring a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) "Easy Installation Kit." This bundle includes easy-to-follow cloning software, an SATA 3/USB 3.0 adapter, a 3.5-inch drive bay adapter, a quick start guide and even a screwdriver. The upgrade kit versions will cost $134.99 (for 120 GB), $234.99 (for 240 GB), and $484.99 (for 480 GB).

"With our new Daytona Series, we are providing an easily accessible, high-speed option for reliable storage with significantly lower energy consumption and silent operation compared to conventional HHD drives," said Monster Digital CEO Jay Tandon. "They are the ideal choice for people who want the very best performance and efficiency. Our new Daytona drives are especially well suited to laptops."

As of this writing, Monster Digital had not updated its website to reflect the new Daytona series.

Meanwhile, Silicon Power is offering two new models in its Slim series of 2.5-inch solid state drives, measuring just 7-mm thin. Presented in a chic aluminum metal body, the Slim drives are ideal for upgrading that boring old HDD to a faster, more power efficient SSD. The two new versions include the black Slim S60 and the champagne gold Slim S70, both in 60 GB, 120 GB, 240 GB and 480 GB capacities.

The specs reveal that the Slim S60 provides reads speeds up to 550 MB/s and write speeds up to 500 MB/s. Silicon Power notes that the golden Slim S70 model sports the latest SandForce SF-2281 controller with synchronous NAND flash and the new optimized firmware, thus it cranks out read speeds up to 557 MB/s and write speeds up to 507 MB/s.

Outside that major difference, the two models are seemingly the same although the company points out that the Slim S70 features a random 4K write speed of up to 86000 IOPS. Both feature a SATA 6 Gbps interface, TRIM command and Garbage Collection technology, a built-in SMART monitoring system, DureWrite and wear leveling to extend endurance, and more.

"Built in a slim and stylish enclosure, the new SSD unleashes the full potential of the 6 Gbps SATA III interface to further expand computing experiences and mobility," the company said. "Unlike the standard 9.5mm SSD, SP Slim series features a new slim 7mm form factor for easy integration into the latest mobile computing platforms."

Silicon Power did not provide availability and pricing details although the drives can be purchased through Amazon, Newegg, Frys, Micro Center, Adorama and PC Connection in the United States.

_{Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback}

Silicon Power has announced a new entry in its line of external hard drives: the Diamond D01. It joins the company's current Diamond D05 and Diamond D10 drives which sport a SuperSpeed USB 3.0 interface. However this new model is only USB 2.0 compatible, presumably making it somewhat cheaper than its older brothers. It's also as small as a smartphone, weighing only 0.32408 pounds.

"Coated in metallic black, SP Diamond D01 is lined with multiple geometric patterns, creating a sense of metropolitan chic style," the company said. "With the solid aluminum metal structure and the anti-scratch surface, SP D01 can make you free from worrying about your hard drive being scratched or dented when carrying it around."

According to the spec list, the drive features an LED that indicates power on and data transmissions. It also sports a scratch resistant surface, a power-saving sleep mode, and capacities of 500 GB, 750 GB, and 1 TB. It also comes with the SP Widget free download software, providing 7 major back up and security tools.

"Compared to other portable hard drives, SP Diamond D01 is literally light in weight as well as in size, making it easier to carry. However, smaller size doesn’t have to mean smaller storage," the company said, adding that the overall HDD size is 2.97 x 4.62 x .55 inches. It also comes with a 2-year warranty, and gets power through the USB 2.0 interface (no external power adapter needed).

The Silicon Power website lists the Armor A70, Armor A50 and Armor A10 drives as compatible with USB 2.0 and later. For consumers with USB 3.0 ports, Silicon Power offers the Armor A80, the Stream S20 and S10, and the Diamond D05 and D10. The Diamond series seems focused on pattern-based aesthetics whereas the Stream is streamlined, contoured and highly colorful. The Armor series is the most visually bland of the bunch.

So far pricing and actual availability for the new D01 external drive is unknown, so stay tuned.

 UPDATE: A USB 3.0 version is "coming soon."

_{Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback}

Silicon Power said on Tuesday that its new 2.5-inch Velox V70 SSD will re-write everyone's SSD experience thanks to a powerful combination of new built-in Toggle/Synchronous flash, an advanced controller and firmware. It's also coated in metallic gold, bringing a rich, pretty sparkle to the dull innards of your desktop (unless it's already lit up like a Christmas tree, of course).

"Unlike the traditional SSD, Velox V70 features optimized firmware and advanced Toggle/Synchronous NAND flash while utilizing the latest SandForce SF-2281 controller," the company said. "With faster computer startup time and application launch time, V70 can greatly change your SSD experience and is ideal for professional users for video & audio editing, gaming and multiple tasking."

The specs report that the SSD has a maximum read speed of 557 MB/s and a maximum write speed of 507 MB/s. It also features a random 4K write speed of up to 86000 IOPS, a SATA III 6 Gb/s connector (backwards compatible to SATA II 3 Gb/s), support for TRIM and Garbage Collection technology, and a built-in SMART monitoring system. It's equipped with DuraWrite and wear leveling, and is implemented with ECC technology to guarantee data transmission reliability.

"Apart from the accelerated transferring rate, V70 is also a more durable and reliable storage device. It is able to endure more write cycles and significantly expands the life-span of your SSD," Silicon Power said, adding that it comes with a three year warranty.

The Velox V70 SSD arrives in capacities of 60 GB, 120 GB, 240 GB and 480 GB. Actual availability and pricing is unknown at this point, so stay tuned or keep checking back with your favorite online retailer to see if the drive is available.

At Computex Taipei last week, Silicon Power was showing off Sky Share, a new series of wireless storage devices. Sky Share allows users to stream and share media with up to eight devices wirelessly and comes with support for Android, iOS, as well as a regular web UI. There's also support for listening to music in the background while you do something else, such as read a document.

The Sky Share line includes two models, the Sky Share F10, which is based on NAND flash, and the H10, which is based on a regular HDD. The F10 is available in 32GB and 64GB models, while the H10 is a little bit larger and available in 500GB and 1TB options.

The drives come with support for  Wi-fi n with WPA+WPA2, and a 2600mAh battery to power the whole show. It can be recharged via USB 3.0 and measures in at 134.2 x 78.6 x 23.5 mm with a weight of 255g.

Unfortunately, no word on pricing or release just yet, but we'll keep you posted.

_{Follow @JaneMcEntegart on Twitter.}   

microSDHC Cards For Mobile Devices

Fast memory cards are needed not only in professional equipment like DSLR cameras, but they're increasingly being used in consumer devices like compact cameras, camcorders, MP3 players, hand-held game consoles, and cell phones, too. This accelerating uptake is caused by the rapidly increasing number of features of these devices. The more features, the higher the demands on the memory card. For example, consider recording and playing back HD video on a smartphone. For stutter-free operation, significant data transfer speeds are required. In order to go beyond video snippets a few seconds long, the storage capacity of a memory card also needs to be sufficiently large.

Considering those criteria and adding compatibility, reliability, and robustness, the SD card quickly emerges as the memory card of choice, which also helps to explain its 80% market share.

The physically smallest variant of the SD card is the microSD card, measuring a mere 11 mm x 15 mm x 1 mm (0.43” x 0.59” x 0.04”). Add a host adapter, and a microSD or microSDHC card can be used like a SDHC card.

For this comparison test, we're focusing on the microSDHC subcategory of the microSD form factor, which offers much larger capacities, and thus more versatility in multimedia applications. While a microSD card tops out at 2 GB due to its FAT16 file system, a microSDHC card can store up to 32 GB on its FAT32 file system, depending on the model.

We asked all major memory card manufacturers to submit samples of their microSDHC-based products. We received a wide range of cards, with capacities ranging from 4 GB to 32 GB, and thus covering the whole range of the microSDHC specification. We also noticed plenty of different performance points. SD cards are grouped into several performance classes, which denote the minimum recording rate of the cards. The lowest performance class, Class 2, stores data at a minimum of 2 MB/s. Our test candidates, however, start at performance Class 4, which features a worst-case write speed of 4 MB/s. Class 6 cards achieve at least 6 MB/s, while Class 10 cards switch up the rating a bit, pushing 10 MB/s non-fragmented sequential writes.

Adata microSDHC Class 6 (Class 6, 8/16 GB)

Taiwan-based Adata offers a wide range of memory products, ranging from RAM and USB sticks to SSDs and memory cards. For this test, we received two Class 6 microSDHC cards: an 8 GB card and a 16 GB card. Adata also offers a 4 GB model, but does not include an adapter with any of its cards. Adata places no restrictions on the use of the cards and recommends them for all mobile devices, claiming full compatibility to the SDHC spec.

Adata's microSDHC Class 6 cards feature a life-long warranty and claim up to 20 MB/s read speed and up to 9 MB/s write speed, which is very close to what we measured. The 16 GB version achieves 18.6 MB/s sequential reads and 10 MB/s writes, exceeding the manufacturer’s claims with that latter figure.

The 8 GB card shows a read speed of 18.2 MB/s, almost as fast as its larger brother, but excels in writes: 12.1 MB/s is not only significantly faster than the larger card, but other benchmarks show that the 8 GB card is one of the fastest Class 6 cards, whereas the 16 GB card is a more or less a mid-range card.

Kingston microSDHC Card (Class 10, 4/8/16 GB)

Memory specialist Kingston offers microSDHC cards in the Class 4 and Class 10 categories. Our three test candidates, capable of storing 4, 8, and 16 GB, belong to the latter group.

Kingston also offers a Class 10 card able to hold 32 GB, but did not send us a sample. Kingston advertises compatibility with the SD 2.00 card spec and offers a lifetime warranty. We appreciate that Kingston includes a host adapter, which allows using microSDHC cards in SHDC card readers.

Kingston conservatively claims 10 MB/s write performance, which is the minimum for Class 10. Our benchmarks show that the 16 GB card especially is quite fast. While it matches both of the smaller Kingston cards in sequential read speed, it bests them in nearly all other benchmarks. This is particularly evident in the sequential write benchmark, where the 16 GB card achieves 19.2 MB/s, while both of the other Kingston cards only demonstrate a measly 9.5 MB/s. The two lower-capacity Kingston cards wind up in the lower average of the 15-card field, but the 16 GB model is definitely one of the fastest cards.

Lexar High-Speed Mobile microSDHC Card (Class 6, 16 GB And Class 10, 32 GB)

Lexar segments its memory card product range, which consists of microSDHC cards, SD cards, Compact Flash cards, and Memory Stick cards, into application categories like photo, video, gaming, and mobile devices. The microSDHC cards belong to the latter category and are referred to as High-Speed Mobile microSDHC. We tested the largest two models, which belong to different classes. The 32 GB flagship model belongs to Class 10 and the 16 GB model is labeled Class 6. Lexar offers 10-year warranties on both and includes a USB card reader.

Lexar's website does not divulge performance data other than the class rating. But there is no need to be apprehensive about what these products can achieve, as both of them perform admirably, falling into the upper mid-range.

The 16 GB card achieves 18.6 MB/s sequential read speeds, which is the best performance within the class. Its write speed is 10.2 MB/s. We expected (and realized) even more performance from the 32 GB Class 10 card: sequential read and write rates of 21.3 and 21.4 MB/s, respectively. These values, however, do not top the speed king, SanDisk's Mobile Ultra.

MemoryStar microSDHC Card (Class 6, 16 GB And Class 10, 8/16 GB)

MemoryStar offers a palette of microSDHC cards in Class 2, 4, 6, and 10 trim, covering every base mentioned in the SD 2.00 specification. The company sells models between 4 GB and 32 GB. Each sports a 10-year warranty and an SDHC adapter is included. We received three cards: one Class 6 card (16 GB) and two Class 10 cards able to store 8 and 16 GB.

Our benchmarks predictably show a performance gap between the Class 6 and Class 10 cards. More so here than with the other vendors, however, the gap is really pretty significant. On one hand, the two Class 10 cards are equally fast (aside from a few discrepancies attributable to measurement tolerances). These two cards are among the fastest cards tested, achieving 21.6 MB/s sequential reads and 21.5 MB/s sequential writes, outclassing the competition.

In stark contrast to that, the MemoryStar Class 6 card is not only significantly slower than its Class 10 siblings, but even trails the other Class 6 cards in most respects. The only exception to this general trend is sequential write performance, which is acceptable at 12.6 MB/s. In sequential read tests, however, the card trails all other Class 6 cards by moving 13.1 MB/s.

Patriot LX Series microSDHC (Class 10, 16 GB)

Patriot offers a wide range of memory cards in various formats. The company has also established its reputation as a manufacturer of SSD drives. Its portfolio of microSDHC cards ranges from Class 2 to 10, and from 4 to 32 GB. Patriot sent us a LX-series card, rated for Class 10 performance and capable of holding 16 GB of information. It comes with a SDHC host adapter.

In our benchmarks, the Patriot card establishes itself as a respectable mid-range product that does not exhibit any particular weaknesses. However, it's not a performance leader, as sequential read speeds of 20.8 MB/s fall at the trailing end of its class. While sequential write performance of up to 12.2 MB/s is still quite good, it's really only modest compared to faster Class 10 cards from Kingston and MemoryStar.

SanDisk microSDHC (Class 4, 8 GB) And Mobile Ultra microSDHC (Class 4, 16 GB)

The US-based manufacturer SanDisk is, according to its press releases, the largest manufacturer of flash-based products in the world. Befitting this position, SanDisk offers a complete portfolio of memory cards. The company presents the microSDHC cards on its site’s Mobile Memory section, aiming them at owners of smartphones.

The Mobile Ultra microSDHC card is intended for transferring files between a mobile phone and a PC, which is why it comes with a USB card reader. We tested both the 8 GB SanDisk microSDHC card and the 16 GB SanDisk Mobile Ultra microSDHC. According to the manufacturer, both are Class 4 products.

Class 4 is a real understatement for the Mobile Ultra microSDHC model. Defying its designation, our test sample ran rings around many of the Class 10 cards and exhibited good to excellent read and write performance in all benchmarks. Clocking in at 22.8 MB/s, it even took the lead in our sequential read test. However, it is not quite as fast in the sequential write benchmark, achieving 15.8 MB/s. The card also demonstrates very strong random read and write performance, again winning first place in these categories.

The 8 GB SanDisk microSDHC cannot quite live up to the results demonstrated by its fast Mobile Ultra brother. It really is a Class 4 card, clocking in at 11.6 MB/s sequential reads and 6.1 MB/s sequential writes. Compared to other Class 4 cards, it is fairly slow. Interestingly, the Class 4 Silicon Power microSDHC memory card exhibits precisely the same speed in all benchmarks.

Samsung microSDHC Plus 8 GB (Class 6, 8 GB)

According to Samsung, its microSDHC Plus card can survive 24 hours immersed in water. It can withstand a load of up to 1.6 tons. It can tolerate shocks. And it can purportedly weather radiation and endure magnetic fields of up to 10 000 Gauss. Being a Class 6 card, it should also perform reasonably well. Samsung bundles an SDHC adapter with this card.

In our benchmarks, Samsung's microSDHC Plus 8 GB performs modestly. Its sequential read performance hits 17.6 MB/s, which is almost on par with the Class 6 candidates from Adata and Lexar. Sequential write performance is competitive at 11.8 MB/s, putting this model in the middle of the pack.

Silicon Power microSDHC Memory Card (Class 4, 32 GB)

Silicon Power covers everything from Class 2 to 10 with its lineup of microSDHC cards. The company also offers capacities between 4 to 32 GB. For the purposes of this round-up, we received a 32 GB Class 4 card.

None of Silicon Power's documentation advertises maximum speeds. Like most competing products, this 32 GB card comes with an SDHC adapter, too.

All of our 15 test candidates achieve speeds that exceed the minimum performance level of their respective class designations. Case in point, Silicon Power's microSDHC card achieves 11.7 MB/s in sequential reads and 5.9 MB/s in sequential writes. Still, that's rather slow compared to other Class 4 cards.

As a side note, SanDisk's microSDHC offering shows the very same performance values in all benchmarks.

Comparison Table And Test Configuration

Test System

Benchmark Results: Throughput

Rather homogenously, the tested microSDHC cards achieve sequential read speeds closely matching their speed class. At the lower end, there are two Class 4 cards, followed by five Class 6 cards that perform very similarly with the notable exception of MemoryStar's microSDHC card. Fortunately for North American customers, that product isn't available here, so you don't have to worry about it.

A similarly coherent picture emerges from the seven Class 10 cards. The speed difference between the fastest and the slowest Class 10 model is only 1.5 MB/s.

The big surprise from this test is the SanDisk Mobile Ultra microSDHC, which takes the performance crown with its 22.8 MB/s sequential read speed in spite of being labeled Class 4.

The sequential write benchmark is dominated by both Class 10 MemoryStar cards, which are in a performance category of their own (but unavailable in the U.S.). Only the Kingston 16 GB card can come close to keeping up. The bulk of our review samples, however, exhibit write performance between 10 and 12 MB/s.

Benchmark Results: Random Reads And Writes

Random reads of 512 KB blocks yield the very same ranking as sequential reads. Once again, the SanDisk Mobile Ultra microSDHC is the fastest card at 21.8 MB/s.

Reducing the block size for the random read test to 4 KB significantly impacts performance, which tops out at a mere 3.4 MB/s, achieved by the Samsung and Adata Class 6 cards. There is almost no difference between queue depths of one and 32 when it comes to memory cards.

Randomly writing 512 KB blocks is not a strong suit for microSDHC cards. The three cards that perform best are the SanDisk Mobile Ultra microSDHC, the Adata microSDHC Class 6, and the Samsung card.

Benchmarking random 4 KB writes yields a rather pathetic picture, with the throughput of all but two test candidates dropping to zero-point-zero-something MB/s. In other words, that's just a few KB/s. Only the SanDisk microSDHC card and the Silicon Power card stand out with a queue depth of one. Unfortunately, that's still just over 1 MB/s.

Which microSDHC Card Is Right For You?

All of the microSDHC cards we tested perform as their vendors advertise. As a result, prospective buyers can be confident in the performance each of these models delivers. 

The packaging tells you what class within the SD 2.0 specification your favorite card belongs to, indicating the minimum data transfer rate you can expect from it. We did not find a single performance disappointment. To the contrary, we found one sleeper. Although it's advertised as a Class 4 card, SanDisk's Mobile Ultra microSDHC matches the performance of the Class 10 cards we tests, going so far as to win the sequential read speed metric.

Only few manufacturers ship microSDHC cards without accessories. A SDHC adapter, which allows you to read the microSDHC card in a SDHC card reader, is included with nine of the 15 tested cards. Comparatively rare are USB readers, which are included with both Lexar cards and the SanDisk Mobile Ultra microSDHC. You'll predominantly come across USB readers when buying microSDHC cards that are not exclusively intended for mobile devices, but also for data exchange with a PC. However, none of the 15 tested cards include both adapters. The other extreme, no accessories at all, is rare: only the Adata cards and the other SanDisk model do not include any adapter at all.

Silicon Power Company has extended its product line with their announcement of the Marvel M01 USB 3.0 flash drive. To meet the consumer needs, the M01 will be available in 8 GB, 16 GB and 32 GB storage capacities. The dimensions are 60.6 x 18 x 8.1 mm (2.374 x 0.7087 x 0.3189 inches) with a weight of 10 grams. The main draw of this flash drive is its USB 3.0 interface, but it is backwards compatible with USB 2.0 and 1.1 interfaces.

The flash drive is made of durable aluminum solid casing that is also fingerprint- and scratch-proof. In addition, the M01's strap hole allows you to attach your USB drive to your favorite keychain or necklace, allowing you to have your most prized data with you at all times. The icy blue color scheme adds a nice touch to the drive, along with the built-in LED indicator light for power on and data transfer status.

Every Silicon Power flash drive product comes with a lifetime warranty and SP Widget application software, which provides 7 major back up and security tools. The consumer also receives a free 60 day trial of Norton Antivirus 2011.

Tuesday Silicon Power revealed a new 2.5-inch SATA SSD, the E20. The drive reportedly uses a proprietary technology that allows for read speeds up to 250 MB/s and write speeds up to 230 MB/s, surpassing similar SSD speeds on the market today.

Silicon Power's E20 offers a variety of features including built-in DDR2 DRAM Cache Memory, circuit current sensors, Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology (S.M.A.R.T.) support, and TRIM Command and Garbage Collection Technology support.

"With E20’s built-in DDR2 DRAM Cache Memory, even during continuous intensive-write situations, computers shall lag no more," the company said. "This feature not only enhances SSD’s read and write performances, it also extends SSD’s lifespan."

The new SSD will also utilize built-in ECC to guarantee data reliability, and use the company's "wear-leveling" technology to expand its lifespan. Other notable features include low power consumption, resistance to shock and vibrations, noiseless operation, no latency delay and no seek errors-- typical SSD benefits.

The E20 will arrive in four capacities: 32 GB, 64 GB, 128 GB and 256 GB. Unfortunately, Silicon Power did not provide pricing or availability, so stay tuned.

Does USB 3.0 Stick Out On Thumb Drives?

USB 3.0 is finally here. More and more motherboards incorporate an additional controller to support the fast interface. Storage vendors are releasing new USB 3.0 products almost weekly. We decided to look at the impact this new interface will have on thumb drives by comparing it with USB 2.0 and eSATA.

480 Mb/s Not Enough?

480 Mb/s is the gross transfer speed of USB 2.0, which translates into 60 MB/s. Effectively, however, USB 2.0 devices max out at around 35 MB/s and, depending on file size, selected partition, and format, you'll probably see less than that.

While USB 2.0 performance is sufficient for occasional use, it bottlenecks power users. We don't want to wait around moving multi-gigabyte archives at 35 MB/s or less. There are a number of different scenarios you could conceive where USB 2.0 is simply insufficient, but the simple truth is that performance is usually perceived as inadequate if the waiting extends beyond just a few minutes.

USB 3.0 to the Rescue

With 5 Gb/s gross throughput, USB 3.0 provides ten times the bandwidth of USB 2.0. We released an introductory article on SuperSpeed USB 3.0 in June 2009, looked at the implications on insufficient platform bandwidth in March 2010, and provided a first roundup on USB 3.0 enclosures just recently.

Now it’s time to look at what USB 3.0 does for thumb drives. To get the full picture, we decided not only to include USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 performance, but also two products that support eSATA, which goes up to 3 Gb/s gross bandwidth and may still challenge USB 3.0.

USB 3.0 Basics And Applications

The USB 3.0 standard is also referred to as SuperSpeed USB. This was necessary because USB 2.0 was promoted as High-Speed USB several years ago. Here is an overview on the nominal throughput of all popular peripheral interfaces:

* 8b/10b Encoding

While the connectors for USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 are identical, USB 3.0 requires nine, rather than only four, wires. The five additional wires are necessary for SDP transmission based on shielded differential pairs of wires. USB 3.0 greatly resembles SATA, providing data both in upstream and downstream directions.

Fortunately, USB 3.0 is backward compatible with USB 2.0, as the five additional contacts are placed deeply within the connector. Plug a USB 3.0 connector into a USB 3.0 port and you’ll get the 5 Gb/s connect. Inserting the connector only half-way or attaching a USB 2.0 device will result in 480 Mb/s USB 2.0 speed. USB 3.0 also supports 900 mA per port, rather than USB 2.0’s 500 mA. This is a blessing for portable storage devices that require a bit more power to operate. With USB 2.0, some devices would only work with Y-type cables to access power from two USB 2.0 ports.

USB 3.0 Applications

The most obvious candidates for USB 3.0 are external and portable storage products, such as hard drives or flash-based thumb drives. All of these can immediately benefit because the 35 MB/s bottleneck vanishes. Even low-cost hard drives reach 50 MB/s today, 2.5” mobile hard drives are crossing the 100 MB/s line, and 3.5” desktop hard drives are somewhere between 100 and 150 MB/s these days. Clearly, USB 3.0 allows all conventional hard drives to operate without throughput bottlenecks. Fast USB 3.0 drives might also be interesting for mobile operating system installations, such as a maintenance system on a thumb drive.

Silicon Power eSATA/USB SSD (eSATA, USB 2.0, 32 GB)

Our eSATA/USB drive was one of the first products to seriously beef up throughput for thumb drive products. This 32 GB product employs four-channel flash memory internally, and achieves read throughput of up to 65 MB/s and 42 MB/s for writes.

The device supports eSATA as well as Micro USB. However, Micro USB throughput will be limited at under 30 MB/s, which isn’t what you’d expect from a modern USB 2.0 drive. Thus eSATA remains the better choice, especially if you’re spending more money on a high-speed drive.

OCZ Throttle (eSATA, USB 2.0, 8 GB)

OCZ’s 8 GB Throttle thumb drive is very similar to the Silicon Power model I described on the last page. However, OCZ is faster on USB 2.0, and it provides stronger I/O performance. The Throttle appears to have been throttled, having now disappeared from OCZ’s Web site. We’re sure OCZ will follow up with a suitable USB 3.0 drive soon.

Super Talent USB 3.0 RAIDDrive (USB 3.0, 64 GB)

This is one of the first USB 3.0 thumb drives we received in our test lab. Super Talent offers the RAIDDrive, the self-encrypted SuperCrypt, and the Express Drive. All utilize the USB 3.0 interface. The RAIDDrive is available at 32, 64, or 128 GB, but be prepared to fork out at least $250 just for the 32 GB model. The 128 GB model more than doubles this.

However, Super Talent gives a lot in return. As the name indicates, the drive is built on a RAID stripe set based on two flash memory channels designed to increase throughput on USB 3.0. Super Talent published a performance expectation document in which the vendor talks about capabilities and performance requirements. It claims to reach more than 300 MB/s, but there’s a catch.

First of all, you might need the 128 GB model to ever see this throughput. The 32 GB and 64 GB models are more limited. You’ll more likely see results like those found in the benchmark section of this article: up to 178 MB/s on an X58 platform with an NEC USB 3.0 controller on a PCI Express slot.

Super Talent went a step further by offering a modified driver that replaces Microsoft’s mass storage driver for the RAIDDrive. It is the first and most important step to increase performance, but it’s also part of the catch. The driver effectively makes throughput CPU-dependent. On our Core i7-920 reference system, we can't reach those rated 300 MB/s speeds, as the CPU simply is too slow. Super Talent even refers to overclocking as a possible way of increasing RAIDDrive performance.

The Super Talent driver refused to work on our storage test system under Windows 7 Ultimate. The PC wouldn’t even boot anymore after installation. We had no choice but to recover to a system restore point to start over. A separate test run on a Core i7-870 system returned 220 MB/s maximum read throughput, but this didn’t solve the issues on our reference system. Plug-and-play device detection would reset the driver to the Microsoft default and the system didn’t survive a restart.

Be that as it may, the RAIDDrive still provides performance that’s so far ahead of conventional USB 2.0 and eSATA thumb drives that the driver shouldn’t matter too much. There’s little competition, and we doubt that your system infrastructure can provide sustained 170 MB/s write rates to accept data from the RAIDDrive. Even when looking at write throughput, we’re seeing between 2x and 4x increases compared to USB 2.0 hardware. The RAIDDrive runs hot, reaching 55°C after intensive operation, so be sure not to cover it.

USB 3.0 Controller And Test Setup

USB 3.0 Controller: Gigabyte GA-USB3.0

There aren’t many USB 3.0 controllers on the market. NEC’s 720200 is effectively the dominant product, and it’s often used as an onboard component for enthusiast class motherboards or add-on cards, such as Gigabyte’s GA-USB3.0. This is a x1 PCI Express 2.0 solution, so it offers plenty of bandwidth when connected to systems that support PCI Express 2.0. Keep in mind that all Intel platforms are still limited to PCI Express 1.1 for all non-graphics PCIe ports. This limits bandwidth to 250 MB/s each way.

The NEC chip is considered expensive at roughly six dollars. Asmedia, VIA, and Texas Instruments are close to finalizing their own products. This will have a positive impact on pricing and help make USB 3.0 a mainstream commodity item. Although the $29 for the GA-USB3.0 card isn’t bad for end users, $6 is a major cost item for on-board motherboard components.

Test Setup

Benchmark Results: Access Time And I/O Performance

The eSATA drives show the quickest access time, although results between 0.15 ms and 0.54 ms are quick enough for most people.

Write access time is much longer on the eSATA and USB 2.0 drives but extremely quick on USB 3.0.

The RAIDDrive does very well in our file server benchmark. A conventional 3.5” hard drive delivers less than 200 I/O operations per second. Quick SSDs can be a few times faster than the RAIDDrive.

Benchmark Results: Throughput

The bad news is that Super Talent’s driver did not work on our storage reference test system. The good news is that the drive is extremely fast, with a minimum sequential throughput very close to the 177.8 MB/s maximum. This tells us that the drive delivers constant performance. The eSATA drives are much slower at around 80 MB/s, and the USB 2.0 options aren’t too impressive. Still, the Super Talent RAIDDrive reaches extremely high scores at more than 36 MB/s using USB 2.0.

This is a new workload to look at. What happens if you read and write from and to a drive at the same time. 1 MB and 512 KB blocks are read and written sequentially (66% read / 33% writes) at a 50% read/write distribution.

Combined read and write operation results in a combined bandwidth of 38 MB/s on the RAIDDrive using USB 3.0 and less than half that on the other drives via eSATA. USB 2.0 returns even lower performance numbers on all drives.

Write throughput is typically the way to crush a thumb drive’s performance, and this holds true with the RAIDDrive. All that’s left of the nearly 90 MB/s maximum is 50.4 MB/s minimum throughput. However, this is as much as the other drives reach in best case scenarios, and most eSATA or USB 2.0 solutions are limited at less than 30 MB/s.

If we compare the minimum throughput, then you realize that the USB 3.0 RAIDDrive delivers at least 2.5x more write throughput than USB 2.0 or eSATA drives. This is probably most important if you frequently need the drive to store large amounts of data.

Conclusion

The fact that Super Talent’s USB 3.0 RAIDDrive delivers really high performance comes as no surprise. Comparing USB 3.0’s 5 Gb/s to the 480 Mb/s of USB 2.0 equals a 10x bandwidth improvement. Hence, it’s reasonable to assume that USB 2.0’s net throughput of up to 35 MB/s should potentially increase tenfold as well with USB 3.0, resulting in roughly 350 MB/s. We’ll know for sure when future products allow us to find out.

Drivers Required for Super Talent

For now, we’ll have to take Super Talent’s word that its 128 GB RAIDDrive can actually break the 300 MB/s barrier. The 64 GB model we reviewed is a little slower. Reaching 200+ MB/s of throughput requires a dedicated driver that replaces Microsoft’s mass storage driver. Unfortunately, the driver didn’t work properly on our storage test system, forcing us to benchmark without it. This isn’t too much of an issue for two reasons. First, some users might not always have the drivers handy, and secondly, the performance we saw likely requires you to upgrade your system and environment anyway if you want to take full advantage of it.

CPU Horsepower Required

There’s more you have to know. Reaching maximum throughput requires your system to be really fast. As a matter of fact, CPU performance is increasingly having an impact on high-performance storage devices, as we reported in the article Does Power Saving Technology Kill SSD Performance? In this article, we saw decreased throughput after switching off the processor’s power-saving mechanisms. A similar effect might have slowed down Super Talent’s new USB 3.0 high-flyer on our default test rig, as we were stuck with 178 MB/s. Is this a bad thing? I don’t think so.

Conclusion: Native USB 3.0 Still Worth It

The RAIDDrive is one of the first USB 3.0 thumb drives. There are certainly more to come. Its performance is impressive regardless of whether or not it can reach the promoted 300 MB/s. Even at almost 180 MB/s for reads and 90 MB/s for writes, the RAIDDrive requires your storage to be fast enough to keep its speedy pace.

Hard drives are anywhere between 60 and 150 MB/s and network storage is typically limited by gigabit Ethernet (about 100 MB/s). In any case, the RAIDDrive USB 3.0 can almost triple write performance and increase read performance at least fivefold over USB 2.0.

Class 6+ SDHC Cards Compared

SD and high-capacity SD cards (SDHC) are important components in our digital lives. Most digital cameras, GPS devices, car infotainment solutions, and other consumer gadgets rely on this memory card format, in part because capacities have increased as prices have plummeted. However, enthusiasts don’t want just any memory card. They want the best one.

Secure Digital (SD) is based on the MultiMediaCard (MMC) format. The main difference between the two is a white protection switch that comes with all modern SD and SDHC cards, which is part of what makes SD cards thicker than MMC cards. Although most SD cards use MBR partitions and are preformatted with FAT32, it is possible to use all kinds of formats supported by your host devices. Also, pay attention to the SD version. SD 1.0 and 1.1 support up to 2GB. Any card 4GB and over is based on SDHC. Card readers supporting SDHC/SD 2.0 are downward compatible, but you can't use an SDHC card in an older SD 1.0/1.1 device.

The miniSD and microSD formats exist for small, portable devices, such as smart phones. But reduced dimensions come at the expense of decreased performance. SD memory cards are rated by speed categories determined by the SD Association. The common x-ratings, as in 60x for 60 times CD-ROM speed (60 x 150 KB/s = 9,000 KB/s) still apply, but the division into classes has also become popular. Class 2 means 2 MB/s, Class 4 stands for 4 MB/s, Class 6 for 6 MB/s, and so on.

The cards we look at in this article are Class 10, with one exception. Be aware that the class rating doesn’t tell you the maximum throughput, only the minimum sustainable transfer rate. We received 8GB and 16GB product samples from Lexar, Samsung, SanDisk, Silicon Power, and Transcend.

Lexar Professional (8GB, 133x)

We asked for a Class 10 SDHC card for this review and received a Lexar Professional 133x instead. In practice, these are equivalent, though.

Only 4GB and 8GB capacity points are available, but Lexar includes an Image Rescue software bundle. This allows users to recover images that have been deleted or made inaccessible through modification of the partition. As long as the data isn’t physically overwritten, Image Rescue should help recover all of your photo files.

This card is rated for 133x, but it's still able to reach 20 MB/s. This turns out to be almost exactly what we measured. Read throughput falls between 18.2 and 19.7 MB/s, and writes are executed at 12.4 to 18.6 MB/s. Finally, this is the only card except SanDisk’s Extreme model that delivers substantial I/O performance—in case you want to use the memory card to host an operating system.

Samsung Plus MB-SP4G (8GB SDHC, Class 6)

Samsung does sell memory cards as retail products, but you'll have to hunt for them. We found them under camera accessories on European sites, and it appears that this product is not yet available in the U.S.

The MB-SP4G is referred to as an SD Plus card, with Plus suggesting that it is more durable than other products when it comes to mechanical and magnetic influence. The specs say that you can bend the cards with up to 60 N and apply a torque of up to 900 Nm (663 lb-ft). The cards also withstand up to 50 G, and are waterproof thanks to a protective epoxy molding compound. Samsung utilizes metal instead of a plastic SD card housing to achieve this higher durability. The firm says the card is even resistant to X-ray radiation, withstanding up to 4,000 Gauss.

All of this is great, but the card is a Class 6 model that doesn’t deliver on the promise of being 25% to 40% faster than the competition. The price for Samsung's solid design is performance. The 8GB Samsung Plus MB-SP4G card is limited to a maximum of 16 MB/s throughput, Still, it consistently maintains at least 15 MB/s for reads, keeping it close to the competition. Writes are clearly slower, even though Samsung outperforms the Class 6 specification (6 MB/s).

SanDisk Extreme (16GB SDHC, Class 10)

SanDisk’s Extreme series is now available at up to 32GB and rates as Class 10-compliant (10 MB/s). The 16GB sample we received delivers reads between 25 and 27 MB/s and writes at 22.6 to 24.7 MB/s. Please note that most USB 2.0 card readers aren't capable of matching the performance potential of the SanDisk Extreme card. We had to get an ImageMate by SanDisk to reach more than 20 MB/s.

The card lists on SanDisk’s Web site at $195.99, but you can also get the 32GB model for $388.99 or the 8GB for $119.99. SanDisk provides a lifetime warranty on its Extreme cards, and the company offers a compatibility tool on its site to help customers select the right memory card for their devices.

As usual, SanDisk's product is fast and expensive. This and the Lexar are the only two SDHC cards that deliver hard drive-like I/O performance. This is clearly the fastest product in our roundup, and hence receives our Best of Tom’s Award.

Silicon Power SDHC Class 10 (16GB)

Our next card is Silicon Power’s 16GB Class 10 SDHC. Like Samsung's card, the Silicon Power product is also backed by a lifetime warranty, but the manufacturer is more specific with technical details.

There is a specified operating range of -25°C to 85°C and up to 95% humidity. You can also opt for Class 2, Class 4, or Class 6 versions of the card, but the Class 10 model definitely is the fastest. Also, 4, 8, and 16 gigabyte capacities are available.

We measured read performance between 18.3 and 19.7 MB/s and sequential writes between 10.2 and 18.7 MB/s. SanDisk and Transcend provide a bit more performance, but they cost more. Compared to other vendors, the roughly $100 price point for the 16GB model appears on-target .

Transcend Ultimate SDHC Class 10 Card (8GB, 16GB)

Transcend sent us two SDHC Class 10 cards, a 16GB and an 8GB model. The specification section on Transcend's site specs these cards at 10,000 insert/eject cycles and operational temperatures between -25°C to 85°C. The card should be available for less than $100, and Transcend provides a 30-year warranty.

We found the 8GB model's throughput slightly lower than the 16GB version, but the difference is too small to consider when purchasing. Access time is almost the same for both cards (1.2 to 1.3 ms), and the difference in throughput might only be noticeable if you need to write large amounts of data onto the cards within a short time.

The 8GB card is faster when it comes to I/O operations, but both cards don’t deliver sufficient IOPS to host an operating system.

Test Setup And Access Time

Access Time

The access time test is typically not particularly important for memory cards used in digital cameras or other types of consumer devices.

SanDisk’s Extreme and the Lexar Professional are the only SDHC cards that actually deliver short write access times.

Benchmark Results: Read/Write Throughput

On most card readers, read and write performance is typically limited by the reader device. Therefore, we recommend looking for a device that specifically supports more than 20 MB/s bandwidth. SanDisk’s ImageMate proves a great solution, as it doesn't bottleneck the SD cards’ performance to less than 20 MB/s, unlike in our last SD memory card review.

The fastest card in this review (and the only product that clearly passes the 20 MB/s mark) is SanDisk’s Extreme. It sustains more than 25 MB/s on reads. Three other products are virtually identical when it comes to read performance: Transcend’s Ultimate 16GB, the Lexar Professional 8GB 133x, and Silicon Power’s Class 10 card. The smaller Transcend card has a much lower minimum throughput, making it a secondary choice for enthusiasts.

A similar picture develops when looking at write throughput results. SanDisk takes the lead while Lexar, Silicon Power, and Transcend follow in second place. Samsung cannot keep pace, but since its specification only says Class 6, we can't really object.

Our interface test reveals the maximum transfer speed of the SDHC cards in this review.

Benchmark Results: I/O Performance

These tests are negligible for consumers, but helpful for all who want to create a system using one of these cards as the system drive.

Only SanDisk and Lexar provide I/O performance sufficient to execute applications.

The Web server workload mostly requires read access, which is executed quickly on all SDHC cards. In the end, SanDisk doesn’t dominate here.

The workstation test shows similar results as in the file server run. SanDisk wins, Lexar follows, and the others are hardly useable.

Conclusion

There has been less progress on the SDHC front than in the CompactFlash form factor, which now hovers around 100 MB/s throughput. SD 2.0 cards (SDHC) are still well below 30 MB/s, and only one card in this roundup manages to jump over the 20 MB/s line. Although most cards are rated Class 10, SanDisk’s Extreme card is by far the fastest product, both for reads and writes. It also claims the crown on I/O performance.

Lexar, Silicon Power, and Transcend all share second place when it comes to throughput. They all reach nearly 20 MB/s for reads and a bit more than 18 MB/s for writes. However, compared to SanDisk, they deliver less than half the minimum write throughput, which might be important for certain applications.

It’s hardly possible to grant a Recommended Buy Award to any of the three manufacturers. They're just too close to each other. However, SanDisk clearly deserves the Best of Tom's award due to its exceptional performance.

Highest Performance Compact Flash

Professional equipment like digital SLR cameras require professional storage products. While CompactFlash capacities will soon reach 128GB, the fastest models tend not to be the largest. When we requested some of the fastest CF cards for review, what we received were mostly 16GB models (admittedly still fairly roomy). We benchmarked them to find out how these downsized speetsters stack up.

The speed ratings for memory cards are derived from the speed basis used with audio CDs: 150 KB/s. This is referred to as single or 1X speed, and memory cards, along with other storage products, use a multiple to characterize performance. The latest generation of high-performance CompactFlash cards reach 600x performance, representing 90 MB/s. A few products claim 667x (100 MB/s), but these aren’t widely available yet.

CompactFlash comes in two physical formats, Type I and Type II. Type II allows cards to have a thickness of up to 5 mm, while Type I is limited to 3.3 mm. Practically all CF memory cards are Type I. While type alone doesn’t have an impact on performance, future revisions of the CF standard (beyond version 4.1) are expected to be based on a serial interface, whereas all existing CF products come with an integrated UltraDMA interface. UltraDMA/133 was introduced with CF standard 4.0 and paved the way for today’s performance. The move to serial should allow for even greater results.

Lexar Professional 600x (16GB)

Lexar is part of the Micron group, selling all sorts of memory products, from memory cards to PC memory. We received a 16GB Professional 600x CF card for testing. A 32GB model is announced, but more diffciult to find. There's also an 8GB model. All of these come with a lifetime warranty.

The 600x model specifies sustained read and write throughput of 90 MB/s, which we could not reach in our testing. Our peak transfer speed was roughly 85 MB/s, and average performance was very near this level. Average performance is your key metric when you absolutely have to meet certain read performance requirements.

Write performance topped out at 82 MB/s with similar average throughput results. Minimum write performance came in at 59.2 MB/s. This is almost as good as SanDisk's card, but Lexar maintains the highest average results.

We also measured I/O performance. The Lexar card is clearly faster than hard drives in the file server and workstation tests, and it also delivers very impressive performance in the Web server test run. Clearly, most of these cards are designed to excel at reading small chunks of data.

Lexar offers an interesting add-on for its Professional 600x customers. You can download a free copy of Image Rescue 4 software for restoring accidentally deleted images. We found that the program works really well, as long as you don’t physically overwrite data.

Click “Start Scan” to search a CF card for deleted files that may still be functional.

The software actually found lots of photos that we took several years ago!

We were able to restore all of the pictures the Image Rescue 4 software found.

Samsung Plus MP-CP4G 233x (8GB)

The Samsung Plus card (MP-CP4G) is not available in all markets. We found it in European stores after receiving the test sample from Samsung, but it isn't selling in North America, it seems. This is a 233x model rather than the 600x devices we were targeting, but we still decided to include it because of its robust design and shell.

The Plus card doesn’t aim to be stylish or fancy, only functional. The metal exterior is made of Nirosta, a trademarked type of stainless steel. Samsung doesn’t detail its rugged design beyond this point, but it underlines that the Plus card won’t have issues if you sit on it or otherwise apply pressure that could bend the housing of less sturdy CF cards. Samsung also guarantees durability against X-rays at up to 4000 Gauss.

However, there are a few drawbacks to the Plus. Capacity is limited to 8GB, which isn’t a lot once you start shooting lots of raw images in a row, as in sports photography. In addition, the product’s performance isn’t as high as other cards reviewed here. We measured a peak throughput of only 47.8 MB/s, roughly half as much as the other competitors. Effective sequential throughput is between 19.2 and 35 MB/s for writes and 19.0 to 47.8 MB/s for reads.

While other cards deliver better throughput, Samsung’s Plus delivers more I/O operations per second than the other cards, qualifying it for embedded systems. This improvement stems from the SLC NAND memory employed.

SanDisk Extreme Pro 600x (64GB)

The Extreme Pro series by SanDisk is rated at 600x speeds, and it is available in capacities of 16, 32, and 64GB. We received the 64GB flagship for review.

This unit crushes the price scales at almost $900, and even the 16GB model is priced at $335.99. This is steep, even for a premium product. In exchange, you get either a lifetime or 30-year warranty (lifetime warranties aren’t recognized in some areas).

UltraDMA 6 is used by all of the cards in this review, but SanDisk lags in our read test, where it maxes out at only 56 MB/s. At the same time, we measured up to 71.6 MB/s for sequential writes. This is disappointing considering the high price tag, but the write performance is indeed at the top of its class: a 59.8 MB/s minimum. This is what professional photographers will want. Other cards delivered more peak performance but less consistent minimums.

We didn’t have the 16GB or 32GB cards to compare against, but we’re sure that these deliver higher peak performance that what we’ve seen in previous product generations.

Silicon Power 600x (16GB)

Silicon Power offers 600x CompactFlash Type I cards at capacities of 8, 16, and 32GB. We received the 16GB model, which mopped up the competition in our benchmark runs.

Silicon Power's 91.6 MB/s interface performance is an all-time high result. The card doesn’t deliver maximum performance on sequential writes though, scoring between 50 and 82.4 MB/s. However, the read performance was really stunning. This was the only product to pass the 90 MB/s mark. A 91 MB/s minimum and 91.6 MB/s maximum speak loud and clear. Read performance was very fast and consistent, allowing copying of data from the card to a computer at the highest possible speed.

The 600x card also provided the highest Web server I/O performance in this review. File server and workstation I/O test results were more average. Interestingly, the operating temperature specs are a bit different here than on other memory cards. Silicon Power specs 0°C to 70°C, while other products may run in between -25°C and 85 °C. Like most other brands, Silicon Power provides a lifetime warranty.

Transcend Extreme Plus 600x (8GB, 16GB)

Transcend sent us two cards from its Extreme Plus 600x series: one 8GB and one 16GB.

We found that the 16GB version delivered better throughput (roughly 11 MB/s maximum difference) and was the second best in our sequential read test. The performance difference between the two cards was smaller on sequential writes.

Both deliver average I/O performance results, as they were clearly optimized for maximum throughput rather than I/O capabilities.

Transcend provides a lifetime or 30-year warranty. All other product information from Transcend is rather general.

Test Setup And Access Time

Access Time

The access time test is typically irrelevant for memory cards used in digital cameras and other types of professional devices.

Benchmark Results: Throughput

The fastest CF card comes from Silicon Image, delivering more than 90 MB/s—a new record. Most of the other cards follow closely behind, including Transcend and Lexar. Samsung was clearly slower, and SanDisk struggled in reads.

Lexar and SanDisk dominate by maintaining the highest minimum write transfer rates. These numbers are key if you want to sustain continuous raw photo shooting for more than a few seconds. Lexar, Silicon Power, and Transcend provide better maximum and average results, but the minumum write transfer rates sometimes suffer, especially for Silicon Power.

Benchmark Results: I/O Performance

I/O performance clearly is a small focus for the memory card manufacturers, as flash SSDs are in the process of replacing CF cards for embedded systems. Still, if you want to use any of these cards to install an operating system, you should go with Samsung despite the lower throughput.

Conclusion

Samsung’s Plus card runs behind competition—no surprise given its emphasis on ruggedness rather than speed. However, because Samsung's offering seems to be the only card based on SLC flash memory, this is the only card able to deliver acceptable I/O performance. Most likely, this is relevant for those of you looking for a CompactFlash system drive for embedded systems, and even then, only for potential customers in Europe (we couldn't find this submission for sale in North America).

Everyone else will probably be more interested in throughput. Silicon Power leaves a mixed impression. The company's 600x 16GB card holds the speed record at 91 MB/s for sequential reads. Silicon Power fares well on writes, too, averaging 78 MB/s. However, the minimum write throughput result, important for photographers, drops far more than cards from Lexar, Transcend, or SanDisk.

SanDisk focuses on maximum sustainable write throughput. The card's 59.8 MB/s minimum write result tops our charts, and is most suitable for professional photography, where results matter more than the time it takes to copy data off the memory card. Transcend and Lexar provide more balanced results, with Lexar attracting customers through its bonus file restoration software.

In the end, price will have a significant impact on your buying decision, but we’d go with Lexar and SanDisk for professional photography and Silicon Power or Transcend for all other applications.

New Thumb Drives With eSATA And High Capacities

Thumb drives are extremely versatile, and they’ve reached capacities large enough to store all of your personal data on one ultra-portable device. In addition, many different flavors exist, including drives that are waterproof, have ruggedized casings, or are extremely small; all of these choices make thumb drives even more attractive. Thumb drives are now going to the next level, reaching 128 GB capacities and introducing eSATA as an interface alternative to USB 2.0. We gave several models a try to see how they fare.

Speed vs. Capacity

eSATA may seem like overkill for a portable storage device, but USB 2.0’s 35 MB/s effective maximum throughput results in a lot of waiting around when you need to store many gigabytes of data onto a high-capacity thumb drive. Effective throughput is lower than the gross maximum figure, and in addition, write performance is typically lower than read speeds as well. The fact that large 32 and 64 GB drives tend to be even slower makes things worse.

Waiting for USB 3.0

Considering how long it takes to fill a higher-capacity, USB 2.0 thumb drive with data—30 minutes in an ideal scenario for 64 GB—it definitely makes sense to equip high-performance drives with a faster interface, such as USB 3.0, which is on schedule to be integrated into next-generation platforms in 2010. The first controllers are available in small quantities, but it will take until next year until USB 3.0 has its breakthrough.

Until then, eSATA may be an option. We looked at three thumb drives by Maxell, OCZ, and Silicon Power that are equipped with eSATA interfaces, and we also decided to add the first 128 GB USB 2.0 thumb drive by Kingston.

Introducing eSATA… Kind of

eSATA is a physically-modified interpretation of Serial ATA, optimized for external devices. The connectors are slightly different, and the minimum voltage levels are increased to ensure reliable operation. Depending on the SATA controller, eSATA supports either 1.5 Gbit/s or 3 Gbit/s operation, resulting in 150 and 300 MB/s bandwidth using 8/10-bit encoding. The practical limitations are the maximum cable length of 2 meters, and controller support via your operating system—devices using the Advanced Host Controller Interface (AHCI) are the most flexible. eSATA is much faster than USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/s) or FireWire 1394a and 1394b (400/800 Mbit/s).

On May 25, the SATA IO (SATA International Organization) released revision 3.0 of the SATA specification, which doubles throughput from 3 to 6 Gbit/s (600 MB/s). The new spec lets you continue using existing cables, but the SATA IO recommends high-quality cabling for the sake of data integrity and performance. SATA 3.0 also introduces a low insertion force (LIF) connector for consumer devices, and modifications to command queuing: NCQ Queue Management allows altering the order of pending commands, while NCQ Streaming utilizes this feature to optimize for isochronous transfers. However, SATA 3.0 still does not address power over SATA (eSATAp), and it does not yet include 6 Gbit/s transfers for external devices. Hence eSATA will remain at 300 MB/s for a while, and without the ability to supply power through the data port.

eSATA Utilizes USB to Power External Devices

Of course, the interim solution for external devices is to get power in some other way. Using an external power supply would not make a lot of sense for thumb drives, which are meant to be ultra portable. Hence the only solution lies in accessing existing interfaces such as USB 2.0. All three eSATA drives we reviewed are combo drives, meaning that they support either eSATA or USB 2.0 through different interfaces. All three utilize JMicron’s JMB362 controller, which supports both standards. If you connect USB 2.0 first, the drive will establish a USB 2.0 connection and use it for power and data. To use eSATA you have to plug in that connector first, and create a USB 2.0 connection using a dedicated USB 2.0 cable to get power to the unit.

eSATA + USB

The MSI 790FX-GD70 motherboard we used to test the devices offers an enhanced eSATA port with additional pins for USB 2.0 power supply, which the three eSATA drives support. Although this is not specified by the SATA IO, the approach worked fine during our testing.

128 GB And USB 2.0: Kingston Data Traveler 200

Kingston just recently released its 128 GB USB 2.0 memory stick, the Data Traveler 200. While it won’t be available on store shelves due to its hefty $500+ price tag, it is notable as the first ultra-portable USB thumb drive to reach this impressive capacity point—for that reason, we decided to include the device in this roundup.

Kingston offers government- and enterprise-class USB thumb drives, which come with built-in encryption hardware. The 128 GB device is a member of the consumer Data Traveler family, which today consists of as many as 12 models. Only the Data Traveler models 150 and 200 offer 64 GB or higher capacities.

The manufacturer specifies 20 MB/s read throughput and 10 MB/s write throughput, which is above average, but certainly not groundbreaking. These figures mean it will take roughly 90 minutes to entirely fill the Data Traveler 200 with data. We measured 24.6-28.4 MB/s read throughput and between 13.9 and 16.9 MB/s for writes, suggesting that Kingston is being fairly conservative with its specifications when it comes to performance. However, it is the slowest product in our I/O benchmarks, as the other drives deliver two to three times better I/O performance. Still this is not a big issue, as this unit was mainly meant to store lots of data.

This thumb drive doesn’t come with a regular cap to protect the USB connector, instead sliding the front part of the plastic case over the connector.

PasswordTraveler Software

The PasswordTraveler utility is a software-based encryption tool that allows you to create a protected partition on the thumb drive. The so-called “privacy zone” can be as small as you want and as large as the entire capacity of the Data Traveler 200. However, you cannot access the public and the protected partition at the same time.

 The capacity of the Data Traveler 200 varies, depending on whether or not you are logged in to access the protected “Privacy Zone.”

Logged in, you’ll see the capacity as defined for the privacy zone.

Once you log out you’ll be able to access the public segment of the device.

32 GB, eSATA/USB: Maxell Solid State Drive

Maxell’s eSATA / USB 2.0 combo drive was announced as early as October 2008 and hit the European retail market at the start of 2009. The product is available in various markets today (Ed.: unfortunately, not the North American market, it seems). We took a look at the 32 GB capacity drive.

Like the two other eSATA-based products in this roundup, the Maxell thumb drive utilizes the JMB362 controller by JMicron and has the same chassis design, but is different inside. Read access times vary between 0.6 and 0.9 ms depending on the interface you choose (you can connect the drive via USB 2.0 using a USB 2.0 cable or eSATA by connecting it directly into any eSATA port).

As mentioned earlier in this article, you will have to connect the USB 2.0 cable in order to provide power to the drive, unless you have an eSATA port already powered by an additional, integrated USB 2.0 pinout. Some motherboards come with these ports, although this has never been officially specified.

The drive worked properly in both eSATA and USB 2.0 modes. eSATA provides a peak bandwidth of 52.7 MB/s, while USB 2.0 operation maxes out at 26.8 MB/s; the latter is still a nice result, though. Effective data transfer rates range from 48 to 51 MB/s for eSATA sequential reads, and 29 to 45 MB/s for sequential writes. Compared to USB 2.0 performance at 26 MB/s read and 20-26 MB/s write throughput, this is a significant performance increase.

Maxell positions the eSATA thumb drive being a “portable solution for your SSD needs,” which sounds about right to us. Effectively, the Maxell eSATA thumb drive performs like a 2-3 year old hard drive, and that performance level is still sufficient for many applications, such as working with project data off a mobile device. Unfortunately, poor availability in North America makes it more difficult to actually buy/use.

8 GB, eSATA/USB: OCZ Throttle eSATA Flash Drive

The OCZ Throttle eSATA Flash Drive is different from the other products, as it actually has a memorable name, we think. “Throttle” is something you will be able to recall, as opposed to just referencing another “USB/eSATA flash thumb drive.” There are 8, 16, and 32 GB capacities available, and the OCZ drive also uses the same JMicron controller as the other devices.

The similarities also extend to the enclosure. The Throttle looks like the other thumb drives, but it clearly utilizes a different flash memory configuration, which becomes obvious by looking at the performance results. OCZ’s product is faster than the Maxell drive, but it cannot outperform Silicon Image except in some I/O benchmark runs.

OCZ specifies up to 90 MB/s read throughput and 30 MB/s writes over eSATA, which we cannot confirm. Our testing resulted in a maximum of 63 MB/s read throughput and up to 26 MB/s writes.

USB 2.0 performance was at 29 MB/s and 21 MB/s for reads and writes, which is still a nice result. The drive showed the quickest read access time, though. Only 0.4 ms over eSATA and 0.8 ms on USB 2.0, which is also quicker than the competition. As with the Maxell and Silicon Image devices, you must use a USB-powered eSATA port to get plug-and-play eSATA connectivity. Otherwise you’ll have to use the included USB cable to provide power to the eSATA-connected Throttle.

32 GB Silicon Power eSATA/USB SSD

The third and final eSATA thumb drive in this review is Silicon Power’s eSATA/USB SSD. We can’t help but criticize the branding of this product, as it technically just carries a description, but no real product name or intuitive model number—you’ll have to go to the Solid State Drive section on the Silicon Power Web site to even find this product.

We looked at the eSATA/USB model with 32 GB capacity. Unfortunately, Silicon Power doesn’t provide much information, such as alternative capacities, with one exception. The manufacturer reveals that the eSATA/USB drives are based on four-channel flash memory. There is even an eSATA/USB II drive, which appears like its predecessor, but the amount of information provided doesn’t tell us more than the specified throughput (90-50 MB/s on eSATA, 30-20 MB/s on USB 2.0). 

At least effective performance was nice, at up to 65 MB/s read throughput over eSATA and 42 MB/s for writes.

Although the Silicon Power eSATA/USB thumb drive utilizes the same JMicron JMB362 controllers as the Maxell and OCZ drives, it performs differently. Read throughput is at the same level as the OCZ Throttle (65 MB/s maximum), but Maxell beats all the others when it comes to writes. Silicon Power is almost as fast, while OCZ falls behind. Silicon Power is second fastest in workstation I/O, and in the Web server benchmark, but only third in the file server discipline. Should you be looking for an external SSD solution, the eSATA/USBSSD from Silicon Power might be the best choice.

Test Setup And Access Time

Access Time Results

Access time is typically not a very interesting metric. However, Kingston’s new 128 GB USB 2.0 Data Traveler 200 takes the longest average time to physically access data (as we'd expect in a comparison of this sort). The three eSATA-powered thumb drives are quicker, and deliver their best access times in eSATA mode.

 Write access takes much more time and reveals the weakness of multi-level cell (MLC) flash memory, which is used by all of these devices.

Throughput Results

Silicon Power and OCZ seem to be using similar flash configurations, as they perform alike in eSATA mode—the difference is only 1-2 MB/s—while Maxell falls a bit behind. Using USB 2.0 shows OCZ and Kingston doing the best job, followed by Maxell and Silicon Power, which do not take advantage of USB 2.0’s maximum speed.

Although Maxell failed to impress in the read tests, it dominates in writes, together with Silicon Power. In this test, the 8 GB OCZ drive falls behind, especially in minimum transfer rates, in which it drops to only 13.7 MB/s on eSATA. Hence, it does not truly seem to be capitalizing on the eSATA interface for write operations. Most other drives write quicker, especially the Maxell device and Silicon Power’s thumb drive.

Interface performance determines the peak throughput of each device/interface.

I/O Performance Results

I/O performance is not very relevant to desktop-type applications, like storing project files, music, videos, or personal files on a thumb drive. However, it becomes important if you intend to execute applications or even an operating system from the memory device.

The combination of quick access times and fast read throughput allows for quick file server I/O performance in the case of OCZ’s Throttle drive. In this benchmark, the interface type is less important, revealing the actual differences of each device on a flash configuration level.

Our Web server test does not execute writes, only lots of small block random read operations. The eSATA connections seem to have obvious advantages here. These results are still clearly faster than the performance you’d get from conventional hard drives for Web server-type I/O operations.

Conclusion

The eSATA thumb drives from Maxell, OCZ, and Silicon Image are actually hybrid products, as they all offer both USB 2.0 and eSATA interfaces. All three manage to overcome the limitations of what USB 2.0 by a significant amount, effectively doubling the available read bandwidth. This makes them the only desirable choice for real power users who frequently need to access data on their thumb drives.

Unfortunately, not all drives can benefit from eSATA when it comes to write operations. The OCZ Throttle just doesn’t deliver sufficient write performance to be bottlenecked by USB 2.0. Maxell and Silicon Power still provide a throughput advantage of ~80% when compared to the throughput they show using USB 2.0. Maxell reached the highest write performance, while Silicon Power has the best overall results.

128 GB by Kingston: Expensive and Exclusive

Kingston’s new Data Traveler 200 is the first 128 GB USB 2.0 thumb drive. It comes at a high cost, though, and not just in terms of money. While the 26-28 MB/s read throughput is nice, its write throughput of 14-17 MB/s cannot compete with the other drives, which deliver up to 27 MB/s write performance. This means that using a 128 GB thumb drive is not yet possible at maximum USB 2.0 performance.

To Kingston's credit, the write performance of the 128 GB Data Traveler 200 is still better than average when compared to other USB 2.0 thumb drives. However, the $500+ price tag still prevents us from recommending the drive—at that price, we’d expect pristine USB 2.0 performance.

An Unclear Future for eSATA Thumb Drives

Finally, it has to be said that the eSATA thumb drives are currently working outside of the existing eSATA specifications, which do not yet support eSATA-powered devices. The industry has come up with a combined eSATA + USB port. More and more motherboards, such as the MSI 790FX-GD70 we used, come with these connectors, but it remains questionable as to whether and how this hybrid interface will endure. We found the USB 2.0 option, which requires a separate cable, to be a less than ideal alternative. Hopefully we'll see USB 3.0 controllers and thumb drives sooner rather than later, instead of using eSATA adaptations for thumb drives.

Silicon Power introduced the 64 GB version of its eSATA/USB solid-state drive late last month and we clapped eyes on the thing this week at Computex. Basically, you’re looking at a regular USB flash drive that’s eSATA compatible, offering faster transfer rates. 

Also available in 8 GB, 16 GB and 32 GB models, the device comes with an integrated Error Correction Code (EEC) to ensure accurate data transfers and can, of course, be used just like a regular USB stick.

The company’s USB sticks are also looking a lot more blinged out these days. Ranging from sparkly thumb drives to USB necklaces, it looks like Silicon Power is trying to appeal to the ladies in the audience.

Compact Flash Powerhouses Reviewed

We recently looked at 13 different high-end Secure Digital High Capacity (SDHC) flash memory cards that can be used for all sorts of consumer devices, such as prosumer digital cameras or video cameras, photo frames, car stereo solutions, and much more. However, the professional world still relies on CompactFlash (CF) memory cards, which deliver much more performance thanks to built-in controller logic. When we requested SDHC card samples for our earlier roundup, we also asked for the very best CF cards. Here are eight of them.

CF Is Professional Storage

An increasing number of digital camera product lines have been modified to work with SD or SDHC memory cards instead of CF cards. The reasons for this shift include physical requirements, which speak against the larger CF format, but also cost considerations. CF cards are more expensive than SD/SDHC cards due to the fact that an UltraATA interface is part of the memory card, while SD memory cards require a compatible controller to operate them. For this reason, the CF format has experienced a noticeable decline, which certainly has had a negative impact on prices. CF cards are much more expensive than SDHC devices today when you look at them on a price-per-gigabyte basis, and especially when looking at high end parts. Despite this, all professional devices that require fast and small random access storage devices use CompactFlash memory cards.

CF Is Flexible

To devices that use them, CompactFlash cards appear as IDE/UltraATA devices, which makes them rather easy to access: the host device simply has to create a file system such as FAT32 and you are ready to go. This also means that it is possible to plug a high-end 32 GB CompactFlash card into an old camera, while SDHC memory cards do not work in cameras that were not designed specifically to support them. UltraATA, as old as it is, still works just fine, and multiple revisions of the CF standard have made sure that the standard is kept up to date. Today’s capacity limit is 32 GB, but the first 64 GB products have already been announced.

CF Is Fast

The performance of SDHC cards is typically limited by the accessing device. In our case, the bottleneck was a USB 2.0 card reader, which maxes out at approximately 20 MB/s. Other devices have so far failed to deliver better performance. Still, this is more than enough for most prosumer digital cameras and other applications, and the cards have not yet reached 20 MB/s write performance either.

CF cards are much faster: the best product in this roundup reached almost 43 MB/s write throughput and 47 MB/s of read performance. We used a CompactFlash-to-SATA card reader to make sure that there was no bottleneck for the eight contenders from Kingston, Lexar, PNY, San Disk, Silicon Power and Transcend.

CompactFlash Basics

There are two form factors for CompactFlash devices, named type I and type II. Both have a footprint of 42.8 mm x 36.4 mm, but they vary in thickness: type I cards have a height of 3.3 mm, while type II reach 5.0 mm. All CompactFlash memory cards are type 1 models, while 1” hard drives such as the IBM/Hitachi Microdrives were built as CF type II products. All type I cards can be used in type II slots, but not vice versa.

In addition to the two CF form factors, there have been several revisions of the interface. All CF cards are based on an IDE or UltraATA interface, but the effective performance depends on the interface speed and the flash memory technology. Finally, your host controller has to be fast enough as well. The real beauty of CF is that you can buy a 32 GB card and run it in a 10-year-old CF device—just at reduced performance. You could also take your decade-old CF card and insert it into a brand new SLR camera; the card may just be too slow for continuous shooting.

The earliest CompactFlash specifications were based on programmed I/O (PIO), but these were replaced by the faster Direct Memory Access (DMA) method with the introduction of the CompactFlash 3.0 standard in 2004.

CompactFlash cards are currently available in sizes up to 32 GB, but 64 GB capacities have already been announced. Typical capacities for hobby photographers are 4, 8, or 16 GB; we recommend going for at least 8 GB. If you intend to shoot uncompressed RAW photos on your digital SLR camera, or RAW plus JPEG, you should definitely look for the fastest cards on the market. So let’s get started.

Kingston Ultimate 266X 16 GB

The Ultimate product line is listed within the photo/video category on the Kingston Web site. Kingston starts off with a basic product that is simply named CompactFlash; these entry level products are available at 2, 4, and 8 GB capacity points. They aren’t fast, but they’re inexpensive. The Elite Pro series, which reaches up to 32 GB, is rated at 133X speed and is an upper mainstream product. We received a 16 GB sample of the Ultimate 266X. This equals 40 MB/s throughout, which the card cannot always maintain for writes, but it can actually exceed during read operations. This can also be found on the datasheet, which specifies 40 MB/s for writing and 45 MB/s for read operations. The I/O performance of the Ultimate 266X is average.

The Ultimate 266X cards are available in 4, 8, and 16 GB sizes—there is no 32 GB Ultimate 266X yet. If you purchase an Ultimate 266X card you also get a free download of the Media Recover 4.0 recovery software, which is very useful if you accidentally delete files on your CompactFlash card, or if you want to recover data on other drives as well. We also like that it supports a secure erase mode, which you should use before selling or disposing of any storage devices.

Kingston’s Ultimate 266X CompactFlash card delivers the highest overall throughput (read/write) paired with above-average I/O performance, which is why it received the Recommended Buy award.

Check prices for Kingston's Ultimate 266X 16 GB

Lexar Platinum II And Professional

Lexar Platinum II 80X (16 GB)

The Platinum II, also known as Lexar Premium II cards, are rated at 80X speeds, which equates to 12 MB/s. This may apply to certain capacity points within the available 2, 4, 8, and 16 GB models, but it wasn’t the actual maximum in the case of our 16 GB test sample: we measured 38-43 MB/s read throughput and 20-32.8 MB/s for sequential writes. That’s really much more than expected, but again, you should not expect the same performance for smaller models.

Like Kingston, Lexar bundles a downloadable program called Image Rescue 3, which comes to your aid if you accidentally delete data on your Platinum II memory card.

We noticed that either the controller or flash memory type of the Platinum II card must be different from those of the Professional UDMA types, as the I/O performance was much lower. The Professional series provides two to three times more I/O operations per second than the Platinum II.

Lexar Professional UDMA 300X (16 GB)

The second Lexar test sample was a 16 GB Professional UDMA card, rated at an impressive 300X speed. This is equal to a 45 MB/s throughput, and Lexar even guarantees it for write operations. We found that the maximum throughput of the Professional UDMA card was 46.4 MB/s, which applies to read throughput.

Sequential writes, however, maxed out at 41.3 MB/s. Minimum and average write throughput was even below that, which means that the card doesn’t deliver the promise on its box. Yet it is still one of the top three CF cards on the market when it comes to throughput, and it is average in terms of I/O operations per second.

Check prices for Lexar's Platinum II 80X 16 GB

PNY Optima Pro Ultra High Speed 266X (8 GB)

Though PNY has three different SD card series, it sells only one CompactFlash product family. We believe that this is generally sufficient today, as the CompactFlash market has turned at least into a semi-professional space, which is dominated by embedded PC solutions and photographers.

The Optima Pro UDMA is rated at 266X, or 40 MB/s, and features 2, 4, and 8 GB capacities. We received an 8 GB model for our review, but it was difficult to sort out the portfolio at first. While the European PNY Web site lists only Optima non-Pro cards rated at average 66X speeds, the US Web site includes the Optima Pro 266X. It'd seem that PNY doesn’t believe there is sufficient demand in the European market.

Our test sample reached a maximum read throughput of 41.3 MB/s, and write speeds of up to 35.1 MB/s, which is almost in line with the specifications. However, the minimum throughput performance of 35.5 MB/s for reads and only 21.4 MB/s worst-case for writes may not be sufficient for true enthusiasts or professionals.

The card makes up for its throughput deficiencies with excellent I/O performance, which is three to four times faster than what we got from Lexar, Silicon Power, or Transcend. If you want a CF card to install an operating system on for a low-power, ultra-compact industrial system, then this product is actually a good choice. If only the PNY US Web site listed all of the technical specs, as is the case on the European site. Due to the omissions, we cannot provide temperature ranges or reliability information.

Check prices for PNY's Optima Pro Ultra High Speed 266X 8 GB

SanDisk Extreme Ducati Edition 8 GB

SanDisk is one of the most popular brands in the memory card segment, and the firm typically focuses on high-end products. Its current top of the line product is the Extreme IV memory card family, available in 4, 8, and 16 GB sizes. It is rated at 40 MB/s read/write for the 4 and 8 GB cards, and up to 45 MB/s for the 16 GB version. We received an 8 GB sample, but a very special one: the Ducati Edition. It is not available in all markets and SanDisk also limits the Ducati branding to the best products it has.

The Ducati CF cards are only available at 4 GB or 8 GB capacities, but they deliver the performance SanDisk promises for its 16 GB capacity product. And while other manufacturers specify operating temperature limits of up to 65 or 70°C, SanDisk allows up to 85°C. The box includes a CD with San Disk’s RescuePro software for easy data recovery.

While the Ducati Edition only reached a maximum read throughput of 41.2 MB/s, we benchmarked up to 42.7 MB/s write performance. We triple-checked the results and can confirm that this card is the fastest for sequential writes. I/O performance was above average as well.

Check prices for SanDisk's Extreme Ducati Edition 8 GB

Silicon Power Professional Compact Flash Card (32 GB)

Silicon Power and Transcend were the only memory vendors to provide a 32 GB CompactFlash card. Silicon Power actually offers five different CF card types, which mainly differ in speed: 45X, 80X, 120X, 200X, and 300X. We received the 32 GB Professional top model, which is rated at 300X or 45 MB/s speeds; it is also available at 16, 8, 4, and 2 GB capacities. The slower models seem to be older products, as they are not available at the highest capacities, but rather at lower capacities the further down you go into the slower versions.

Our 32 GB test sample provides ample capacity for all sorts of applications, but the performance doesn’t meet expectations. We measured write throughput of 29.5 to 35.3 MB/s; read performance was 40-44.1 MB/s, which is better. We didn’t find information on the type of flash memory used by Silicon Power, but looking at the poor I/O performance results we are fairly sure that it has to be MLC flash.

However, the device is certainly a good deal if you get it much cheaper than other products, or if you get this 32 GB device for the cost of other 16 GB CF cards, assuming performance is not your primary requirement.

Transcend Extreme Speed 300X (8 GB), Ultra Speed 133X (32 GB)

Transcend Extreme Speed 8 GB

Transcend has five different speed grades of consumer CompactFlash cards, and it offers two additional models for industrial applications. We received a 300X Extreme Speed 8 GB card and an Ultra Speed 133X 32 GB card. The Extreme Speed card is rated at 35-45 MB/s, which is very close to what we measured: read performance reaches 44.2 MB/s and we got 39.2 MB/s maximum write throughput. Minimum values drop below the stated 35 MB/s, but the average results are always above that. In addition, we found that this device delivers better I/O performance than any of the other CF cards.

Clearly, this card is perfectly suitable for the smallest form factor system solutions, and it is only possible thanks to SLC flash memory. It’s not the fastest for reads, but the write and I/O performance are nice.

Transcend Ultra Speed 32 GB

The Ultra Speed card is a 133X model, which equals 20 MB/s. However, our 32 GB sample was faster than this: 40-44 MB/s read throughput is an excellent result, and the measured 30-34.5 MB/s for write speed are still much faster than expected. This device is based on MLC flash memory, which is even written on the product box—a good thing, as few vendors communicate so clearly.

A side effect of the use of MLC flash memory is poor I/O performance, which you will find in the benchmark section. This card wasn’t designed to process lots of random requests per second, but to write at speeds above average and read at excellent speeds.

Check prices for Transcend's Extreme Speed 266X 4 GB

Comparison Table, Test Setup, Card Reader

Test Setup

Card Reader: Addonics ADSACFW

Since USB 2.0 card readers aren’t fast enough to support the high throughput of the tested CompactFlash cards, we decided to use a reader device that is based on a SATA interface. USB 2.0 devices typically max out at a bit more than 30 MB/s, while this device supports SATA 1.0a at 150 MB/s. Even though fast hard drives and flash SSDs are faster than this, the bandwidth is enough to test CompactFlash cards, which reached up to 47 MB/s in our tests (for the Kingston Ultimate).

The device, an Addonics ADSACFW, comes installed into a 3.5” drive bay, but Addonics also adds standard and low profile slot covers, which means that the reader can also be installed at the rear of your PC. Of course, it can be hooked up to SATA/300 controllers, it supports hot swapping, and you can boot from CF cards as well. Hot swapping, however, requires controller support.

Benchmarks: Access Time, I/O Performance

We only added the access time results for the sake of completeness. They are not relevant in everyday life, and they don’t correlate with the I/O performance results either.

If you throw typical file server access at the memory cards, you will see the Transcend Extreme Speed 300X 8 GB card winning by a clear margin. A figure of 240 I/O operations per second is more than any conventional desktop hard drive can deliver; it actually matches the I/O performance of a 15,000 RPM Hitachi Ultrastar 15K450 hard drive.

The Web server benchmark requests only very small chunks of data, and it purely consists of read operations, which has most of the drives perform at a comparable level. All of these CF cards are much faster than hard drives at this type of workload.

The workstation test is mostly relevant for desktop and workstation applications. Again, the Transcend Extreme Speed 300X dominates, followed by the PNY Optima Pro and San Disk’s Extreme Ducati Edition. The Lexar Platinum II, Transcend Ultra Speed and Silicon Power Professional are all based on MLC flash memory, which is why they don’t perform well here. They do much better when it comes to throughput, as you can see on the next page.

Benchmarks: Throughput

Although there are differences in read performance, these are probably only interesting if you need to minimize the time required to copy data from the memory cards to a system. In such a case, the Kingston Ultimate or Lexar Professional cards would give you a noticeable head start over a Transcend Extreme Speed or SanDisk’s Extreme Ducati Edition. However, photographers will want to have a look at write performance.

While read throughput varied between 47 and 39 MB/s, write performance is between 42 and 32.8 MB/s, and it shows much lower minimum values. Keep in mind that we use the hard drive benchmark h2benchw to test throughput, which means that it does sequential testing across the entire storage area. This may not reflect typical applications where your SLR camera saves individual photos; in that case, you can look at the maximum or average speed. But it helps to reveal weaknesses when you want a certain, sustained write performance for continuous photo shooting in the RAW or RAW+JPEG formats. SanDisk’s Extreme Ducati Edition and the Kingston Ultimate are the best when it comes to delivering fast writes.

Conclusion: Kingston Wins

So which is the best of them all? It clearly depends on what you want to do with your new CompactFlash card. The best product for photographers is the Kingston Ultimate 266X, which is the product that maintains the highest average and minimum write throughput, while delivering the highest read throughput as well. It also shows balanced I/O performance and comes with a downloadable recovery solution, which is why we clearly recommend this product.

Many Second Places

However, the other products aren’t far behind, and many of them are suitable as alternatives should you get a better deal than what is possible for the Kingston Ultimate cards. The most important decision is to define the desired application.

Lexar’s Professional delivers fast and balanced read and write throughput, but other SLC flash cards deliver better I/O performance. Silicon Power and the Transcend Ultra Speed do well if you can live with average write performance, but they fail on I/O performance, if that matters to you. This is the case if you’re looking for a fast card to use as a storage device for system installations on industrial solutions or similar. In that case, Transcend’s Extreme Speed is great if you can live with average throughput.

This morning Silicon Power said that it plans to release a 256 GB version of its 2.5-inch SATA II SSD.

Building upon the original 128 GB version previously released, the new 256 GB 2.5-inch SATA II SSD (solid state disk) will not only feature a larger capacity, but read speeds of 165 MB/sec. and write speeds of 98MB/sec. Unfortunately, the drive utilizes a Jmicron JMF602 controller, which is terrible with SSDs, unless it ships with revision B of the same chip. We're waiting for confirmation from Silicon Power on which revision its drive uses.

According to the company:

"Customers can easily install the SSD in laptops, PCs or other devices that support SATA II SSD," said the company in a press release. "Silicon Power 2.5” SSD with SATA II or IDE interface is fully compatible with RoHS requirement, with capacities ranging from 8GB to 256GB."

Silicon Power did not specify a release date or price, but the 128 GB version costs around $360.00

SD Memory Cards for Professionals

(Ed.: For more memory card performance data, including SDHC and Compact Flash cards, please check out our most updated charts. You can find the SDHC charts here and the Compact Flash charts right here.)

The prices of portable memory cards have decreased to almost ridiculous levels: 8 GB SDHC cards now start at only $12. However, enthusiasts don’t want just any memory card—they want one that delivers high write throughput for their devices such as digital cameras, and fast reads, so they can copy contents to their systems quickly. These elite products are much more expensive, so we invited eight popular brands to a shootout.

SD Card Details

The Secure Digital (SD) card was invented by SanDisk in 2001 and was based on the multi-media card (MMC) standard. Technically, SD is similar to MMC, but adds digital rights management based on CPRM. SD cards also feature a write protection switch, but it is not a hardware feature: the client device has to handle both settings appropriately.

SD, SDHD

The 2 GB capacity defined by the SD 1.1 standard wasn’t enough as card sizes grew, so the SD 2.0 or SDHC standard was added. It allows for capacities of up to 32 GB today; the standard is potentially ready for capacities of up to 2 TB. SDXC will follow next year, as 32 GB may remain the limit for the SDHC standard. Note that SDHC and SD cards are identical from the outside, so be sure your device supports SDHC before purchasing such a card (4 GB and up).

Classes 2, 4, 6

The first SD cards could be read at 3.6 MB/s and written at 0.8 MB/s. Faster cards were required by the increasing resolutions of digital cameras, as well as more demanding consumers. As a result, SDHC was divided into three classes: 2, 4 and 6; the numbers represent the minimum sustainable write throughput in MB/s.

Applications

It’s not only high resolution digital SLR cameras that require fast memory cards, allowing them to write several photos per second onto the storage device. Another key application is multi-purpose, high-speed mobile storage, or using these cards as system drives via USB or eSATA card readers.

We asked Kingston, Lexar, OCZ, Patriot, PNY, Sandisk, Silicon Power and Transcend to send us their fastest and highest capacity SD cards for review. Let’s look at the 13 cards between 4 GB and 32 GB that we received.

Kingston Class 4 and Class 6, 32 GB and 8 GB

Kingston SD4, 32 GB

The Class 4 top model by Kingston has an impressive capacity of up to 32 GB (SD4/32), but there are also 4 GB, 8 GB and 16 GB models available. Class 2 rated cards are available at 4 GB and 8 GB capacities, and there are Class 6 cards available (see next paragraph). All cards are rated at -25°C to 85°C operating temperature range, which is much more than you would need in a digital camera.

The Kingston Web site mentions that these cards are only compatible with SDHC devices, which is good, but we’re not sure how to take the “built-in write protect switch”—if the client device doesn’t implement the feature, your data will not be protected. The SD4/32 card reached 12.8-15.2 MB/s read throughput and 7.9-11 MB/s write transfer rates. These are not the best results, but are certainly far above average.

Kingston SD6, 8 GB

The SD6/8 cards shares the same basic specifications as the SD4 models, but come in smaller capacities as a trade-off for better performance: there are only 4 GB and 8 GB capacity points that reach the faster throughput. The SD6 card made a mixed impression on us: the 19.7 MB/s maximum read speed is excellent, while the 11.2 MB/s write throughput is only average. Other Class 6 rated cards are definitely much faster.

Details are available on the Kingston Web site.

Lexar Platinum II and Professional

Lexar Platinum II SDHC, 16 GB

Lexar has 4 GB, 8 GB and 16 GB versions of its Platinum II SDHC series. The company says that these cards are ideal for HD video and fast-action photos, which our benchmark results confirm: we saw up to 15.5 MB/s read throughput and up to 10.7 MB/s writes. The Platinum II cards are rated at Class 4 level or at 60X, which equals 9 MB/s. The card comes with a free copy of a program called Image Rescue 3, which can help to restore data on a memory card if it is accidentally deleted.

Lexar Professional SDHC, 8 GB

Although “Platinum” already sounds pretty high end, the real high-end series by Lexar is called the Professional SDHC series—don’t confuse it with the Professional 133x, which is the SD 2.1 model with a maximum capacity of 2 GB. The Professional SDHC is available at 4 GB and 8 GB capacities, also rated at 133x speed and Class 6. In fact this is the fastest SDHC card in this roundup, reaching 18.6 MB/s write throughput and 19.7 MB/s read transfer rate.

This is also one of the fastest cards (if not the fastest) in our IOmeter I/O testing. This is not relevant for those who intend to use the card as a storage device, but running applications or even an operating system off the memory card requires the ability to perform a large number of I/O operations per second. Lexar does the best here.

Details are available on the Lexar Web site.

OCZ SDHC 8 GB, Patriot SDHC 16 GB

OCZ also sent a memory card for review. Their sample stores 8 GB and is rated at Class 6 speed, which equals a 6 MB/s minimum sequential write throughput. OCZ offers 4 GB and 8 GB models, and it also has Class 4 cards at the same capacity points.

OCZ also has a Gold Series, which is rated at 150x (30 MB/s) and available at up to 16 GB, but unfortunately we did not get this model for our roundup. That might have been the better product, as the OCZ Class 6 SDHC card is fast, but not a winner: 15.3 MB/s read throughput and 11.5 MB/s sequential writes were the fastest numbers we could get during our testing. However, OCZ still beats Kingston’s SD6 card and the Lexar Platinum II when it comes to write performance, as it sustains 11 MB/s at all times.

Details are available on the OCZ Web site.

Patriot Memory SDHC Class 6, 16 GB

Patriot also plays in the SDHC arena, as memory cards fit well into its product portfolios, which are dominated by memory products. The SDHC Class 6 card delivered a maximum write throughput of 13.4 MB/s, while we could read from it at the maximum speed of 19.7 MB/s. That’s the maximum throughput of our card reader, and also as fast as 95% of all other USB 2.0 and SATA card readers can go.

Patriot Memory offers four different models. While the 4 GB, 8 GB and 16 GB capacity points are all Class 6 rated, the 32 GB top model was rated at Class 4, which is rather common. Unfortunately, the specification page doesn’t contain any valuable information, except a table to show people how much data they can store at each of the capacity points. Information on the temperature operating range would be more valuable, for example.

Details are available on the Patriot Web site.

PNY Optima and Optima Pro (32 GB, 4 GB)

PNY sent us two SDHC cards for review: an Optima card at 32 GB, and an Optima Pro model at 4 GB capacity. Optima cards are rated Class 4, and they are available in 4 GB, 8 GB, 16 GB and 32 GB sizes; the Optima Pro series is Class 6 rated and can be purchased at 4 GB, 8 GB and 16 GB. The 32 GB top model is still rather expensive, at $149.99, but you’ll get the largest available SD card capacity for your money. Read throughput reached 15.5 MB/s, while sequential writes were between 9.7 and 10.8 MB/s.

We were surprised to see the write performance numbers of the Optima Pro card, which was designed to be the faster card. It maxed out at 8.4 to 9.0 MB/s, which is actually less than the regular Optima card reached, and is the slowest write performance in this roundup. It is still well within the necessary 6 MB/s minimum sequential write throughput, but you’d expect something better from the top model. Read performance, however, was nice, as the Optima Pro maxed out our test environment at up to 19.7 MB/s.

SanDisk Extreme III 4 GB, Silicon Power SDHC 16 GB

This is probably the best-known brand of flash-based memory cards, and the Extreme series has always been one of the fastest options on the market. The Extreme III SDHC comes bundled with a USB 2.0 card reader called the MicroMate, and SanDisk makes a very specific warranty statement: there is no lifetime warranty, which may come with lots of exceptions, and the 10 years exceed everything else in this roundup. Although nobody will probably use such a product for more than a few years, the additional warranty is comforting.

All Extreme III SDHC cards are rated Class 6, and they are available at 4 GB, 8 GB and 16 GB. However, SanDisk offers two different 4 GB and 8 GB cards that are both called Extreme III: there is the “regular” Extreme III that reaches 20 MB/s, and the 30 MB/s editions, which speak for themselves. Our 4 GB Extreme III reached 19.7 MB/s reads and up to 18.2 MB/s writes; this makes the Extreme III the second fastest SDHC card after Lexar’s Professional. If you are looking for value cards, then you can consider the Video HD SDHC series or the Ultra II SDHC series—in that order—which will save you a considerable amount of money. But these don’t come with the USB 2.0 card reader.

SanDisk’s Micromate isn’t as quick as the Transcend card reader we used for this roundup: 19 MB/s read throughput was the maximum sequential transfer rate.

Details are available on the SanDisk Web site.

Silicon Power Class 6 SDHC, 16 GB

Silicon Power is a Taiwanese company that specializes in memory products of all kinds. We received a 16 GB SDHC Class 6 card; there are also 32 GB, 8 GB and 4 GB versions. Our card reached the maximum read speed of 19.7 MB/s, while also providing fast write throughput: we measured between 16.5 and 17.2 MB/s, which is an excellent result. In fact, this card offers the highest minimum write throughput of all the cards in this test, and is only beaten in the maximum results.

Details are available on the Silicon Power Web site.

Transcend Class 6 16 GB, 150X 4 GB

The last two products in this roundup were provided by Transcend, which has been another important player in the memory market. The first of these was the Class 6 rated card with a total capacity of 16 GB; there are also 4 GB and 8 GB models available.

Our 16 GB test sample was good for 19.7 MB/s maximum read transfer rate and up to 15.9 MB/s maximum write throughput. The minimum write speed was 12.8 MB/s, which is a nice result.

The second card is the 150X Class 6 SDHC, and is meant to be even faster. While this was in fact the case for maximum write throughput, the minimum write transfer rate was actually a bit slower than what we saw with the conventional Class 6 card. Read throughput was generally high at 19.6-19.7 MB/s minimum to maximum read transfer rate.

Test Setup and Card Reader, Considerations

Card Reader: Transcend M5

It is difficult to find card readers that are fast enough to do justice to the memory cards when it comes to delivering maximum throughput. Most card reader products max out at around 15-20 MB/s. The Transcend Multi-Card Reader M5 is one of the devices that almost reaches these 20 MB/s. Other products, such as the MicroMate that comes bundled with SanDisk Extreme III cards, are slightly slower.

Performance Considerations

It may be the case that some of the memory cards tested may be able to deliver even higher read performance, but this is something we cannot reproduce due to missing equipment. However, it does not make a lot of sense to look at read performance differences, as two thirds of the SDHC cards are capable of reaching the maximum throughput of our card reader. Much more important factors upon which to make your purchase decision include I/O performance—which is important for executing applications off an SDHC card—write performance, and speed doing simultaneous read and write operations.

Access Time, I/O Performance

Access time isn’t really an issue for memory cards that are used in digital cameras, but still there are differences.

The IOmeter performance results are mostly interesting if you intend to use an SDHC memory card to run an operating system or applications, in a small form factor environment where even small hard drives would be too large. Cards capable of processing a large amount of I/O operations per second will do the best job when it comes to frequently changing access types or simultaneous read/write operations. Lexar’s Professional and the Transcend 150X are best in this category.

Interface Performance, Throughput

The interface benchmark reveals the maximum throughput of each of the cards. Note that this is usually limited by the card reader devices, as we didn’t find one capable of delivering more than 19.7 MB/s transfer rate for the cards via USB 2.0. We even tried an IDE card reader by Addonics, but it wasn’t faster than our Transcend M5.

Read transfer performance is limited by the card reader’s performance (which is a general issue), but write performance is much more interesting.

The most significant performance differences can be found in the write throughput benchmark, as the results vary between 9 MB/s and 18.6 MB/s.

Conclusion

The introduction of the speed grades Class 2, 4, and 6 for high capacity SD memory cards (SDHC) was an important step in showing consumers that there are more differences between products than just capacity. However, the market basically consists of budget/mainstream cards, for which performance is secondary, and of enthusiast products. We looked at 13 of the latter group, and we found more significant performance differences than the speed class ratings would suggest.

Write Performance Makes the Difference

Many of the high speed memory cards we tested reached almost 20 MB/s read throughput. Some cards were probably bottlenecked by our Transcend M5 card reader, but we didn’t find faster card readers to work with. However, read performance isn’t the issue: we found substantial performance differences of up to 100% in the write throughput benchmarks, where the cards delivered between 9 and 18.6 MB/s. And the speed classification didn’t help much, as some Class 4 cards delivered better write performance than some Class 6 products.

Clearly, reviews are necessary to judge whether or not a SDHC memory card is truly fast. The best products in this roundup were the Lexar Professional series and SanDisk’s Ultra III card, but don’t expect them to be inexpensive.

Comparison Table

SSDs for 2009: They’re New, But Are They Better?

Hard drives based on flash memory are still a few years away from becoming mainstream products, because flash memory drives are still much more expensive per gigabyte than conventional hard drives—and even if they were cost-competitive, flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) cannot satisfy worldwide demand. However, there are more and more flash SSD products that are serious hard drives alternatives—at least for enthusiasts.

We looked at six new drives from Chaintech, Memory Corp, Silicon Power, Soliware, and Super Talent.

Good SSDs, Bad SSDs

Even if the supply right now seems to be large, flash SSDs still are a curiosity found at the very low end (think of entry-level notepads with 8 to 32 GB of low-cost storage) or at the high end. Enthusiast notebooks such as Lenovo’s X300 ultra portable utilize 1.8” Samsung SLC flash SSDs. Apart from that, the volumes being sold are still rather pathetic; after all, how many people are willing to spend several hundred dollars on a 32-64 GB drive?

In addition to the substantial price points for flash SSDs, hard drives have gotten really cheap. Terabyte hard drives are well below $150, and you can get 500 GB drives for as little as $75. And there are additional advantages for the good old hard drives. They have proven to be more reliable than many flash SSD products. Customers, such as a large OEM we won't mention, have been trying to validate flash SSDs for enterprise applications by looping hardcore I/O loads, and they all failed with write errors after only a few months.

But there are also very positive examples in the desktop and mobile space, as Intel and Samsung were able to show us last year. Although the current products are even more expensive than the majority of flash SSD products on the market, they are worth the money if you’re out for maximum performance and efficiency.

Many Brands, Few Winners

We received six new flash SSD products that all store either 32 or 64 GB. Some of the brands—such as Memory Corp or Soliware—might be new to many users. Silicon Power and Chaintech have been around for a while; Super Talent is probably the best known vendor out of these five. Most of these drives show excellent characteristics, but we found that this isn’t the case across all tests. Let’s have a look.

Chaintech Apogee SSD, 64 GB

Chaintech’s product is named like its enthusiast memory modules: Apogee. The Apogee SSD is available at multiple capacity points; we received the 64 GB model for review. While most of the other flash SSDs utilize only a Serial ATA interface, this model comes with an additional USB 2.0 port, which makes it possible to utilize the Apogee SSD as a portable hard drive as well. The device can be totally powered by the USB bus, so you don’t need an additional power supply. However, USB performance will be limited to roughly 30 MB/s (which we did not include in the test results).

Pretty Fast And Terribly Slow

This drive reached read throughput of more than 111 MB /s on our storage test system. Some other SSDs reached up to 124 MB/s on our testbed, but only Intel’s X25-M drive delivered considerably more throughput (201 MB/s). Write performance, however, was disappointing. The multi-level cell (MLC) flash Chaintech drive only provided a maximum of 26.8 MB/s sequential write throughput, which is about as much as a three year old 2.5” notebook hard drive would deliver. The Apogee SSD also did well in our streaming read test, where it provided great results.

The Apogee’s average power consumption of 1.4 W is less than that required by most of the other flash SSDs, ensuring that the Chaintech drive reaches a nice performance per watt result in this category. On the other hand, there is the workstation I/O test: high-performance flash SSDs reach a few hundred I/O operations per second. Intel’s X25-M SSD scores 1,646 I/Os per second; the Apogee SSD reached 24 I/Os per second (yes, twenty four). This also has a severely noticeable effect on Windows XP start-up performance (see PCMark results). What a shame.

Power Consumption Saves The Day

In the end, there is still another reason to go for this drive despite its horrible I/O performance: idle power consumption is 0.68 W, which is a good result, and power use never exceeds 1.8 W at peak loads. At least this device will contribute to long notebook battery runtimes, as long as you don’t require it to process many I/O operations or store a lot of data. We believe Chaintech should really improve the performance characteristics of this device for the next revision or product generation.

Memory Corp F4 MLC SSD, 32 GB

Memory Corp provided us with two flash SSDs to review: the F4 single-level cell (SLC) drive, which is an industrial high-performance drive (see the next page) and the F4 MLC for business customers. The F4 MLC is based on cheaper MLC flash memory and is available from 8 GB to 128 GB capacities. We looked at a 32 GB model.

The data sheet talks about 150 MB/s read performance and 90 MB/s write throughput. Our testing revealed considerably different results: 110 MB/s sequential read throughput and 39 MB/s sequential write transfer rate. We also measured the interface throughput to be sure that we weren’t creating a bottleneck for the SATA/300 device: 175.4 MB/s interface bandwidth was available. Clearly, the controller and/or flash memory aren’t capable of sustaining constant, high throughput.

I/O Performance Nightmare

While most flash SSDs show excellent access time of less than 1 ms—sometimes even less than 0.1 ms (100 ns)—this does not automatically mean that they also deliver high I/O performance. Have a look at our workstation I/O test or our IOmeter runs. With the exception of the webserver I/O benchmark pattern (which requests blocks small enough to fit into a single request) all other I/O benchmarks attest to the horrible I/O performance of this drive. Even conventional hard drives do better in these benchmarks!

Acceptable Application Benchmarks and Power Consumption

The PCMark application benchmarks suffer from the low I/O performance, but they still show that the drive is rather quick; at least, quicker than conventional hard drives. The 0.7 to 1.9 W power consumption was very acceptable as well. Check out the power consumption for DVD playback in the charts section as well, where you’ll find that this drive consumed the least power to deliver this defined stream of data.

Memory Corp F4 SLC SSD, 32 GB

As we were still digesting the ridiculously low I/O performance numbers provided by Chaintech and the MLC-flash based Memory Corp F4 drives, we pinned our hopes on the SLC-flash model by Memory Corp. The device is also available at 8-128 GB capacities using SATA/300. This drive is slightly heavier than the MLC model: 90 g vs. 80 g. And the data sheet promises higher performance: 160 MB/s read throughput and 140 MB/s writes—that would be something, but our hopes were dashed again.

Poor I/O Performance Despite SLC Flash Memory

The Memory Corp F4 SLC drive was capable of outperforming its MLC brother, but to an extent so small that we had to shake our heads again. A figure of 63 workstation I/O operations per second is still only a fraction of the almost 600 I/Os per second delivered by Mtron, 400+ Samsung and OCZ, not to mention the unmatched 1,646 I/Os per second by Intel’s X25-M. At least the F4 SLC outperformed the F4 MLC in all the other tests except streaming reads efficiency, where the MLC model actually did better.

The only applications where we see the Memory Corp drives fitting in are mainstream desktop or notebook applications, where read throughput is the main criterion. The power consumption of the Memory Corp drives is low enough to squeeze out a few more minutes of battery runtime when compared to hard drives, but the limited I/O performance prevents this drive from being suitable for enthusiasts or workstation applications.

Silicon Power 64 GB SLC

Silicon Power has been active in various worldwide markets with memory and flash products. This time we received an SLC-based 64 GB flash SSD, which starts with a nice 179 MB/s interface throughput, restoring some hope that we might see a really great flash storage product. Although it is far from actually providing such a sequential throughput, we are somewhat happy with the 116 MB/s read throughput we measured. But the hope did not last long, as the drive failed to deliver its throughput promise on the write testing, where it was limited to less than 40 MB/s.

The drive is fast enough to take the second place in the streaming reads test, and to be strong in PCMark’s File Write benchmark, but it loses ground in the workstation I/O testing and our IOmeter test runs.

Low Power

We were happy with the power consumption numbers, though: 0.6 W idle power is an excellent result for the drive idle state. Peak power isn’t excessive either, at a maximum of 1.5 W, given that almost all other flash SSDs consume more power at peak loads. And the drive does well at providing a continuous data stream as well: we include a DVD playback power consumption test, where the Silicon Power 64 GB SLC SSD required a constant 0.9 W. Some drives require less power, but only two products are really low on power for video playback, while mist devices are at 1 W or higher.

Silicon Power says that there are multiple capacity versions between 8 GB and 128 GB, but only the MLC drives—which are specified to provide higher read throughput, but slower writes—are available at the top capacity number. The SLC models such as the one reviewed are limited to 64 GB for now.

Soliware SSD S100 32 GB

Another drive, another chance. Silicon Power provides good application benchmark results and low power consumption, but insufficient write performance. The other candidates by Memory Corp and Chaintech are even worse at writing, and horrible when it comes to I/Os per second. Soliware, a Chinese flash SSD maker, whose Web site cannot be found if you Google “soliware”, (even though its site is soliware.com) provided a 32 GB flash SSD called the S100 SSD, which the vendor calls the “super value” series based on MLC flash memory. There is a P100 as well, which would be the SLC model.

Flash SSDs With Cache Memory

Soliware is different from other vendors in that it says that it uses an additional 128 MB cache memory on its drives, which are available in sizes of 32, 64 or 128 GB. The data sheet states read and write throughput of 110 MB/s despite multi-level cell flash memory. The rated power consumption of 1 W in idle and 3 W active power seems realistic as well.

We checked the facts. First we looked at the access times and were a bit disappointed: an access time of 1 ms is ten times longer than the 0.1 ms found with other SSDs. Then we found a 125 MB/s maximum interface throughput—not much, but it may suffice. The drive managed to sustain a constant 103 MB/s read throughput, which is 50% faster than the throughput of conventional hard drives.

Surprising Performance Results

Now comes the surprise: This drive reached the same 103 MB/s throughput on writes—and more. We measured a 122.4 MB/s maximum on our test system, which certainly is the result of the integrated cache memory. Then we looked at I/O performance and were surprised again. Although the drive isn’t really fast in any of the I/O benchmarks, it still outperforms its competitors in this roundup. It is many times faster than the other drives, and positions itself in the middle of the I/O performance charts.

And Surprising Power Consumption

This was yet another surprise: The Soliware SSD S100 flash drive is the most power hungry flash-based drive we’ve had in our test lab. While the 1.9 W idle power is almost twice as much as the vendor specifies, the real surprise is peak power of 4.0 W. This is more than any modern conventional 2.5” hard drive requires. However, the power requirement during DVD playback was not that bad, at 1.9 W. Two drives, the SSDs by Crucial and Mtron, required even more power to provide a DVD bit stream.

Super Talent SATA 2.5” SSD, MasterDrive OX

Super Talent’s 64 GB SATA 2.5” SSD is the last drive in this review. We already looked at the MasterDrive MX; this time the sample is called MasterDrive OX, and both are based on MLC flash memory. The MasterDrive OX is also available as an external version and at up to 256 GB, which we believe might be unaffordable at this time. It provides nice access time and interface throughput of up to 176 MB/s, which is definitely sufficient. The vendor states 150 MB/s read and 100 MB/s write speed, which, again, we could not reproduce. We reached 110 MB/s sequential read throughput and up to 53 MB/s writes on our storage test system.

Insufficient Performance

While the throughput is nice, the other benchmarks show insufficient performance for the MasterDrive OX. The 0.3 ms access time is nice, but it does not translate into quick I/O performance: 30 workstation I/Os per second is a really bad result that any conventional hard drive can beat. The same applies to our fileserver, database and workstation IOmeter test patterns: the drive does not provide convincing performance except in the webserver benchmark, where only a few kilobytes are requested for each I/O operation.

Insufficient Efficiency

The power consumption during DVD playback is average at 1.4 W, but that’s not where we’d expect it. The same applies to the PCMark05 application benchmarks and our efficiency tests, where we check performance per watt for streaming reads and for workstation I/O. The streaming read performance is nice, but efficiency is spoiled by the drive’s high average power consumption of 2.6 W for this workload. It does even worse at the workstation workload, due to slow performance and high power consumption.

Comparison Table, Test Setups

Test Notebook and Settings

Throughput, Interface Performance

Actual sequential read throughput is typically rather far from the promises of most of the SSD vendors.

The same applies to sequential writes: the effective, sustainable throughput is often only 30-50% of the stated maximum transfer rates.

The drive interfaces would be fast enough to support faster throughput, as you can see in our interface benchmark.

Access Time, I/O Performance

Access time isn’t really an issue, as all flash SSDs access data in a fraction of the time needed by a conventional hard drive.

However, access time refers to locating and accessing a single piece of data. The following I/O benchmarks are based on random and sequential I/O operations, and they include small and large block sizes, depending on the individual profile used.

Databases usually read and write a lot, and they typically move very small chunks of data. Most of the flash SSDs are limited to less than 100 I/O operations per second, which can typically be matched by mechanical hard drives.

File servers work with much larger files, and there are clearly more reads than writes. This is favorable for many flash SSDs, which are quickest when they have to read large amounts of data.

Web servers are dominated by read access, and by small amounts of data. In this benchmark, any flash SSD does much better than a regular hard drive.

The workstation I/O benchmark pattern is tough, as it includes small and medium block sizes, and reads as well as writes.

Application Performance, Power Consumption

MLC-based flash SSDs are typically rather poor when it comes to sequential writes. In this benchmark, the SLC-based devices are strong.

The Windows XP Startup benchmark consists of multiple requests of various block sizes. It is representative of a drive’s performance when launching Windows or applications.

Power Consumption

Most of the tested drives show acceptable power consumption. Only Soliware really needs too much power.

DVD Stream Playback Power

Playing a DVD .vob file is a nice test to determine a drive’s power consumption for a defined workload. Most of the new drives do well, although we’ve seen much better results (and also worse ones, to be fair).

Efficiency: Streaming Reads

The streaming read efficiency is measured by benchmarking the drives’ ability to transfer 64, 128 and 256 KB blocks sequentially, while also measuring the average power required during the benchmark. This way we can calculate performance per power consumed as I/O operations per watt.

Some of the new drives—such as the Memory Corp drives, Silicon Power’s SLC SSD, and the Chaintech Apogee SSD—provide nice performance per watt results for sequential reads.

Efficiency: Workstation I/O

Our workstation I/O efficiency test works similarly: we run IOmeter using the workstation I/O benchmark pattern, and track the average power for each device. We then calculate workstation I/O performance per watt.

Since all of the new drives are rather poor when it comes to random I/Os, and even worse for random writes, none does well in our workstation I/O efficiency test.

Conclusion

We reviewed six new flash SSDs from various vendors, and they all showed impressive performance in at least a few benchmark categories. Chaintech, Memory Corp, Silicon Power, Soliware, and Super Talent all deliver more than 100 MB/s throughput. Memory Corp’s F4 SLC drive reached the best throughput at 116 MB/s. However, four out of the six drives disappointed with rather low write performance. Super Talent reached an acceptable 53 MB/s, while only Soliware actually managed to have its write throughput match its read performance, at more than 100 MB/s. Well, at least the six mostly stay below 0.3 ms access time.

The Soliware SSD was the only drive to show strong write performance and great I/O performance as well. The results still aren’t good enough to beat the professional SSDs by Memoright, Mtron, and Intel’s X25-M. However, Soliware’s built-in 128 MB cache memory helped to boost write performance to a level that is only matched by Memoright and Mtron.

However, Soliware’s performance comes at a price, as it requires more power than any other flash SSD. Its 1.9 W idle and 4.0 W peak power are more than conventional hard drives require; this is probably also a result of the built-in cache memory. Other drives, such as the Samsung 64 GB SLC SSD, require only between 0.3 and 1.0 W. Most of the other drives in this roundup showed acceptable power consumption.

In the end, none of the new drives was really impressive. They all have significant weaknesses: usually either low I/O performance, poor write throughput or unacceptable power consumption. The best consumer drive still is Intel’s X25-M flash SSD, and if you’re looking for maximum efficiency, you still have to go for the Samsung or OCZ’s SATA II performance series. Some of the drives here may be alternatives for specific applications, but at this point we still recommend being careful with low-cost drives, as they may not live up to expectations.

Flash SSDs Compared

July was an interesting month. Although there were no new major flash SSD product releases, we talked quite a bit about the successor to the hard drive, or what it will eventually become, and decided to keep looking at the flash SSD market. Today, an SSD isn’t necessarily the better choice over a magnetic hard drive, as there is a catch with most of the options out there. Some flash SSDs are much more efficient than hard drives, others are much faster than hard drives, and only a small minority can achieve both. But all are more expensive, especially when you consider cost per gigabyte.

The Flash SSD Market: Between SLC and MLC

We should keep in mind that the flash SSD market is still relatively young, and in the process of being defined. Manufacturers such as MemoRight and Mtron position their products for high-end workstations and servers, while Samsung has an excellent consumer drive, which it does not yet in retail. Instead, it provided small quantities to other vendors such as OCZ to create their individual products. All the premium products are based on Single-Level Cell (SLC) flash memory. You can identify these by their high write performance and I/O performance.

And then there is the flash SSD mainstream, although we’re having a hard time declaring this a “mainstream” segment when it still averages several hundred dollars per drive. The mainstream differs from the high-end in its utilization of Multi-Level Cell (MLC) flash products. These can be read quickly, but their write and random access performance generally lag behind.

Manufacturers typically don’t tell you whether they use SLC or MLC flash, but you can tell by the cost. If the price tag hits four digits, you’re looking at a high-end product based on SLC flash. Don’t make the mistake of declaring MLC the loser, though, since good products using it can certainly be suitable even for high-end desktop applications.

New Products: Hama, Mtron, Samsung, Silicon Power

As you would expect, the market for these products is in constant flux. We included two new 2.5” flash SSD in between our initial flash SSD Hoax article and our update on specific findings regarding efficiency. Although we had to return some drives to their sources, we added four new flash SSD units from the European vendor Hama, a 128 GB drive by Silicon Power, a new high-performance model by Mtron and Samsung’s latest offering.

And we found that only one product manages to stick out from the crowd.

Crucial 32 GB Solid State Drive 2.5”: Reads Fast

We had our first contact with the Crucial 32 GB Solid State Drive in late June, when we put some flash SSDs to the test on a notebook to compare the battery life of popular SSDs versus a conventional hard drive. This is a good example of a MLC-based flash drive that reaches excellent read throughput of up to 125 MB/s, but with write performance limited to less than 60 MB/s. Access times are very quick, too. For average desktop or notebook solutions this still seems like a good product.

However, this particular model doesn’t deliver the great power efficiency that many people associate with flash SSDs, leaving it a bad choice for mobile users. An average power requirement of 2.1 W when playing a low-bandwidth DVD stream is clearly too high. We found that some efficient mechanical hard drives deliver better efficiency under controlled performance requirements. The same applies to idle power, which doesn’t drop below 1.6 W, and the workstation-type I/O performance and efficiency of this drive wasn’t glorious either.

Crucial also has a 64 GB version, which seems to deliver less write throughput, according to the data sheet.

Hama Solid State Flash Drives: 3.5” & 1.8”: Big or Small

Most of the flash SSDs on the market were designed for the 2.5” form factor, which makes them suitable for most notebook designs as well as for permanent installation into desktop PCs (the latter only requires some installation brackets). However, there are other form factors available as well, as we could see from aftermarket vendor Hama, whose products are available in central Europe. We looked at its 3.5” desktop drive as well as a 1.8” model that was designed for ultra-portable notebooks, and two different 2.5” drives.

3.5” Hama High-Speed SSD Flash 64 GB

Hama’s 3.5” flash SSD drive is referred to as the High-Speed Solid State Disk Flash Memory Hard Drive, which really is a mouthful. It seems to be difficult to come up with a proper product name that people can remember and that helps to differentiate your products from the competitors. The vendor website adds some more confusion, as it says this device would be ideal for use in mobile devices, which we cannot confirm for a 3.5” device weighing 256 g.

The 3.5” form factor doesn’t register as a negative when it comes to power requirements. This drive requires 0.8 W idle power and reached 1.9 W peak power, which is an average result. This drive isn’t a power miser, though — some flash SSDs such as the models from OCZ or Samsung are far more efficient. But at the same time, there are also others that require more power.

The High-Speed SSD Flash reaches 86 MB/s read throughput and 76 MB/s write bandwidth, and the shortest measurable access time of 0.1 ms. Compared to modern 3.5” hard drives, which reach up to 120 MB/s, this doesn’t seem to be all that much in terms of transfer rate. However, I/O performance was excellent, and the unit scored well in our Workstation I/O efficiency test. The Hama 3.5” High-Speed Flash SSD also achieved nice PCMark05 scores, putting it well in front of every conventional hard drive.

1.8” Hama SSD IDE 32 GB

The second of the four Hama drives we received is a tiny model based on a 1.8” form factor. Unlike all the other models, this drive utilizes an UltraATA/66 interface — that may limit the bandwidth to 50 MB/s on the interface and for sequential reads, but the drive still does relatively well. Write performance is limited to less than 30 MB/s, but keep the form factor in mind. It would probably outperform any 1.8” mechanical hard drive.

We could not run this drive through our efficiency suite on the Dell Latitude D630 notebook, because that machine requires Serial ATA drives. Hence, you will not find the drive in the second set of the test results where we look at efficiency — and power requirements when playing a DVD stream. However, nothing could stop us from measuring idle and peak power. Idle power was exceptionally low at only 0.03 W, while peak power reached 0.8 W. This is about as much as the 2.5” flash SSDs from OCZ and Samsung require, but those are larger and more expensive.

Hama’s 1.8” offering could serve as a replacement for mechanical hard drives, as it delivers better I/O performance, low idle power, and robustness that traditional 1.8” drives cannot give you in the portable space. It beats most of the other Flash SSDs if you are interested in a maximum of number streaming read operations per watt and if you can live with the given performance envelope.

Hama Solid State Flash Drives: 2.5” SLC & MLC 32 GB

Hama also offers two 2.5” flash SSDs, which fit very well into the line of drives we already tested. There is one high-speed version based on SLC flash memory, and a lower-cost mainstream model based on multi-level cell flash. The differences are tremendous, as we mentioned earlier.

Hama Highspeed Solid State Disk Flash 32 GB 2.5” SATA

The faster of the two 2.5” Hama flash SSDs reaches more than 100 MB/s read throughput and 83 MB/s writes. This is backed up by our streaming throughput test, where this drive delivers great performance and still good performance per watt, although the flash SSDs by OCZ and Samsung are the clear winners in this category. Hama’s high-speed 2.5” drive does well with 0.8 W idle and 1.8 W peak power, but this isn’t enough to outperform the best of the class in terms of performance per watt.

We also found the I/O performance of this drive to be exceptionally quick: Hama’s Highspeed Solid State Disk Flash 32 GB 2.5” SATA was one of the fastest flash SSDs in our workstation I/O test. It delivered hundreds of input/output operations per seconds in the database and fileserver tests and was even the second fastest after Mtron’s 7500 Pro drive when it comes to web server I/O performance, where no writes are involved.

Hama Solid State Disk Flash 32 GB 2.5” SATA

The second option is much cheaper, but it does not get near the 103/83 MB/s read/write throughput. Instead, it’s limited to 62/29 MB/s. This can be found both when looking at the interface throughput as well as the read and write transfer performance results. The other performance numbers aren’t very impressive either, as the high-speed version can be many times faster. We also found the average access time to be five times longer on this drive than on the high-speed model. Although 0.5 ms to 0.1 ms is minimal compared to 5-20 ms for conventional drives, the difference is significant.

One might believe that the slower drive would at least be more efficient, but that’s not the case either. The regular Hama Solid State Disk Flash 32 GB 2.5” drive requires 1.9 W of idle power and up to 2.7 W peak power. Compared to 0.3 W idle and 0.8 W peak power of the much faster OCZ and Samsung flash SSDs, or many others at 0.8 to 1.2 W idle and 1.8 to 2.2 W peak, the results are almost embarrassing for this product. The only serious reason for getting one of these “regular” Hama drives would be mechanical robustness or a great bargain, and we doubt the latter will happen any time soon.

MemoRight MR25.2-032S/064S: Enterprise Class

The MemoRight MR25.2 GT series is currently one of the fastest flash SSD options available. MemoRight specifies both 120 MB/s for sequential read and write operations, which we verified on our storage test system. In fact, we hit 116 MB/s read throughput and 121 MB/s for writes. The 0.1 ms average access time is almost nonexistent.

While MemoRight does not yet use a Serial ATA/300 interface, the 150 MB/s bandwidth is still fast enough to beat most of the competitors. OCZ, Samsung and Super Talent offer higher interface throughput thanks to 300 MB/s SATA bandwidth, but they cannot turn this into a performance advantage.

The MemoRight drives are the clear I/O performance winners, as they outperform every other drive in three out of four tests. The only exception is the Web server benchmark, which does not involve write operations. Here, Hama delivers even more I/O operations per second.

These drives’ power requirements depend on their capacity: we received 32 GB and 64 GB models for testing. While the 32 GB version required 0.8 W idle power, the 64 GB drive did not go below 1.0 W. Peak power, however, was different: the more idle-efficient 32 GB drive required up to 2.4 W, while the 64 GB model stayed within a 2.0 W power envelope. This would have you believe that the 64 GB version delivered better performance per watt, but that’s not quite true either, as the higher capacity version offers slightly less performance.

Unfortunately, we did not have these drives to run them through our efficiency suite on the Dell Latitude D630 notebooks, which is why you will only find performance results run on our storage test system.

Mtron Pro 7500 3.5” SATA 32 GB: Workstation Drives

Mtron was the first SSD maker to provide a solid state drive that would clearly outperform mechanical hard drives. The latest drive we received for testing, the Mtron Pro 7500, is now a 3.5” model specifically targeting the enterprise space. Hence it doesn’t come as a surprise that the drive is not particularly energy efficient — 1.6 W idle and 2.4 W peak power — although it does provide great performance per watt.

Actually, the Mtron Pro 7500 is the best drive in our performance per watt tests that look at streaming read and workstation I/O performance. It offers good I/O performance, but it seems optimized for Web servers, where it blows away the competition. It also does superbly at the PCMark05 application benchmarks when it comes to writing files and in Windows XP startup performance: 117 MB/s read throughput and 116 MB/s write performance are excellent results. This drive will make you forget your old hard drive quickly if you are willing to fork out the $1,300 price tag.

OCZ 64 GB SATAII SSD 2.5”: Samsung White Label

We already looked at the new OCZ drive when we provided updates to our flash SSD analysis. The OCZ 64 GB SATAII SSD is a re-labeled Samsung drive sold under the OCZ brand, which isn’t a bad thing. Samsung, in fact, still offers the only flash SSD that perfectly combines impressive power efficiency with high performance, although the Samsung/OCZ Flash SSD isn’t the fastest drive option by itself. This desirable model comes in an aluminum enclosure and costs more than $1,000.

The OCZ 64 GB SATAII SSD reaches approximately 90 MB/s read and write performance, and while several other flash SSDs deliver higher read transfer rates, this drive is our first choice due to its balanced performance and exceptional efficiency. Its 0.2 W idle power and 0.8 W peak power will actively contribute to extending your battery life on notebooks, as the OCZ drive combines this high efficiency with high performance. Also, a 0.3 W power requirement for delivering a DVD stream is exceptional as well — most other flash SSDs take double the power or even more.

The only flash SSDs that actually beat OCZ (or Samsung) from a performance standpoint are the expensive enterprise-class drives by Mtron and MemoRight.

OCZ’s 64 GB SATAII SSD drive provides high performance at superior energy efficiency and hence receives the Best of Tom’s award, as does the Samsung 64 GB SSD SATA-2, which is the basis for the OCZ product.

Samsung 2.5” 64 GB SSD SATA-2: The Reference

Samsung was one of the first manufacturers that contacted us once we wrote about the flash SSD Hoax. While well-designed flash-based solid state drives are both faster and more efficient than conventional hard drives, the majority of drives available are not (yet). Samsung, in fact, had good reason to submit its latest 64 GB flash SSD to us for review, as it is the only drive that truly combines high performance with amazing efficiency.

We first wrote about OCZ’s 64 GB SATAII SSD in our flash SSD Update instead of the Samsung drive, but mainly because the OCZ product, which is a Samsung white label, arrived at our test lab before the Samsung sample. At the same time, Samsung does not officially sell its Flash SSD at retail, preferring to provide the drives to system builders.

The performance results of the 2.5” 64 GB SSD SATA-2 are very much in line with what we measured for the OCZ 64 GB SATAII SSD, as both are based on the latest Samsung hardware. There is 90 MB/s read and write throughput as well as idle and peak power of 0.2 W and 0.8 W, respectively. I/O performance is acceptable, and application performance is at great levels as well. If you want to get the best flash SSD solution available, this is it.

Samsung’s 64 GB SSD SATA-2 drive provides high performance at superior energy efficiency and, as a result, receives the Best of Tom’s award, along with OCZ’s 64 GB SATAII SSD, which is also based on Samsung hardware.

Silicon Power SSD 128 GB: Big And Slow

Silicon Power may not be the first vendor to come into your mind when thinking of flash SSDs. The brand tries to create a buzz by providing high-capacity flash SSDs such as the test sample we received, which holds an impressive 128 GB.

However, the manufacturer seems to have forgotten to implement some performance, as the drive maxes out at 57 MB/s read throughput and roughly 30 MB/s for writes — both less than what a modern hard drive can deliver. While the 0.4 ms access time is sufficiently quick, power consumption isn’t special either — 0.9 W idle power is below average for a flash SSD, and the only number that pleased us was the peak power of only 1.7 W.

While the drive still does well in the File Write Performance benchmark of PCMark05, it loses ground when it comes to starting Windows XP, which involves locating and providing multiple small files. Since I/O performance isn’t impressive either, the Silicon Power 128 GB flash SSD remains a nice option for medium capacity ultra-portable PC solutions, as it is indeed acceptably efficient. However, don’t expect it to perform particularly fast.

Super Talent Masterdrive MX 60 GB 2.5”: Unbalanced

This drive’s attributes are already well-known, as we looked at it in our last flash SSD analysis. We really like that Super Talent spent some time to find a decent product name that people can actually remember. All the other drives are simply called “flash SSD”, which doesn’t help to separate the wheat from the chaff. This one seems to offer good bang for the buck, although it cannot beat the premium drives from MemoRight, Mtron, OCZ and Samsung.

The Masterdrive MX is an MLC-based flash SSD designed for desktop or notebook applications. It can read at almost 110 MB/s, delivering great performance for desktop users, but it writes at a slow 30 MB/s. The 60 GB capacity is somewhat unusual, but a tribute to the MLC flash memory. The 0.5 ms access time can be considered slow for flash SSDs, but this is in line with the I/O performance: it is superior to a conventional hard drive, but isn’t exciting when compared to other flash SSDs.

The idle and peak power requirements of 1.2 W and 2.2 W aren’t special when compared to 1.0 W and less idle for Hama, MemoRight, OCZ and Samsung, and down to 0.8 W peak for OCZ and Samsung. This drive still provides better efficiency than an average conventional hard drive, but you should not get it in an attempt to improve battery life on your notebook, as you probably will never see that.

Test Setup

Storage Test System (for Low-Level Benchmarks)

Dell Latitude D630 Notebook

Access Time, Interface

Most of the flash SSDs exhibit virtually no access time, with the benchmark returning a 0.1 ms measurement. Some SSDs, though, do have some delay, especially the MLC-based drives by Hama, Silicon Power and Super Talent, which show measurable access times of up to 0.5 ms — five times the speeds of the fastest drives. If you’re looking for server drives you should keep this result in mind, but anyone else can pretty much ignore these and focus on some of the other results.

Interface performance shows the maximum throughput via SATA (or UltraATA/66 in case of the 1.8” Hama drive). This result is not relevant in everyday life, but it allows you to assess the general performance level of a flash SSD. The Samsung and OCZ drives still offer some room for improvement in future product generations.

Read/Write Throughput

There are some drives that we generally would not want to get: we consider 60 MB/s read throughput the minimum that a modern hard drive or equivalent should deliver today, regardless of its other qualities. Efficiency or cost may be reasons to get even slower products, but we consider these individual decisions; you should aim for 80 MB/s and up for a notebook or desktop.

Crucial’s SSD isn’t the best overall drive, but it delivers high throughput. So do the products by Mtron, MemoRight, OCZ, Samsung, Super Talent and the high-speed versions by Hama. While other performance characteristics may vary, read throughput is most important for either a desktop or notebook. Write performance, however, can vary quite a bit.

While Super Talent provides excellent read performance, it cannot maintain its throughput for write operations. The same applies to Crucial’s 2.5” SSD and the Silicon Power 128 GB SSD, which is already slow enough. This is where you can tell SLC and MLC flash apart; the latter cannot store data fast enough. That is not an issue for desktop-type applications, but it’s unacceptable for power users and business environments.

PCMark Application Benchmarks

The Windows XP Startup benchmark of PCMark05 requires both high throughput and quick average access times in order to load multiple small files quickly. MLC-based flash SSD products like the ones from Crucial and Silicon Power lose a lot of ground in this discipline, meaning that they aren’t suitable for varying workloads. Sequential reads is what they do best. On the other hand, the powerful SLC-flash drives by Mtron, Hama, OCZ and Samsung do a great job, as do the MemoRight drives.

The PCMark05 file write benchmark characterizes a drive’s ability to sequentially write files of various sizes. Again, the professional drives do much better than the mainstream MLC armada by Crucial, Hama, Silicon Power and Super Talent.

I/O Performance Results

MemoRight is the clear I/O benchmark winner. The MR25.2 series is the fastest drive option if you want maximum I/O operations per second.

Workstation Performance And Efficiency

Please note that we could not run all drives on our test notebook, a Dell Latitude D630, for the following efficiency tests.

We looked at how many workstation-type I/O operations the drives could provide. As expected from the low-level results, Hama, MemoRight, Mtron and Samsung/OCZ do best. But what’s the average power requirement to deliver this performance (80% read, 20% write and 80% random with 20% sequential access)?

As seen in our prior article, Samsung and OCZ require the least power to deliver their I/O operations per second: an average power of 1.0 W is just excellent. This would also apply to the Sandisk drive, though it doesn’t perform as well as the two others. The 1.8” Hama drive is based on an UltraATA/66 interface, which is more efficient, but doesn’t provide the bandwidth to reach a good I/O performance per watt result. Let’s see the final scores:

Once we relate I/O operations per seconds to the average power in watts, Samsung/OCZ does best.

Streaming Read Performance And Efficiency

The following test works like the workstation I/O efficiency test, but applying a sequential read profile that utilizes 64, 128 and 256 kB blocks. As expected, it’s the MLC-based flash drives that mostly dominate this benchmark, due to their high sequential throughput:

The MLC drives (Crucial, Super Talent) are also the ones that show the highest average power requirement when working at maximum throughput.

Once again, the balanced SLC flash SSDs by Samsung and OCZ dominate the benchmark, as they combine high performance (though not maximum performance) with impressive power efficiency.

Avg. Power at DVD Playback

Finally, we looked at the power requirements of the flash SSDs when delivering a defined data stream. We used a DVD .vob file and played back the video to create this defined data stream:

Again we see Samsung and OCZ dominating. The other drives all require clearly more power when they have to provide only the limited bandwidth required to play a DVD video.

Idle, Peak Power

We don’t want to forget the results of our idle and peak power measurements. We measured peak power across all the benchmarks above, and took the largest result we found.

Lowest Idle Power

In an effort to determine the lowest active idle power, we disabled all Windows power saving options and had the drives idle for about ten minutes before we tracked the power consumption numbers. Some drives, especially conventional hard drives, have advanced power saving features that won’t kick in after several minutes of inactivity.

Conclusion: Recommending Samsung

Having looked at 14 flash SSD products, we found that the market can currently be segmented into three different sections, which can or cannot be recommended, depending on your budget and requirements:

1. High Performance

The flash SSDs based on single-level cell (SLC) flash by MemoRight and Mtron belong to this category. The two manufacturers build drives that are designed to deliver the best performance, regardless of other characteristics. MemoRight dominates the I/O benchmark section, which is important for servers, while Mtron’s Pro 7500 series is an excellent flash SSD for workstations. None of them are particularly efficient, and all are very expensive at $1,000 and up for only 32 GB.

2. Consumer / Mainstream

Most of the flash SSDs in our roundup have to go in this category, including Crucial, Hama, Silicon Power and Super Talent. Most of these drives are based on multi-level cell (MLC) flash and most are also, I’m sorry to say, not really that special. Crucial and Super Talent offer amazing read throughput. Silicon Power actually ships capacities of up to 128 GB, but its performance disappointed. The advantages of a consumer SSD over a conventional hard drives are there, but they aren’t as impressive as we’d like to see. We’d only go for such a product if the price were exceptional; everyone else should stick with their magnetic hard drives a little longer.

3. Premium Consumer

This category currently holds only a single drive: the Samsung 64 GB SSD SATA-2, which is also available from OCZ as the 64 GB SATAII SSD. For those who want it all — high performance and high efficiency — this product is it. No other SATA-based flash SSD shows such low power requirements in idle and when active, and no other flash SSD provides balanced performance across all benchmarks. We hope that more flash SSD products will follow in this category, because only these drives are worth the cost. Samsung’s 64 GB SSD SATA-2 and the OCZ 64 GB SATAII SSD receive the Best of Tom’s award in the hard drive category.