Samsung EVO Plus 64GB

  • Obtained from: AliExpress
  • Price paid: $3.99
  • Advertised capacity: 64GB
  • Logical capacity: 64,088,965,120 bytes
  • Physical capacity: 64,088,965,120 bytes
  • Fake/skimpy flash: No
  • Protected area: 134,217,728 bytes (inaccessible)
  • Speed class markings: Class 10*, U1, V10, A1
  • CID data:
    • Manufacturer ID: 0x1b**
    • OEM ID: 0x534d (ASCII: SM)**
    • Product name: 0x4543315335 (ASCII: EC1S5)
    • Product revision: 0x30
Sample #123Average
Manufacture dateJul 2023Jul 2023Jul 2023N/A
Serial number0x09a55f260x09d05fcd0x09ad5f7aN/A
Sequential read speed (MB/sec)150.44151.46147.92149.94
Sequential write speed (MB/sec)27.2027.0527.0627.10
Random read speed (MB/sec)2,913.702,917.732,918.012,916.48
Random write speed (MB/sec)446.07486.34469.78467.40
Read/write cycles to first errorNot yet determined72400
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 usedJJS CR-UTC4ACJJS CR-UTC4ACJJS CR-UTC4ACN/A
Package frontN/A
Package backN/A
Card frontN/A
Card backN/A

* The Class 10 mark appears on the package, but does not appear on the card itself.

** This manufacturer ID/OEM ID combination is pretty well known to be associated with Samsung.

Discussion

I’m not 100% sure why I decided to buy these. I think that it might have been because of the sale that AliExpress was running on these, and I figured that it might make a good substitute for having three of the EVO Plus 32GB’s (before I decided to buy two more of them). Regardless, it looks like Samsung has phased out the particular version of the EVO Plus that I had previously purchased in favor of this version.

With a skimp rating of -0.14%, Samsung continued their reputation here of being one of the only name-brands that has not skimped on storage space.

The package advertises that this card gets transfer speeds of “up to 130MB/s”. Of course, it doesn’t specify whether that’s referring to read speeds or write speeds, but I think it’s pretty obvious (to me, at least) that it’s referring to read speeds. It managed to meet that expectation — and even go a little bit beyond it. All three had sequential read speeds that came just shy of two standard deviations above average. Random read scores were more than one standard deviation above average, and random write scores were above average. Sequential write scores, however, were slightly below average. These metrics are good enough for the U1 and V10 marks that it carries — and the Class 10 mark on the package — but not quite good enough for the A1 mark (as that requires a random write speed of at least 500 writes per second). Perhaps they would have met the mark had they been tested under the right conditions. I’m curious to see how the other two samples will perform.

Endurance tests for all three cards is still ongoing:

  • Sample #1 has not yet reached the 2,000 read/write cycle mark; it is expected to reach this point in late June 2024.
  • Sample #2’s first error was a four-sector wide address decoding error during round 725; it has survived 1,242 read/write cycles so far.
  • Sample #3 experienced a 6,400-sector wide data verification error during its very first round of endurance testing. It has survived 1,218 read/write cycles so far.

June 9, 2024

Leave a Reply

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