- Obtained from: AliExpress
- Price paid: $1.99
- Advertised capacity: 64GB
- Protected area: 134,217,728 bytes
- Speed class markings: C10, U1
- CID data:
- OEM ID:
0x0303 - Product revision:
0x10
- OEM ID:
| Sample # | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logical capacity | 62,929,764,352 bytes | 62,929,764,352 bytes | 62,534,975,488 bytes | 62,798,168,064 bytes |
| Physical capacity | 62,929,764,352 bytes | 62,929,764,352 bytes | 62,534,975,488 bytes | 62,798,168,064 bytes |
| Fake/skimpy flash | Skimpy (1.67% skimp) | Skimpy (1.67% skimp) | Skimpy (2.29% skimp) | Skimpy (1.88% skimp) |
| Adjusted skimp | 1.46% | 1.46% | 2.08% | 1.67% |
| Manufacturer ID | 0x6f | 0x6f | 0x89 | N/A |
| Product name | 0x5344414243 (ASCII: SDABC) | 0x5344414243 (ASCII: SDABC) | 0x4e43617264 (ASCII: NCard) | N/A |
| Manufacture date | Sep 2023 | Sep 2023 | Sep 2023 | N/A |
| Serial number | 0xaa000167 | 0xaa00015c | 0xe8ffff06 | N/A |
| Sequential read speed (MB/sec) | 83.65 | 61.66 | 4.58 | 49.96 |
| Sequential write speed (MB/sec) | 25.78 | 28.22 | 5.64 | 19.88 |
| Random read speed (IOPS/sec) | 1,578.14 | 1,570.08 | 126.80 | 1,091.67 |
| Random write speed (IOPS/sec) | 11.72 | 16.57 | 199.26 | 75.85 |
| Read/write cycles to first error | 2,257 | Not yet determined | 3 | 1,130 |
| Read/write cycles to 0.1% failure threshold | Not yet determined | Not yet determined | 1,803 | 1,803 |
| Read/write cycles to complete failure | Not yet determined | Not yet determined | Not yet determined | Not yet determined |
| Total days to complete failure | Not yet determined | Not yet determined | Not yet determined | Not yet determined |
| 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
As I mentioned with the Netac PRO 16GB (below), Netac has the rare distinction of being the first card I’ve come across that was significantly bigger than what was advertised. It wasn’t a card that was part of this survey — it was an 8GB card that came with one of my 3D printers, and it turned out to be a 16GB card that was simply partitioned with a single 8GB partition. The fact that I purchased these cards simply reflected my curiosity to see if I could make this happen again (although admittedly, the chances of a manufacturer disguising a 128GB card as a 64GB card are pretty low — but then again, the chances of a manufacturer disguising a 16GB card as an 8GB card are pretty low too, but it would be less expensive to do so). However, this turned into another case study of what happens when you source your microSD cards from multiple manufacturers.
There seems to be a pretty clear difference between samples #1 and #2 and sample #3. The first obvious difference is the back of the package: samples #1 and #2 have a wealth of information, including a seal of authenticity, on the back of the package. However, on sample #3, stickers have been used to cover up all of this information. While the normal product packaging has text that is mostly in Chinese, one of the stickers has text that is completely in English — including a FCC Part 15 disclaimer, the manufacturer’s name and address, and the name and address of the UK and European distributors. This suggests to me that they might have intended to prepare this card for sale in English-speaking regions, including the US and the EU.
The next difference is the difference in the card artwork. Samples #1 and #2 have artwork that is a little darker than sample #3 — although it’s hard to tell from the pictures because samples #1 and #2 have a little bit of color correction applied to them.
The next difference comes when the card is plugged in: samples #1 and #2 have a different manufacturer ID and product name than sample #3. Samples #1 and #2 have a manufacturer ID of 0x6f and a product name of SDABC, while sample #3 has a manufacturer ID of 0x89 and a product name of NCard…wait a second — I’ve seen this before. This is exactly what sample #1 of the Netac PRO 16GB (below) showed after it failed! I’m so confused now. Did sample #3 really come from a different manufacturer, or did it simply come from a manufacturer that has more than one manufacturer ID assigned to them? If they came from different manufacturers, then what’s going on with sample #1 of the Netac PRO 16GB? Did the manufacturer spoof another manufacturer’s manufacturer ID???
Well at any rate, let’s move on to the next obvious difference: performance. There was a definite difference in performance between samples #1 and #2 and sample #3. None of them did particularly well — especially in random I/O speeds — but sample #3 set some new lows: 0th percentile for sequential read speed, 2nd percentile for sequential write speeds, 0th percentile for random read speeds, and 26th percentile for random write speeds. Sequential read speeds, sequential write speeds, and random read speeds were all more than one standard deviation below average. The other two samples fared a little better, but were still pretty terrible: the best single measurement was the sequential write speed from sample #2, and that only put it into the 50th percentile in that category.
Finally, let’s move on to endurance: sample #3 also experienced its first error earlier than the other two. All three are still undergoing endurance testing:
- Sample #1’s first error was a single bit flip, in a single sector, during round 2,258. It has survived 3,603 read/write cycles in total so far.
- Sample #2 has survived 3,603 read/write cycles and has not yet experienced any errors.
- Sample #3’s first error was a series of bit flip errors affecting 1,450 sectors during round 4. It has survived 1,899 read/write cycles in total so far.
January 3, 2025 (current number of read/write cycles is updated automatically every hour)