rundhvid

chasm said:

rundhvid said:

CalDigit Tuff Nano Plus scored an 828 MB/s write speed and a 738 MB/s read speed. That's just shy of the advertised 1088 MB/s maximum read speed.

Not in my book!

Congrats on winning this week's "cherry-picking data to be a whiner" award! In the very sentence you quoted, it says 1088 MB/sec is the maximum read, not average read speed. 828 MB/sec isn't wildly off what one would expect for average HFS+ read speed, a key bit of info you "conveniently" left out. The average read speed jumped to 921 MB/sec, which is -- as I'm sure you'll agree -- a) the way any ssd should be formatted and b) much closer to the advertised max.

I frankly have no idea why HFS+ formatting was even considered as part of the review, and I agree that "just shy" was the wrong phrase to put there, and something like "Given the HFS+ formatting, it's a great average read speed" would have been much better. But by leaving out a key bit of relevant info in your complaint, you're as guilty of a poor turn of phrase as he is, don't you think?

CalDigit Tuff Nano Plus scored an 828 MB/s write speed and a 738 MB/s read speed. That's just shy of the advertised 1088 MB/s maximum read speed.