Chuxia 32GB

• Obtained from: AliExpress
• Price paid: $5.78
• Advertised capacity: 32GB
• Logical capacity: 31,719,424,000 bytes
• Physical capacity: 31,719,424,000 bytes
• Fake/skimpy flash: Skimpy (0.88% skimp)
• Protected area: 83,886,080 bytes
• Adjusted skimp: 0.61%
• Speed class markings: Class 10, U1, V10, A1
• CID data:
  • Manufacturer ID: 0xad
  • OEM ID: 0x4c53 (ASCII: LS)
  • Product name: 0x5553443030 (ASCII: USD00)
  • Product revision: 0x10
  • Manufacture date: Apr 2023

Sample #	1	2	3	Average
Serial number	0x43850827	0x43731a75	0x43320716	N/A
Sequential read speed (MB/sec)	51.89	79.66	30.59	54.05
Sequential write speed (MB/sec)	17.96	23.25	18.02	19.74
Random read speed (IOPS/sec)	556.66	4,429.84	444.00	1,810.17
Random write speed (IOPS/sec)	703.03	1,000.08	574.58	759.23
Read/write cycles to first error	1,383	4,338	113	1,945
Read/write cycles to 0.1% failure threshold	2,093	Not yet determined	4,436	3,265
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	SmartQ Duo	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

Chuxia is another brand that took a little bit more digging to find, but caught my attention because of its original design.

I’m honestly not sure why I got such wildly different results between the different samples, especially on the random read test. If the random read speed for sample #2 is accurate, it would be the highest random read speed of any card I’ve tested so far. However, the fact that the other two performed so terribly in comparison makes me think that this was a fluke. The CID registers on all three samples were identical (except for the serial number), so I don’t think sample #2’s results could easily be attributed to a different model or different manufacturer. If you include Sample #2’s figures, this card performed average in random read speeds. If you exclude them, this card performed well below average (by more than one standard deviation). Either way you look at it, the card performed below average on sequential read and sequential write speeds, and well above average (more than one standard deviation) on random write speeds. All three performed well enough to qualify for the Class 10, U1, and V10 markings; however, only sample #2 performed well enough for the A1 marking.

All three samples are still undergoing endurance testing; however, the results so far were not too great, with two of the three experiencing errors before hitting the 2,000 read/write cycle mark:

• Sample #1’s first error was four-sector wide corrupted data error during round 1,384. It has survived 13,427 read/write cycles in total so far.
• Sample #2 is the only one that made it past the 2,000 read/write cycle mark without errors. It had its first error — which was a series discontiguous corrupted data errors — during round 4,339. It has survived 13,928 read/write cycles in total so far.
• Sample #3’s first error was a six-sector wide address decoding error during round 114. It was doing quite well until round 4,437, when it decided to return repeating sequences of  00 00 06 00 in every sector. (Funnily enough, this pattern repeated throughout each sector, except for the last 16 bytes of each sector — which were all 00‘s).

My conclusion: eh. These cards aren’t the greatest performers. They’re not the worst performers by far — but there are better options out there for the money.

November 4, 2024 (current number of read/write cycles is updated automatically every hour)