Hiksemi NEO 128GB

  • Obtained from: AliExpress
  • Advertised capacity: 128GB
  • Logical capacity: 125,085,155,328 bytes
  • Physical capacity: 125,085,155,328 bytes
  • Fake/skimpy flash: Skimpy (2.28% skimp)
  • Protected area: 134,217,728 bytes
  • Adjusted skimp: 2.17%
  • Speed class markings: V30
  • CID data:
    • Manufacturer ID: 0x6f
    • OEM ID: 0x0305
    • Product name: 0x455a534431 (ASCII: EZSD1)
    • Product revision: 0x10
Sample #123Average
Price paid$3.89$3.89$7.01$4.93
Serial number0xaa005ac10xaa00b8530xaa00b386N/A
Manufacture dateFeb 2023Feb 2023Feb 2023N/A
Sequential read speed (MB/sec)79.2491.2690.0586.85
Sequential write speed (MB/sec)50.7551.0350.1150.63
Random read speed (IOPS/sec)2087.431782.331906.431925.40
Random write speed (IOPS/sec)438.58431.70463.22444.50
Read/write cycles to first error2,272109514965
Read/write cycles to complete failureNot yet determinedNot yet determinedNot yet determinedNot yet determined
Total days to complete failureNot yet determinedNot yet determinedNot yet determinedNot yet determined
Card reader usedPlatinum PT-CRSA1JJS CR-UTC4ACJJS CR-UTC4ACN/A
Package frontN/A
Package backN/A
Card frontN/A
Card backN/A


After being initially impressed by the Hiksemi NEO 8GB, I went back to see what other options Hiksemi had available. I must have caught the 128GB while it was on sale (or mispriced), because they were priced at only $1.74 before shipping. Even after shipping, these cards are still an excellent value, coming out to just over 3 cents per gigabyte. The only reason why sample #3 was more expensive is because I gave one to a friend, then went back and re-ordered a replacement; the price had gone up in the meantime.

On the performance front, this is another instance where it feels like Hiksemi undersold the performance of their cards; both samples I’ve tested so far easily surpassed the benchmark for the only performance mark that they bore, the V30 mark. Sequential write speeds on all three samples were more than one standard deviation above the average, putting them in the 85th percentile.

All three samples are still undergoing endurance testing. These cards will obviously take longer to complete their endurance test given their size relative to the others in the survey — they are averaging about 4-8 read/write cycles per day.

  • Sample #1’s first error was a four-sector wide address decoding error during round 2,273; it has endured 2,412 read/write cycles in total so far.
  • Sample #2 experienced a two-sector wide data verification error during round 110; it has survived 1,359 read/write cycles in total so far and has not experienced any further errors since then.
  • Sample #3’s first error was an 8-sector wide data verification error during round 515. It has survived 700 read/write cycles in total so far.

I’m a little disappointed that these cards didn’t fare quite as well on endurance tests as their smaller siblings — it looks like, in these cards at least, endurance was more a factor of time rather than read/write cycles. But overall, I feel like Hiksemi has been an unexpected standout among the cards I’ve tested. They’re priced very competitively, and perform as well as — or even better than — many of their name-brand competitors.

June 9, 2024

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *