Review on 📁 UGREEN 2.5" USB C 3.1 Gen 2 Hard Drive Enclosure for SSD HDD 9.5 7mm - SATA III 6Gbps External Disk Case w/ UASP, Compatible with WD Seagate Toshiba Samsung Hitachi, PS4 Xbox, Router by Kyle Pickett

Another cheap SATA III interpreter, nothing special. This is the average price; These types of modules are very cheap when bought separately (that's the important part anyway). The rest is just a cast polymer, trivial in almost every way. However, I give it a build/design score of 9/10. I haven't tested a 3D NAND SSD yet, I don't have any spares to use. I was able to fill a few drives, which is a fair test for fake/fake I/O controllers. Read on for my perspective and anecdote. However, with I/O modules like this, a simple raw I/O test would max out the controller to the point of a buffer overflow, culminating at only around 320 Mbit/s (bits, not bytes). Again, these were cheap I/O controller clones of this product, which to me is just ridiculous considering the "scammers" probably saved about 10 cents per unit by limiting USB 2.0 bandwidth at best to have. My point is that counterfeit boards are common on so many East Asian mass production platforms, some of them are simply reverse engineered and produced even more slowly, requiring more work than just illegally copying an existing design in various ways. The difference is that you have to be careful about confusing counterfeit parts. There's a good chance someone will enjoy good reviews and a reputation for being a legitimate part. There are some variables that resellers cannot account for. like your type (brand/model/spec) of drive you're using and especially user behavior, and that's a BIG one. In many contract jobs, in classes with some students, everywhere there are always a few users kicking the crap out of their storage devices in various ways and then claiming it's a design flaw. Examples: throughput issues on a disk with disk fragmentation, misunderstanding how write modes work (sequential, random), complete misunderstanding of how different file systems work, complete misunderstanding of concepts like performance vs. efficiency vs. reliability between file systems and their type/format/sector size. When I have time and a spare SATA SSD I'll run some more I/O tests and post the results here. I expect this to be in the upper mid-range, at around 5500 Mbps. For comparison, and yes I know it's not an exact match, I have an external USB-C NVMe I built that includes a fairly new WD Black NVMe and I don't have any I/O saturation issues, very much , very close to 10Gbps on 3.1 port or Type-C to Type-C interface. So in general with this case and a good quality SATA III SSD I expect around 65-70% of that estimate. Yes, that's stupid vagueness, but we're not talking about a multi-disk RAID array or anything remotely important. Also, the tests I ran for it were completely consistent; I will never run anything outside of or along with this drive enclosure, I will probably only use it to move a very large amount of data to one of my offline machines, or maybe swap out some game ISOs files (which I still work in RAM, read only from disk). The more important benefit of legitimate, high-quality I/O like this is that I can conveniently and quickly read and write to a fully encrypted volume, and I'm not talking BitLocker horse hockey. This is a silly long review on the edge of a trivial part. So I'm closing my thoughts on that for now. When using USB 3.1+ or Type-C bandwidth, either single or stacked parallel I/O, you can expect around 8.5/10 performance relative to your choice. drive too. A SATA III SSD hits its own standard upper limit, which is around 6 Gb/s, and that's really the best scenario you'll consider for an external SATA III drive in the I/O chain (the only way to beat this is with SATA III, it's multiple SATA III drives in a logical stripe, better known as raid0. A raid5 location is also perfectly acceptable)