- Obtained from: AliExpress
- Price paid: $6.62
- Advertised capacity: 1TB
- Logical capacity: 1,072,694,296,576 bytes
- Physical capacity: 29,943,033,344 bytes
- Fake/skimpy flash: Fake flash
- Protected area: 0 bytes
- Speed class markings: U3, V30, A2
- CID data:
- Manufacturer ID:
0x00 - OEM ID:
0x0000 - Product name:
0x4150505344(ASCII:APPSD) - Product revision:
0x00
- Manufacturer ID:
| Card # | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacture date | Apr 2014 | Apr 2014 | Apr 2014 | N/A |
| Serial number | 0x12800006 | 0x12800007 | 0x12800000 | N/A |
| Sequential read speed (MB/sec) | 16.71 | 16.78 | 16.62 | 16.70 |
| Sequential write speed (MB/sec) | 15.33 | 14.33 | 10.27 | 13.31 |
| Random read speed (IOPS/sec) | 415.03 | 1,123.40 | 1,089.49 | 875.97 |
| Random write speed (IOPS/sec) | 9.94 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 3.60 |
| Read/write cycles to first error | 41 | 662 | 23 | 242 |
| Read/write cycles to 0.1% failure threshold | 656 | 763 | 1,459 | 959 |
| Read/write cycles to complete failure | 1,283 | 783 | 1,938 | 1,335 |
| Total days to complete failure | 98 | 80 | 189 | 122 |
| Card reader used | JJC CR-UTC4AC | JJC CR-UTC4AC | JJC CR-UTC4AC | N/A |
| Package front |  |  |  | N/A |
| Package back |  |  |  | N/A |
| Card front |  |  |  | N/A |
| Card back |  |  |  | N/A |
Discussion
There’s not much to say about this card that is going to be different than the 128GB version. Like its smaller sibling, this card was disappointing at best.
Performance metrics were well below average and were only marginally better than the 128GB version — and, like the 128GB version, were not good enough to merit any of the performance marks that it carried.
Like many of the low-quality cards I’ve tested, sample #1 started experiencing errors after only a few read/write cycles, and the number of errors only increased as time went on. It was declared dead after 50% of its sectors had been flagged as bad. Here’s what the graph of this card’s progression looked like:
Sample #2’s first error was a data loss error during round 663. It continued to progressively degrade until it got to just shy of the 10% failure mark, at which point it stopped responding to commands. Here’s what the graph of this card’s progression looked like:
Sample #3’s first error was a 32-sector wide data loss error during round 24. It survived a total of 1,938 read/write cycles before it crossed the 50% failure threshold (though it took a number of manual resets to convince it to keep working up to that point — which is part of the reason why it lasted longer than the other two samples). Here’s the graph of this card’s progression:
So — my overall conclusion? They’re fake flash, they performed below average in every metric, and they couldn’t go more than a few hundred read/write cycles before showing issues. They’re trash; don’t buy them.
November 4, 2024