- Obtained from: AliExpress
- Price paid: $3.52
- Advertised capacity: 32GB
- Logical capacity: 31,457,280,000 bytes
- Physical capacity: 31,457,280,000 bytes
- Fake/skimpy flash: Skimpy (1.70% skimp)
- Protected area: 83,886,080 bytes (inaccessible)
- Speed class markings: Class 10, U1, A1
- CID data:
- Manufacturer ID:
0xfe - OEM ID:
0x3432(ASCII:42) - Product name:
0x5344313647(ASCII:SD16G) - Product revision:
0x20 - Manufacture date: Jul 2023
- Manufacturer ID:
| Sample # | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serial number | 0x00000ba2 | 0x00000bb4 | 0x00000b9e | N/A |
| Sequential read speed (MB/sec) | 83.17 | 37.08 | 40.36 | 53.54 |
| Sequential write speed (MB/sec) | 23.14 | 23.75 | 23.22 | 23.37 |
| Random read speed (IOPS/sec) | 495.66 | 719.31 | 540.54 | 585.17 |
| Random write speed (IOPS/sec) | 174.86 | 143.62 | 150.28 | 156.25 |
| Read/write cycles to first error | 2,077 | 1,516 | 875 | 1,489 |
| Read/write cycles to complete failure | 2,188 | 2,279 | 3,616 | 2,694 |
| Total days to complete failure | 142 | 89 | 172 | 134 |
| Card reader used | SmartQ Duo | JJS CR-UTC4AC | JJS CR-UTC4AC | N/A |
| Package front | Not available |  |  | N/A |
| Package back | Not available | Not available | Not available | N/A |
| Card front |  |  |  | N/A |
| Card back |  |  |  | N/A |
Discussion
This card was unusual in the fact that it did not come in a retail package — instead, it came in a simple plastic case.
All three samples performed well enough on the performance tests to qualify for the Class 10 and U1 markings; however, none of them performed well enough to qualify for the A1 marking. As we’ve established previously, my tests don’t conform to the tests described in the SD Physical Layer Specification — so maybe these cards would have performed better under the right conditions…but somehow I doubt it (especially seeing as how I have other cards that did perform well enough to qualify for the A1 marking).
On the endurance front:
Sample #1 did make it past the 2,000 read/write cycle mark without encountering any errors — but just barely. Its track record was pretty boring — but here it is:
Like I said, it’s pretty boring: nothing happens until round 2,077 — where barely anything happens — and then nothing happens for another 100 rounds or so before the card becomes unresponsive.
Sample #2 encountered its first error after 1,516 read/write cycles. I finally declared it dead at the end of round 2,279, when the number of bad sectors reached the 50% threshold. Here’s what its progress graph looked like:
Sample #3 experienced its first error during round 876. I don’t know the nature of the error, but it affected over 5% of the sectors on the device in one round — but by the next round, those same sectors did not experience any errors. It continued to experience data verification failures over the next 2,700 or so read/write cycles; it was finally declared “dead” once 50% of the sectors on the card had experience data verification failures. Here’s what the graph of this sample’s progression looked like:
My conclusion: eh. These weren’t the worst performers in my collection, but it sure seemed like they were for a while. There are better options out there for the money.
July 5, 2024