Sometimes faster drives are cheaper, so check the prices here: 1) Sandisk 520 MB/s: amzn.to/3yQ5Tqf 2) Sandisk 1050 MB/s: amzn.to/3ZYDPgD 3) Samsung 3.500 MB/s: amzn.to/3LyeTb9 with ASUS enclosure amzn.to/40jgbLh
Been away for a short getaway and been thinking about ssd, came back and saw this vid pop up! Nice timing and great pricing for the ssds. Again, thanks Tom! Ian Rahim
I think that in the 3,500 version you have not used the Thunderbolt3 cable that you were supposed to use. I have Thunderbolt 3 Drives that reach 3,800 MB/s read if I use their corresponding cable. By changing the cable and placing the USB-C, it reaches 1,050 MB/s. Review it please. ESP (nativo): Creo que en la versión de 3.500 no has usado el cable Thunderbolt3 que debías usar. Tengo Unidades Thunderbolt 3 que llegan a 3.800 MB/s de lectura si uso su cable correspondiente. Al cambiar el cable y colocar el USB-C, llega a 1.050 MB/s. Revísalo por favor.
Hey Jose, I used USB-C 3.1 cable that came with the drive. As far as I know the transfer speed for USB-C 3.1 is 10GB/s which is definitely enough :) I think the SD card could be a bottleneck - thats why I wanted to do this "real life" test as there are so many elements that can limit the speed :)
ayup. the 3500 is pointless metric having non-thunderbolt enclosure + normal usb cord. it effectively makes it same/perhaps slower than your Sandisk Extreme
TLDR: dont just buy the cheapest SSD bc someone on YT said it's 'about the same speed' as the fastest ones, simply not accurate nor the 'real world' anyone watching this trying to make upcoming spending decision: the Samsung EVO here is an extremely fast drive, but just being used incorrectly here. Users have to be willing to put it in the right enclosure & use correct cord. Unfortunately, this 'real world' test is poor example of showcasing it's speed. would never want to use USB cable and non-thunderbolt enclosure, if your your end goal is to achieve max potential. **** Fast drives can make legit impacts on your workflow, and honestly it's a bit irresponsible to minimize this and say the slow one is 'about the same' dude. **** likely, this is some covert Sandisk ad/brand deal. fkn shame.
Although you have very valid points, it seems you are just mad at life but I honestly hope things get better for you. Second, I’m definitely not working with SanDisk. If I was, I would clearly say that in the video. Third, this video was intended to show people if they would feel the difference copying and editing photos. Yes there is a difference in speed and 100% could be much faster with all the proper setup you mention, but why do all that if the slowest one most likely is enough” for most? My point is quite the opposite: don’t fall for the marketing and buy the most expensive, fastest, craziest setup - the budget option just might be enough for a regular user. Peace. ✌️
Sometimes faster drives are cheaper, so check the prices here:
1) Sandisk 520 MB/s: amzn.to/3yQ5Tqf
2) Sandisk 1050 MB/s: amzn.to/3ZYDPgD
3) Samsung 3.500 MB/s: amzn.to/3LyeTb9 with ASUS enclosure amzn.to/40jgbLh
Been away for a short getaway and been thinking about ssd, came back and saw this vid pop up! Nice timing and great pricing for the ssds. Again, thanks Tom!
Ian Rahim
Hey Ian, great to hear that. Thanks for watching ;)
Great video! I'm definitely looking for an SSD and I didn't know about the the cheapest one so thanks for showing me that one!
The 520mb/s from Sandisk came out very recently and honestly for photos it is great (speed-wise). Cheers Andrew!
I think that in the 3,500 version you have not used the Thunderbolt3 cable that you were supposed to use. I have Thunderbolt 3 Drives that reach 3,800 MB/s read if I use their corresponding cable. By changing the cable and placing the USB-C, it reaches 1,050 MB/s. Review it please.
ESP (nativo):
Creo que en la versión de 3.500 no has usado el cable Thunderbolt3 que debías usar. Tengo Unidades Thunderbolt 3 que llegan a 3.800 MB/s de lectura si uso su cable correspondiente. Al cambiar el cable y colocar el USB-C, llega a 1.050 MB/s. Revísalo por favor.
Hey Jose, I used USB-C 3.1 cable that came with the drive. As far as I know the transfer speed for USB-C 3.1 is 10GB/s which is definitely enough :) I think the SD card could be a bottleneck - thats why I wanted to do this "real life" test as there are so many elements that can limit the speed :)
ayup. the 3500 is pointless metric having non-thunderbolt enclosure + normal usb cord. it effectively makes it same/perhaps slower than your Sandisk Extreme
TLDR: dont just buy the cheapest SSD bc someone on YT said it's 'about the same speed' as the fastest ones, simply not accurate nor the 'real world'
anyone watching this trying to make upcoming spending decision: the Samsung EVO here is an extremely fast drive, but just being used incorrectly here. Users have to be willing to put it in the right enclosure & use correct cord. Unfortunately, this 'real world' test is poor example of showcasing it's speed. would never want to use USB cable and non-thunderbolt enclosure, if your your end goal is to achieve max potential.
**** Fast drives can make legit impacts on your workflow, and honestly it's a bit irresponsible to minimize this and say the slow one is 'about the same' dude. ****
likely, this is some covert Sandisk ad/brand deal. fkn shame.
Although you have very valid points, it seems you are just mad at life but I honestly hope things get better for you.
Second, I’m definitely not working with SanDisk. If I was, I would clearly say that in the video.
Third, this video was intended to show people if they would feel the difference copying and editing photos. Yes there is a difference in speed and 100% could be much faster with all the proper setup you mention, but why do all that if the slowest one most likely is enough” for most?
My point is quite the opposite: don’t fall for the marketing and buy the most expensive, fastest, craziest setup - the budget option just might be enough for a regular user. Peace. ✌️