It is finally here - Samsung 1TB Portable SSD T1

[SpaceKadet]

I have read about this over a year and a half ago but now it is reality. It has been on my top list list since I read about it but now you can get it here too. It is not cheap, but what would you expect from the 1TB USB3 package at 71.0 x 9.2 x 53.2 mm...

Available here from our sponsors http://www.invadeit.co.th/product/portable-hard-drives/samsung/1tb-portable-ssd-t1-mu-ps1t0b-p023860/

And more info from Samsung http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/portablessdt1/overview.html

I want one for my birthday!!!!

Seriously, great package for the people on the go.

[NiwPix]

Very nice indeed. Thanks for sharing.

Really small for that amount of storage.

For me it has 2 "flaws"

- it would be nice if it had a small housing for the usb connection cable within the case.

- the price tag

I am perfectly fine with a portable 32gb usb 3.0 stick, but if I were in need of more portable storage, I would give this some serious consideration

[WitawatWatawit]

This device, which costs almost 18,000 baht, is not really all that much smaller than the 1TB WD external hard drive that cost me 2,000 baht, and which I can plug into my computer or my smart TV just as easily as a flash drive.

For 9 times the price, I'm struggling to see the value of it. But i'm ready to be enlightened.

[daviddabit]

This device, which costs almost 18,000 baht, is not really all that much smaller than the 1TB WD external hard drive that cost me 2,000 baht, and which I can plug into my computer or my smart TV just as easily as a flash drive.

For 9 times the price, I'm struggling to see the value of it. But i'm ready to be enlightened.

18000baht is enough to buy a laptop too.. I won't spend 18000 on a hard drive too...but I would love to wait for the price to drop ....

[taotoo]

This device, which costs almost 18,000 baht, is not really all that much smaller than the 1TB WD external hard drive that cost me 2,000 baht, and which I can plug into my computer or my smart TV just as easily as a flash drive.

For 9 times the price, I'm struggling to see the value of it. But i'm ready to be enlightened.

Speed, noise, battery draw I presume. I also wouldn't spend 18k on one.

[stoneyboy]

What exactly is it ?

A glorified hard drive ?

[Chicog]

What exactly is it ?

A glorified hard drive ?

A glorified flash drive.

[ukrules]

Well the prices are coming down, the last time I checked the Kingston 1TB USB drive cost nearly $1000.

The Kingston model looks like it's much smaller, more of a regular flash drive size.

[Pib]

Keep in mind that with SSD running on USB, the chances are high you will not get anywhere close to the speeds advertised by the manufacturer due to the overhead between the SATA to USB 3 conversion...you could very well just experience around half of the advertised large sequential file read/write speed, but that speed will still be much faster than a hard drive and the small file read/write speed will be many, many times faster than a hard drive. So, when the dust settles you will still see a big speed increase "benchmark-wise" but you'll probably be disappointed you are not getting advertised speeds unless you have just the right hardware. But once again, it will still be a lot faster than a hard drive.

Also, you probably won't have any TRIM support on USB like under SATA to effectively manage the drive's storage capability and extend it's "write" life.

And then there is the issue if the SSD is being purely used for long term storage, like backups, the nature of SSD memory is after 1 or more years (maybe up to 10 years) unless the memory is properly refreshed (i.e., data rewritten-refreshed) through it's built BIOS algorithms, TRIM support, etc., the data may become corrupt.

[SpaceKadet]

It is half the size of external 1TB WD or Seagate drive, and at 30 gram, just a fraction of the weight. And being all solid state, much more sturdy than its mechanical cousins. You could easy carry one in your pocket.

USB3 peaks at 5Gb/s (around 600MB/s) so at least theoretically could accommodate sequential SSD speeds. I have read reports that Asmedia 1153e controllers with UASP support will give you native SSD speeds, up to the USB3 limit of course.

There is still a discussion whether TRIM is supported through USB, but since Samsung is manufacturing its own SSD controllers, they can easily include that functionality in firmware.

Yes, it is pricey, but compare this to Samsung 1TB 850 Evo or any other 1TB SSD and the prices are in the same range. 1TB 2.5" SSD will cost from 13,000 to 20,000 baht.

The original article I read about the T1 when it was announced, stipulated the price to be around USD1000.

Edit:

I just re-read the specs from Samsung. The UASP is build in, so yes, TRIM is supported.

Edited February 27, 2016 by SpaceKadet

[SpaceKadet]

What exactly is it ?

A glorified hard drive ?

A glorified flash drive.

Actually, it's a V-NAND SSD drive with USB3 connectivity.

[Pib]

It is half the size of external 1TB WD or Seagate drive, and at 30 gram, just a fraction of the weight. And being all solid state, much more sturdy than its mechanical cousins. You could easy carry one in your pocket.

USB3 peaks at 5Gb/s (around 600MB/s) so at least theoretically could accommodate sequential SSD speeds. I have read reports that Asmedia 1153e controllers with UASP support will give you native SSD speeds, up to the USB3 limit of course.

There is still a discussion whether TRIM is supported through USB, but since Samsung is manufacturing its own SSD controllers, they can easily include that functionality in firmware.

Yes, it is pricey, but compare this to Samsung 1TB 850 Evo or any other 1TB SSD and the prices are in the same range. 1TB 2.5" SSD will cost from 13,000 to 20,000 baht.

The original article I read about the T1 when it was announced, stipulated the price to be around USD1000.

Edit:

I just re-read the specs from Samsung. The UASP is build in, so yes, TRIM is supported.

Having UASP support on the computer and drive chipsets/firmware is key. I think the post at this webpage gives a good jest of the need: Link

Edit: and a more down in the weeds article is here: Link.

Edit: and an article that does some benchmarks...in this benchmark test the Samsung T1 real world benchmarks did not live-up to advertised benchmark speeds: Link

Edited February 27, 2016 by Pib

[Pib]

Just for example in how putting a SSD in an external USB 3.0 enclosure can affect its speed I now have a Seagate 600 Series SSD 480GB in a OKER USB 3.0 enclosure box (the box costs around Bt300). I use to have the Seagate SSD in my Lenovo i7 CPU based laptop until I put in an Samsung 840 EVO 500GB drive...then the Seagate got moved to one of my other laptops...then that laptop died and I put the Seagate SSD in the external USB 3 enclosure.

When in the Lenovo i7 CPU based laptop as it primary drive (i.e., inside my computer in the drive SATA slot) the Seagate SSD would provide around 500MB and 400MB read and writes speeds, respectively, under large sequential benchmarking....just like its Seagate advertised speed.

But now being used in an external USB 3 enclosure in provides approx 260MB/242MB read/write large sequential file speed....kinda like how the Samsung T1 benchmarking in the weblink I gave in above post didn't reach its advertised speeds....but I'm sure the T1 would meet it's advertised speed with just the right computer and associated computer chipset/drivers. The benchmark image below was run just a few minutes ago.

But as said in an earlier post this speed is still far faster than a hard disk drive and the read/write on small file sizes in many, many times faster than a hard drive...and the access time is many, many times faster.

[SpaceKadet]

Okey Pib, I ran a benchmark on my OCZ Vertex460. USB3 on the left, SATA on the right.

The controller identifies itself as AS2105. Have not been able to find much info on it, but it is a few years old so doubt it has UASP and on the box it says "USB3.0 TO SATAII" so theoretically max speed of around 350 MB/s.

It would be interesting to run a proper benchmark on a more modern controller.

[Pib]

Yea, our two benchmark examples of a SSD hooked to a SATA port and then hooked to USB 3.0 port is some real world examples of what people can expect when running a SSD on USB 3 "unless the stars line-up" with the right USB chips/drivers. But heck, even not reaching its full speed on a typical USB 3 port unless the stars line up the SSD still leaves a hard drive in the dust, not only on large sequential file transfers but literally like comparing Starship Enterprise warp speed with bicycle speed for small file read/writes.

And unless something has changed very recently a SSD in a USB 3 enclosure still pretty much leaves the most expensive/fastest flash thumbdrive in the dust for small file read/write speeds...and the SSD would be much cheaper per GB although much bulkier than the thumbdrive.

I just looked at typical/realworld speed obtained with the SanDisk Extreme Pro 128GB thumbdrive (pricey) and its small file Random read speed was only 9.43MB compared to the around 20MB you and I got with our SSDs.

[Pib]

The controller identifies itself as AS2105. Have not been able to find much info on it, but it is a few years old so doubt it has UASP and on the box it says "USB3.0 TO SATAII" so theoretically max speed of around 350 MB/s.

From some googling it appears the AS2105 uses the BOT (Bulk) transfer method vs the UASP transfer method. Like this post on another forum and also this post.

Partial snapshot from one of the above post below...shows the AS2105 name and Bulk transfer method/type.

[Pib]

I'm going to start looking for a USB 3 enclosure box that includes UASP vs just the traditional BOT like the one shown at this Amazon weblink....the weblink also includes a couple of charts comparing UASP and BOT speeds along with CPU usage. Notice in the charts the BOT speeds maxs out in the 200 to 300MB ballpark while UASP squeaks over 400MB...and the CPU usage on UASP is much lower than with BOT. Snapshot of the charts below.

A few minutes ago I fired up my new Lenovo i5 CPU based laptop, hooked up the SSD in the OKER USB 3 enclosure box (only about a year old), and got basically the same results as I got on my two year old Lenovo i7 CPU based laptop which I showed earlier. Wanted to see if maybe the slightly different hardware between the two laptops....one two years newer than the other...would make a difference...it didn't. Both laptops are running Win 10 Pro. I expect my USB 3 enclosure box most likely uses BOT vs UASP and s the chokepoint in not allowing the SSD to reach near full speed when running on a USB 3 port.

Also goes to show their are different flavors (fine print) of the USB 3.0 specification a person must take into consideration to get max speed....but I expect BOT would meet all the speed requirements of most any device (definitely any hard drive), but not that of a SSD.

However, but, if the host controller in your computer is not UASP capable it won't make any difference if you have a UASP device hooked to it as both ends of the USB cable need to support UASP.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Pib

[SpaceKadet]

Thanks for info, I suspected that much.

One last benchmark for comparison. This is on 2TB Seagate Backup Plus 2.5" USB3 in its own enclosure.

Not a speed demon in itself, but the most modern device I own. Roughly half the speed for sequential operations, and way down on 4K random. That's what the mechanical access time does for the performance. The drive is spending more time doing seeks than transferring data.

Personally, I would definitely like to have the T1 for the form factor, capacity and speed. But preferably somebody else would have to pay for it.

But the SSD prices are going down. Now, you can get the latest 250GB SSD for the same price you would have paid for 60GB just a few years ago.

[Pib]

For the last hour or so I've been googling on USB 3 UAS and BOT transfer protocols, how to figure what your computer and device are capable of (ie.., UAS and/or BOT), etc. Came across some sites that cleared some things up for me...and came across others that just created more questions/doubt for me. Sometimes you go to a site were they are talking the UAS/BOT issue with Linux and sometimes Windows....and then that can confuse a person even more due to differences betwen Linux and Windows.

I'm still unclear whether my two year Lenovo i7 CPU based laptop would support UAS with its Intel C220 Family USB chipset...I simply can't figure it out from the specs I looked up so far. And in using the freeware called PC Wizard to look at the hardware guts of my computers and attached devices like the SSD in the USB 3 enclosure box didn't really help other than to confirm the USB enclosure box/device operates in BOT (bulk) transfer mode.

Then I ran across this Windows site talking USB 3 issues to include USB 3.0 UAS and BOT....go to that weblink and review the FAQ titled, How do I determine if my USB 3 device is operating at Superspeed. And within that FAQ is a paragraph quoted below talking about how Windows (Win 8 and 10) will automatically load the appropriate driver, either Usbstor.sys for a BOT device or Uaspstor.sys for a UAS device when the device is attached. I'm taking from this paragraph you would only see Uaspstor.sys driver loading when a UAS device is attached...once removed it would unloaded itself...so without a UAS device you can't really tell if your computer USB chipset is UAS capable or not....but without trying to explain why I'm thinking my computers's chipsets are UAS capable...just need a USB ASP device to prove or disprove my theory. Like mentioned in my earlier post, I'll keep my eyes open for a USB 3 enclosure box that specifically states it has UAS capability and if under Bt1000 I just may buy it to house that SSD...but such a UAS box would be overkill for any hard drive. The USB 3 boxes I have bought to date locally here in Bangkok all cost in the Bt300 to Bt400 ballpark like the OKER 3 box that cost Bt380.

Here I thought USB 3 just came in one flavor (excluding the different possible cable connections)....the part about USB 3 UAS and BOT transfer modes never really registered with me. Well, I'm a little smarter today.

Which driver is loaded for my SuperSpeed storage device use, Uaspstor.sys or Usbstor.sys?

The USB Attached SCSI (UAS) protocol is a new mass storage protocol designed to improve performance over the established USB mass storage protocol, Bulk-Only-Transport (BOT). It does so by reducing protocol overhead, supporting SATA native command queuing (NCQ) and by processing multiple commands in parallel. To do this, UAS makes use of a new USB 3.0 feature for bulk transfers called streams.

The existing mass storage driver, Usbstor.sys, uses the BOT protocol. It works with all speeds of devices, including SuperSpeed USB devices.

For Windows 8, Microsoft includes a new mass storage class driver, Uaspstor.sys which uses the UAS protocol. Because streams is new to USB 3.0, so Uaspstor.sys can only use streams when the hardware supports streams (a SuperSpeed USB device is connected to an xHCI host controller). The driver also includes support for software streams, so it can also load for devices operating at high-speed, regardless of the host type.

If you connect a mass storage device to Windows 8 and that device supports UAS, Windows loads Uaspstor.sys. In some cases, there might be known issues with hardware streams on a specific xHCI host controller or known issues with a device's UAS protocol implementation. In those cases, Windows falls back to the BOT protocol and loads the Usbstor.sys driver instead.

Uaspstor.sys is new to Windows 8. It is not present in earlier versions of Windows.

[Pib]

One more bit of info/snapshot regarding is your computer and USB 3 device you are plugging in Is it UAS capable. If it is, you will see some UAS related/titled drivers appear in your Windows Device Manager in the USB Bus Controller and/or Storage Device Controller area like shown below.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-3-uas-turbo,3215-5.html

[SpaceKadet]

I have been able to locate only one enclosure that supports UASP on our sponsors website. http://www.invadeit.co.th/product/enclosure-box/orico/1-bay-2-5inch-sata-external-enclosure-black-usb-3-0-2569s3-p024576/ This one states UASP support but unfortunately, Orico does not say which controller they use.

There are plenty of choices on Amazon.com, even enclosures for mSATA.

Edit:

Pib, you being in BKK could do some footwork in Fortune or Pantip (if it is still there) and probably locate some more... just look for ASM1153e of higher controller.

Edited February 28, 2016 by SpaceKadet

[Pib]

I have been able to locate only one enclosure that supports UASP on our sponsors website. http://www.invadeit.co.th/product/enclosure-box/orico/1-bay-2-5inch-sata-external-enclosure-black-usb-3-0-2569s3-p024576/ This one states UASP support but unfortunately, Orico does not say which controller they use.

There are plenty of choices on Amazon.com, even enclosures for mSATA.

Edit:

Pib, you being in BKK could do some footwork in Fortune or Pantip (if it is still there) and probably locate some more... just look for ASM1153e of higher controller.

NO!!!----I hate going over to central, high-rise Bangkok....too much traffic/congestion...where farangs are a dime a dozen.

But I will do some looking around over here in western, low-rise Bangkok where I live and the traffic/congestion is much less...where farangs are pretty scarce.

Edit: looks like JIB has the same model shown in the invadeit ad for about the same price. There is a JIB store in the mall just about 10 minutes away from me...easy driving...little traffic. I will see if they have it in stock over the next week or so...I usually visit this particular mall about once a week since it's close by.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Pib

[Pib]

This youtube video talks USB 3 BOT and UAS transfer modes...it kinda old in being a 2012 video but I think get the point across well in how UAS is significantly faster than BOT.

[Pib]

Bought the Orico USB 3.0 with UASP external enclosure today at a JIB store here in western Bangkok....Model number 2569S3...cost Bt850 at JIB. Please note that no where on the packaging does it say it has UASP support, but it does have UASP as reflected on some websites that give more details (like this Orico Thailand webpage)...and in the images below its obvious it has UASP capability. When I showed the JIB clerk the Orico Thailand website and how it said UASP both of us looked for minutes on the packaging, contents, enclosure itself to find the "UASP" printed anywhere but it was just not there....I bought the box on a hope it was indeed UASP capable and sure enough it was as discussed below.

Below are three snapshots taken on my two year plus old Lenovo i7 CPU based laptop running Win 10 Pro:

- 1st snapshot is a repeat benchmark of my earlier post showing my Seagate 480GB SSD in a OKER USB 3.0 enclosure "without" UASP...just has the standard/original BOT (bulk transfer) capability. This enclosure cost Bt380 about a year ago....I bought several for some extra hard drives I have.

- 2nd shapshot is the SSD in the Orico USB 3.0 enclosure which includes UASP support....notice the BIG speed increase which approaches that of the SSD as if it was connected to a computer's internal SATA port. With USB 3.0 UASP little speed is lost; but without UASP a big loss in SSD speed occurs...or should I say the full SSD speed can't be achieved in a non-UASP USB 3.0 setup.

- 3d snap is what my computer Windows Device Manager drivers look like with the UASP enclosure attached....Windows automatically added a SCSI Disk Drive driver in the Disk Drives area and a SCSI (UAS) driver in the Storage Controllers area. Unplug the enclosure and those two drivers unload automatically. No additional driver appeared in the USB area which surprised me a little; only the Disk Drive and Storage Controller areas as mentioned. So, it's pretty easy to confirm whether your enclosure and computer have USB 3.0 "UASP" capability by the loading of the additional SCSI/UAS drivers when you attached a UASP capable device.

Very happy I got this UASP USB 3.0 box as I'm now able to get near full speed from my SSD in an external enclosure, instead of loosing around half the speed in a USB 3.0 enclosure which only has the standard BOT capability. My USB 3.0 boxes "without' UASP capability will continued to be used for my hard disk drives as USB 3.0 without UASP bandwidth capability (i.e., just BOT capability) still far exceeds hard disk drive bandwidth/speed capability.

So, when buying your next USB 3.0 enclosure box and planning to put a SSD in it, do some research to confirm it has the faster UASP capability also versus only having the standard/original BOT capability....and of course hope your computer has UASP capability as both your computer and external box need to have UASP capability to get the USB 3.0 UASP speed...if the computer is only a few years old it should have the UASP capability. Additionally, UASP is native in Win 8.1 and Win 10, but for Win 7 I guess you need drivers from your computer manufacturer....Linux also has UASP support for many UASP chipsets as does Apple OS X 10.8 according to what I googled. I think this Tomshardware short article give a good over of USB 3.0 UASP.

Benchmark in USB 3 box "without" UASP

Benchmark in USB 3 Box "with" UASP (Orico Model 2569S3)

My Device Manager screen with some notes I added

[Pib]

I use Macrium Reflect Free to backup/image my drives. When backing up/imaging my computer's primary/internal drive which is a Samsung 840EVO 500GB with approx 112GB of data on it to either an external Western Digital My Passport 1TB HDD or Segate 1TB HDD the imaging of that 112GB takes approx 16 to 17 minutes. And while doing the backup the Macrium speed readout shows a backup speed ranging from around 0.2Gb/s to a peak of 1.1Gb/p but it usually averages around 0.6Gb/s....small files can really slow down a HDD...and as already mentioned it takes approx 16 to 17 minutes to complete the image backup. These two backup drives are housed in OKER USB 3.0 non-UASP capable enclosures...basically just a standard USB 3.0 external enclosure box.

I just did a image back to the Seagate SSD in the Orico USB 3.0 UASP capable enclosure and the image backup completed in 8 min 24 seconds with the transfer speed ranging from 1.1Gb/s (when starting off) to 2.2Gb/p (near the end of the backup) with it usually speeding along at around 1.5Gb/s....seems the backup just got faster as it went along. Half the time of backing up to a HDD.

Not only was the peak transfer rate much higher than when backup up to a HDD, the backup average transfer rate was pretty steady...usually around the 1.5Gb/s as mentioned although it started off at 1.1Gb/s and ended with 2.2Gb/s. Basically whether the file being backed up was large or small, the backup to the SSD in the UASP box just keep speeding along where a HDD slows down a lot especially when backing up the small files which comprise the majority of files on most computers when you look at the size of most program files, system files, and just the huge array (thousands upon thousands...actually tens of thousands) of files on a typcial drive.

I did a test backup a few days ago to the SSD in the non-UASP capable enclosure and it was only a little faster than to a HDD. But with the SSD in the UASP capable enclosure it's much faster...approx twice as fast.

Maybe tomorrow I'll put a "HDD" in the UASP capable external enclosure to run a backup speed test, but I would be surprised if it makes much of any speed difference since even a non-UASP 3.0 connection far exceeds the bandwidth output capability of a HDD.

[taotoo]

I use Macrium Reflect Free to backup/image my drives. When backing up/imaging my computer's primary/internal drive which is a Samsung 840EVO 500GB with approx 112GB of data on it to either an external Western Digital My Passport 1TB HDD or Segate 1TB HDD the imaging of that 112GB takes approx 16 to 17 minutes. And while doing the backup the Macrium speed readout shows a backup speed ranging from around 0.2Gb/s to a peak of 1.1Gb/p but it usually averages around 0.6Gb/s....small files can really slow down a HDD...and as already mentioned it takes approx 16 to 17 minutes to complete the image backup. These two backup drives are housed in OKER USB 3.0 non-UASP capable enclosures...basically just a standard USB 3.0 external enclosure box.

I just did a image back to the Seagate SSD in the Orico USB 3.0 UASP capable enclosure and the image backup completed in 8 min 24 seconds with the transfer speed ranging from 1.1Gb/s (when starting off) to 2.2Gb/p (near the end of the backup) with it usually speeding along at around 1.5Gb/s....seems the backup just got faster as it went along. Half the time of backing up to a HDD.

Not only was the peak transfer rate much higher than when backup up to a HDD, the backup average transfer rate was pretty steady...usually around the 1.5Gb/s as mentioned although it started off at 1.1Gb/s and ended with 2.2Gb/s. Basically whether the file being backed up was large or small, the backup to the SSD in the UASP box just keep speeding along where a HDD slows down a lot especially when backing up the small files which comprise the majority of files on most computers when you look at the size of most program files, system files, and just the huge array (thousands upon thousands...actually tens of thousands) of files on a typcial drive.

I did a test backup a few days ago to the SSD in the non-UASP capable enclosure and it was only a little faster than to a HDD. But with the SSD in the UASP capable enclosure it's much faster...approx twice as fast.

Maybe tomorrow I'll put a "HDD" in the UASP capable external enclosure to run a backup speed test, but I would be surprised if it makes much of any speed difference since even a non-UASP 3.0 connection far exceeds the bandwidth output capability of a HDD.

What kind of backup are you doing? I wouldn't think imaging speed would be affected by small files. Maybe it's an image backup masquerading as a file backup by letting you choose which files/folders to backup (or exclude).

[Pib]

I'm doing a complete image of the drive; not selected files/folders.

I expect during the imaging process it's like building a wall (i.e., the wall being the final image file on the backup drive) brick-by-brick/file-by-file as Macrium Reflect builds one image file representing all files on the drive you are back

The bricks (i.e., individual files, small or large) are being laid one-by-one on the wall...many small bricks (i.e.., small files) can take longer to process back and forth over the USB connection/road, and due to the much faster ability of a SSD to write/read small & large files the backup drive can finish laying them much faster to build the wall. The USB 3.0 "UASP" connection is allowing files/bricks (small or large) to be transported much faster than a standard USB 3.0 "BOT" connection and the SSD backup drive is able to lay the files/bricks much faster than a HDD.

During the imaging process my CPU, which is a i7 CPU with 4 physical cores/8 threads, is very lightly tasked....the backup/imaging process requires little CPU horsepower. And supposedly a USB 3.0 UASP connection tasks a CPU much less than a USB 3.0 BOT connection according to that one chart in one of my earlier posts. The speed of the imaging process seems to be primarily determined by the connection speed between the drive being backed-up and the drive being backed-up to. If all three (the connection and two drives) are fast at brick transporting/laying then they get the backup wall built much quicker.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Pib

[Pib]

Maybe tomorrow I'll put a "HDD" in the UASP capable external enclosure to run a backup speed test, but I would be surprised if it makes much of any speed difference since even a non-UASP 3.0 connection far exceeds the bandwidth output capability of a HDD.

OK, today I did do a benchmark...but instead of just doing another image backup test I did the test using CrystalDiskMark.

I used a new Samsung 1TB "HDD" which is around a month old (came out of my new Lenovo i5 based laptop about a month old) in both the OKER USB 3.0 enclosure (non UASP capable) and in the Orico USB 3.0 enclosure (UASP capable). As nice to know only, I've put a Samsung 850EVO SSD in the new laptop...SSDs are the only way to go for your primary drive.

As expected the benchmark showed little difference between the HDD being in a non-USAP or UASP enclosure. In fact, a person should probably say the HDD worked just a little faster in the non-UASP box based on this one benchmark. I think this goes to show a USB 3.0 "UASP" enclosure is overkill for a "HDD" as a USB 3.0 non-USAP enclosure (a.k.a., standard BOT enclosure) is more than enough to handle the lower bandwidth/speed of a HDD. A UASP enclosure box will also cost more than a non-UASP box. But for a SSD, you definitely need UASP capability or you lose about half of the SSD speed as shown in earlier posts.

Below are three snapshots...first two is the "HDD" in the non-UASP and UASP boxes....third one is the Seagate "SSD" back in the UASP box. So, if planning on putting a SSD in an external USB 3.0 enclosure be sure to get an enclosure that has UASP capability...and just to repeat, your computer USB chipset needs to have the UASP capability also and it probably does if only a few years old.

Samsung "HDD" in OKER USB 3.0 non-UASP box (BOT capable box only)

Samsung "HDD" in Orico USB 3.0 UASP capable box (but also has BOT capability)

Seagate "SSD" in Orcio USB 3.0 UASP capable box

[taotoo]

The bricks (i.e., individual files, small or large) are being laid one-by-one on the wall...many small bricks (i.e.., small files) can take longer to process back and forth over the USB connection/road, and due to the much faster ability of a SSD to write/read small & large files the backup drive can finish laying them much faster to build the wall.

With an image the bricks aren't files but sectors. Even if those sectors are scattered across the SSD, it shouldn't slow things down much due to the SSD's good seek time. And writing them to the HD shouldn't be an issue as A. it doesn't write them one at a time - it waits until it's got a bunch of them to write, and B. they will tend to get written sequentially on the HD, not scattered around.

[Pib]

The bricks (i.e., individual files, small or large) are being laid one-by-one on the wall...many small bricks (i.e.., small files) can take longer to process back and forth over the USB connection/road, and due to the much faster ability of a SSD to write/read small & large files the backup drive can finish laying them much faster to build the wall.

With an image the bricks aren't files but sectors. Even if those sectors are scattered across the SSD, it shouldn't slow things down much due to the SSD's good seek time. And writing them to the HD shouldn't be an issue as A. it doesn't write them one at a time - it waits until it's got a bunch of them to write, and B. they will tend to get written sequentially on the HD, not scattered around.

Yes...agree...I didn't want to get down into that level of technical details. You have allocation units (clusters) like the size you pick when formatting a drive (typically using a default 4KB cluster size which is small to obtain good storage efficiency)... and within allocation units/clusters you have sectors that get even smaller (usually 512B or eight sectors per 4KB cluster). And within SSD in how their flash ram works its get even more complicated with "pages" in comparison to a HDD. But when the dust settles handling small files takes much longer than large files as proven in benchmark after benchmark on SSDs or HDDs.