- Obtained from: Amazon
- Price paid: $13.99
- Advertised capacity: 128GB
- Logical capacity: 124,383,133,696 bytes
- Physical capacity: 124,383,133,696 bytes
- Fake/skimpy flash: Skimpy (2.83% skimp)
- Protected area: 134,217,728 bytes
- Adjusted skimp: 2.72%
- Speed class markings: U3, V30, A1
- CID data:
- Manufacturer ID:
0x9f - OEM ID:
0x5449(ASCII:TI) - Product name:
0x5350434320(ASCII:SPCC) - Product revision:
0x10
- Manufacturer ID:
| Sample # | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serial number | 0x85540984 | 0xa55408ae | Not yet tested | N/A |
| Manufacture date | Jun 2024 | Jun 2024 | Not yet tested | N/A |
| Sequential read speed (MB/sec) | 91.41 | 91.41 | Not yet tested | 91.41 |
| Sequential write speed (MB/sec) | 33.19 | 30.40 | Not yet tested | 31,80 |
| Random read speed (IOPS/sec) | 2,597.13 | 2,515.51 | Not yet tested | 2,556.32 |
| Random write speed (IOPS/sec) | 278.89 | 291.27 | Not yet tested | 285.02 |
| Read/write cycles to first error | 2,788 | Not yet determined | Not yet tested | 2,788 |
| Read/write cycles to 0.1% failure threshold | 3,882 | Not yet determined | Not yet tested | 3,882 |
| Read/write cycles to complete failure | 3,882 | Not yet determined | Not yet tested | 3,882 |
| Total days to complete failure | 275 | Not yet determined | Not yet tested | 275 |
| Card reader used | JJC CR-UTC4AC | JJC CR-UTC4AC | Not yet tested | N/A |
| Package front |  |  | Not yet tested | N/A |
| Package back |  |  | Not yet tested | N/A |
| Card front |  |  | Not yet tested | N/A |
| Card back |  |  | Not yet tested | N/A |
Discussion
After the somewhat disappointing endurance test results on the SP Elites, I wanted to see if the issue was more to do with 3D NAND in general, or if it was more to do with SP as a brand — so I picked up some (what turned out to be) SP Superior’s and SP Superior Pro’s.
Offhand, the CID information would seem to indicate that these are just a minor variant of the SP Superior’s — although it’s odd that the product revision went down for this version instead of up. The size is exactly the same, and the performance between the two is pretty similar — only a few MB/sec difference in sequential I/O speeds. Random read speeds are pretty good — putting it over the 80th percentile (as of this writing) — but the other scores are nothing to write home about. But…all of this is just based on one sample. Perhaps the other two samples will fare better.
On the endurance testing front:
- Sample #1’s first error was a series of bit flips, affecting 388 sectors, during round 2,789. It was chugging along quite happily until it got to round 3,883 — with only only about 0.07% of the sectors on the card having been flagged as bad — when it suddenly decided to make itself read-only. At this point, I declared the endurance test to be over.
- Sample #2 has not yet reached the 2,000 read/write cycle mark; it’s too early to tell when it will get there.
- Sample #3 is still in the package, waiting to be tested.
May 24, 2025