Your link uses the chipset JMS583 and the OP's uses RTL9210. From my understanding, the RTL9210 chipset provides for better thermals and is considered one of the best if not the best chipset on the market. I am not an expert, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
Sabrent USB 3.2 Type-C Tool-Free Enclosure for M.2 PCIe NVMe and SATA SSDs (EC-SNVE)
Reviewer said it use RTL9210B
Ooh I guess the RTL9210B makes it compatible with NVMe and SATA. I might bite on the one you linked thanks to its tool less design and "sandwich design." I wish it were closer to $20 though
For those experienced with NVMe enclosures in general, is there anything to occasional comments that I've seen that if you're going external you're better off just using a traditional SATA SSD in an enclosure appropriate for it?
I don't recall the details of the comments, but I think the general sentiment is that those are less trouble (not in reference to death, I think, but compatibility).
For those experienced with NVMe enclosures in general, is there anything to occasional comments that I've seen that if you're going external you're better off just using a traditional SATA SSD in an enclosure appropriate for it?
I don't recall the details of the comments, but I think the general sentiment is that those are less trouble (not in reference to death, I think, but compatibility).
Traditional SATA tops out at 6Gb/s (that's gigabits, or 750 megabytes per second). With the overhead to make it mountable and to comunicate via USB, you will never get that 6Gb/s for a transfer speed. In addition, traditional SATA SSDs are optimized for the SATA bus, so the NAND flash in those drives will read/write at 550 megabytes per second anyway due to the overhead in the AHCI interface over SATA.
I have an NVMe drive mounted to a similar enclosure which uses USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 2[x1]) which is 10Gb/s. My actual real file transfer speeds are around 8Gb/s, which is still faster than anything a traditional SATA SSD can do.
Traditional SATA tops out at 6Gb/s (that's gigabits, or 750 megabytes per second). With the overhead to make it mountable and to comunicate via USB, you will never get that 6Gb/s for a transfer speed. In addition, traditional SATA SSDs are optimized for the SATA bus, so the NAND flash in those drives will read/write at 550 megabytes per second anyway due to the overhead in the AHCI interface over SATA.
I have an NVMe drive mounted to a similar enclosure which uses USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 2[x1]) which is 10Gb/s. My actual real file transfer speeds are around 8Gb/s, which is still faster than anything a traditional SATA SSD can do.
Yes, if you have that, there's no question that this is the right move for speed. I should have mentioned that I was wondering for USB3, where the speed of that interface would be the bottleneck, taking speed differences off the table.
So once that's not a factor, is it less problematic just to go SATA SSD?
If all you have is USB 3.0, then yes, a SATA SSD in an enclosure or dongle with a USB3 interface will be just fine, the bottleneck would be the drive read/write speed and not USB3. Just make sure that you buy a quality enclosure or dongle, as some enclosure/dongle chipsets won't work properly with larger capacity drives or won't give you full speed.
I've repurposed a bunch of 2.5" SATA SSDs for backups this way. It's still plenty fast.
Your link uses the chipset JMS583 and the OP's uses RTL9210. From my understanding, the RTL9210 chipset provides for better thermals and is considered one of the best if not the best chipset on the market. I am not an expert, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
On the side, one reviewer cites instability with rtl9210.
"After determining that the Unitek NVME enclosure's chipset is a Realtek RTL9210, searched the web for firmware updates and found one at Station-Drivers.com. Took a chance, installed the Realtek firmware update and wha la, problem resolved and now it's a keeper. Almost tossed this to the trash can though."
I am not comparing anything. Just saying anyone with rtl9210 this is worth knowing if they get dropped connections. That reviewer also stated they did not buy from Amazon.
On the side, one reviewer cites instability with rtl9210.
"After determining that the Unitek NVME enclosure's chipset is a Realtek RTL9210, searched the web for firmware updates and found one at Station-Drivers.com. Took a chance, installed the Realtek firmware update and wha la, problem resolved and now it's a keeper. Almost tossed this to the trash can though."
I am not comparing anything. Just saying anyone with rtl9210 this is worth knowing if they get dropped connections. That reviewer also stated they did not buy from Amazon.
Thanks for the info. I have two enclosures with the RTL9210. One of them weirdly disconnects randomly after some time of not being used. Perhaps I need to update the firmware. I will try that out!
34 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
code: 9NQWYELD
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07THVRS99
https://www.amazon.com/SSK-Alumin...B07THV
https://www.amazon.com/SSK-Alumin...B07THV
https://www.amazon.com/SSK-Alumin...B07THV
The OP can do M key and M+B key.
The OP can do M key and M+B key.
https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Ty...08RVC6F9Y/
Sabrent USB 3.2 Type-C Tool-Free Enclosure for M.2 PCIe NVMe and SATA SSDs (EC-SNVE)
Reviewer said it use RTL9210B
https://www.amazon.com/SSK-Alumin...B07THV
https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Ty...08RVC6F9Y/
Sabrent USB 3.2 Type-C Tool-Free Enclosure for M.2 PCIe NVMe and SATA SSDs (EC-SNVE)
Reviewer said it use RTL9210B
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I don't recall the details of the comments, but I think the general sentiment is that those are less trouble (not in reference to death, I think, but compatibility).
https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Ty...08RVC6F9Y/
Sabrent USB 3.2 Type-C Tool-Free Enclosure for M.2 PCIe NVMe and SATA SSDs (EC-SNVE)
Reviewer said it use RTL9210B
I wish you could see customer reviews.
I don't recall the details of the comments, but I think the general sentiment is that those are less trouble (not in reference to death, I think, but compatibility).
I have an NVMe drive mounted to a similar enclosure which uses USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 2[x1]) which is 10Gb/s. My actual real file transfer speeds are around 8Gb/s, which is still faster than anything a traditional SATA SSD can do.
I have an NVMe drive mounted to a similar enclosure which uses USB-C (USB 3.2 Gen 2[x1]) which is 10Gb/s. My actual real file transfer speeds are around 8Gb/s, which is still faster than anything a traditional SATA SSD can do.
So once that's not a factor, is it less problematic just to go SATA SSD?
I've repurposed a bunch of 2.5" SATA SSDs for backups this way. It's still plenty fast.
"After determining that the Unitek NVME enclosure's chipset is a Realtek RTL9210, searched the web for firmware updates and found one at Station-Drivers.com. Took a chance, installed the Realtek firmware update and wha la, problem resolved and now it's a keeper. Almost tossed this to the trash can though."
I am not comparing anything. Just saying anyone with rtl9210 this is worth knowing if they get dropped connections. That reviewer also stated they did not buy from Amazon.
"After determining that the Unitek NVME enclosure's chipset is a Realtek RTL9210, searched the web for firmware updates and found one at Station-Drivers.com. Took a chance, installed the Realtek firmware update and wha la, problem resolved and now it's a keeper. Almost tossed this to the trash can though."
I am not comparing anything. Just saying anyone with rtl9210 this is worth knowing if they get dropped connections. That reviewer also stated they did not buy from Amazon.