Hiksemi NEO 32GB

  • Obtained from: AliExpress
  • Logical capacity: 31,271,157,760 bytes
  • Physical capacity: 31,271,157,760 bytes
  • Fake/skimpy flash: Skimpy (2.28% skimp)
  • Protected area: 134,217,728 bytes
  • Adjusted skimp: 1.86%
  • Speed class markings: V10
  • CID data:
    • Manufacturer ID: 0x6f
    • OEM ID: 0x0305
    • Product name: 0x455a534431 (ASCII: EZSD1)
    • Product revision: 0x10
Sample #123Average
Obtained fromAliExpressAliExpressAliExpressN/A
Price paid$1.93$1.93$6.61$3.49
Manufacture dateApr 2023Apr 2023Mar 2023N/A
Serial number0xaa03c26c0xaa020f880xaa021111N/A
Sequential read speed (MB/sec)89.2090.8590.2890.11
Sequential write speed (MB/sec)27.1038.6122.5529.42
Random read speed (IOPS/sec)2,001.521,790.341,878.151,890.00
Random write speed (IOPS/sec)402.03360.17374.97379.06
Read/write cycles to first error7,9401,9391,3924,230
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 usedSmartQ SingleJJS CR-UTC4ACJJS CR-UTC4ACN/A
Package frontN/A
Package backNot availableN/A
Card frontNot availableN/A
Card backNot availableN/A

Discussion

While not quite as impressive as their smaller siblings, these cards are still pretty impressive overall. Their main disadvantage is that they did markedly worse on sequential write speeds, coming out just “average” in this category. Initially, I only ordered two — for the simple reason that, at the time, AliExpress would only let me order two. I went back and ordered a third after I made the decision to try to test at least 3 samples of each model.

All three samples are currently undergoing endurance testing:

  • Sample #1 was initially plugged into a SmartQ Single reader. As I noted earlier, I’ve had problems with these readers randomly failing every few days — and this one was no exception. I have code to allow the program to wait for the device to be reconnected and resume the endurance test; however, it took me a while to get the code right. This card did technically suffer some data verification errors, but I chalked them up to cached write losses because of this issue. Its first legitimate error was a four-sector wide address decoding error that occurred during round 7,941. As of this writing, it has completed 8,786 read/write cycles in total.
  • Sample #2 just barely missed the 2,000 read/write cycle mark — it experienced a 64-sector wide data verification error during round 1,940. It has endured 3,811 read/write cycles in total so far.
  • Sample #3’s first error was a four-sector wide address decoding error during round 1,324. It has survived 2,265 read/write cycles so far.

Overall, would I buy these cards again? Maybe. They’re definitely not a bad card — they scored about on par with the SanDisk Ultra 32GB (except for random read speeds, where the SanDisk Ultra performed about twice as well), they endured better, and they’re priced about the same — so if you’re trying to choose between the two, I think it just depends on whether endurance or random read speeds are more important to you.

June 9, 2024

Leave a Reply

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