Device Features and Characteristics

A quick overview of the internal capabilities of the storage devices is given by CrystalDiskInfo. The drive information doesn't change based on the host. This also serves to verify that S.M.A.R.T access (and despite not being mentioned explicitly, TRIM support also) is available irrespective of the port that the drives connect to.

Drive Information

CrystalDiskInfo confirms the internal SSDs being used in the WD_BLACK P50 and the SanDisk Extreme PRO Portable SSD v2 to be the SN750E and SN730E respectively. Prior to looking at the usage characteristics of the various drives, it is helpful to compare their specifications and also take a look at the internals.

Direct-Attached Storage Characteristics
Aspect
Upstream Port USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Type-C USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Type-C
Bridge / Controller ASMedia ASM2364
SanDisk 20-82-007011
ASMedia ASM2364
SanDisk 20-82-007011
Flash SanDisk BiCS 4 96L 3D TLC SanDisk BiCS 3 64L 3D TLC
Power Bus Powered Bus Powered
     
Physical Dimensions 57.34 mm x 110.26 mm x 10.22 mm 62 mm x 118 mm x 14 mm
IP Rating IP55 N/A
Weight 85 grams (without cable) 115 grams (without cable)
Cable USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Type-C to Type-C
USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C to Type-A
(30cm each)
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Type-C to Type-C
USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C to Type-A
(30cm each)
     
S.M.A.R.T Passthrough Yes Yes
UASP Support Yes Yes
TRIM Passthrough Yes Yes
Encryption Support Hardware (SanDisk SecureAccess App) N/A

The key difference is that our review samples have a SN750-class NVMe SSD equipped with 64L 3D TLC in the WD_BLACK P50, and 96L 3D TLC in the SanDisk Extreme PRO v2. The former doesn't have hardware encryption enabled (and even software encryption with the WD Security app is not available). The latter uses the SanDisk SecureAccess App to activate the hardware encryption.

The teardown galleries above shows the significant amount of thermal design in both drives. The presence of the ASMedia ASM2364 bridge chip in both drives is also confirmed. The SanDisk Extreme PRO has a significant chunk of aluminum directly in touch with the thermal pad / covering for the heat-generating components of the internal boards. A clasp is also seen on the Type-C port to help achieve the IP55 rating. In contrast, the WD_BLACK P50 appears over-engineered with a large number of thermal pads, a separate aluminum heat-sink, and a thermal pad on top of that heat sink. Since the underside of the P50 is plastic, a metal flap is also placed between it and the internal SSD assembly. Overall, the thermal design appears fairly effective, and its evaluation report is provided in a subsequent section.

Testbed Travails Synthetic Benchmarks - ATTO and CrystalDiskMark
Comments Locked

81 Comments

View All Comments

  • six_tymes - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    spot on. thank you for posting truths.
  • vol.2 - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    When I read it, it sounded like the issue was with USB 3.X devices operating on a USB4.0 chipset. My assumption, and I don't think it was explicitly addressed, is that USB4.0 would be "full speed" per it's own specs. Of course, it wasn't explicitly addressed (from what I took away from this), so I phrased my comment as a question; "So wait for USB4 devices then?"
  • repoman27 - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    You’re reading is pretty much on the money, but the answer to your question is a bit trickier.

    The first USB4 hosts to hit the market will (probably) be Intel Tiger Lake based products which have integrated Thunderbolt 4 and support USB4 40Gbps. The USB4 spec requires backwards compatibility with USB 3.2, including both the Gen 1 (5Gbps) and Gen 2 (10Gbps) PHYs. It does not, however, require USB3 dual-lane operation (Gen 2x2, 20Gbps), and Intel has not included this optional feature in the controller integrated into Tiger Lake CPUs.

    If Intel doesn’t have any plans for integrated USB 3.2 20Gbps, I fail to see how it becomes widespread, unless Apple and AMD both embrace it in their future chipsets. On the other hand, USB 3.2 devices are probably always going to be cheaper than Thunderbolt or USB4 gear. Paying the premium for a USB 3.2 20Gbps device today is somewhat questionable, unless you have a capable host or the performance difference compared to other products when connected to a 10Gbps port is worth it to you.
  • magreen - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    Why will USB3.2 20Gbps devices always be cheaper than USB43 gear? It seems likely USB3.2 20 Gbps will be a niche product and without being produced in high volume, street price won't come down. USB4 might be initially expensive, but volume production and competition may bring street prices down to what we see today for USB3.2 Gen 1 5Gbps devices.
  • repoman27 - Monday, October 5, 2020 - link

    Because USB4 is essentially Thunderbolt, but even more complicated. It will always take way more silicon and way more power than USB3 on the same node. Thus it’s never going to be as cheap. Economies of scale can’t solve everything.
  • vol.2 - Thursday, October 8, 2020 - link

    Sounds about right. I don't have a sudden need for USB 3.2 dual lane. It seems like the best case for more parties to forgo support for it altogether and push USB 4.0. On a related note, USB 3.X has always been very buggy and unstable/unreliable for me, so hopefully 4.X fixes some of that.
  • Meteor2 - Monday, October 26, 2020 - link

    Not if you plug a USB4-20Gbps or a USB4-40Gbps SSD into them.
  • YB1064 - Tuesday, October 6, 2020 - link

    Why is the ASM2364 winning in every scenario compared to Thunderbolt, if TB offers higher bandwidth? Am I reading this incorrectly?

    WTF is this godawful nomenclature dumpster fire??? The idiots on the USB standards committee need to be flogged with extreme prejudice.
  • repoman27 - Tuesday, October 6, 2020 - link

    The ASMedia ASM2364 is the PCIe NVMe to USB3 20Gbps bridge chip used by the devices being tested for this review.

    The ASMedia ASM3242 is the USB3 20Gbps host controller that was used for testing these USB3 20Gbps drives.

    The Intel JHL6540 is a Thunderbolt controller which includes an integrated USB3 10Gbps host controller for interoperability with USB3 devices. This was used to test these USB3 drives while connected to a USB3 10Gbps host. The ASM3242 is winning because it supports twice the USB3 signaling rate as the JHL6540.

    When connected to a Thunderbolt 3 device, the JHL6540 supports up to 40 Gbit/s. In some of the tests, the ASM3242 card was actually plugged into a Thunderbolt 3 enclosure and connected to the host PC via the JHL6540.
  • Googer - Tuesday, October 6, 2020 - link

    It's kind of sad to think that USB is now faster than SATA. Will there ever be a SATA 4 for SSD and future bulk storage technologies?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now