Test Setup

The rest of the tests in this review were conducted on our regular desktop testbed, with the OWC Aura Pro X2 installed in an M.2 adapter. As with our usual SSD reviews, these tests run on Windows (ATSB tests) and Linux (synthetic benchmarks) rather than macOS. The older Apple SM0512F SSD is included because it presents a standard AHCI interface that is software-compatible with SATA controllers, but the more recent Apple SM0128G SSD uses a non-standard protocol and cannot be properly detected on non-Apple systems even with the adapter that works for the SM0512F and OWC Aura Pro X2.

Since the rest of these test results are directly comparable to our usual review results, we've thrown in older numbers for a few more SSDs, including two entry-level NVMe SSDs: the Phison E8-based Kingston A1000, and the Intel 660p QLC-based SSD.

AnandTech 2018 Consumer SSD Testbed
CPU Intel Xeon E3 1240 v5
Motherboard ASRock Fatal1ty E3V5 Performance Gaming/OC
Chipset Intel C232
Memory 4x 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR4-2400 CL15
Graphics AMD Radeon HD 5450, 1920x1200@60Hz
Software Windows 10 x64, version 1709
Linux kernel version 4.14, fio version 3.6
Spectre/Meltdown microcode and OS patches current as of May 2018

Whole-Drive Fill

This test starts with a freshly-erased drive and fills it with 128kB sequential writes at queue depth 32, recording the write speed for each 1GB segment. This test is not representative of any ordinary client/consumer usage pattern, but it does allow us to observe transitions in the drive's behavior as it fills up. This can allow us to estimate the size of any SLC write cache, and get a sense for how much performance remains on the rare occasions where real-world usage keeps writing data after filling the cache.

The 960GB OWC Aura Pro X2's SLC cache is plenty fast, and lasts for about 147GB of writes before performance starts to drop. Initially, it goes down to about 850 MB/s, but just before the 600GB mark it drops again to be only slightly faster than SATA. Performance recovers a bit through this last phase, and ends up almost back up to the respectable second phase speeds. Overall, this behavior is similar to the HP EX950 that uses the same controller, but the EX950 tends to be a bit faster overall.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)
Average Throughput for last 16 GB Overall Average Throughput

The overall average write speed puts the Aura Pro X2 as only slightly faster than the Apple 500GB drive, and half the speed of the fastest modern TLC drive. But this obscures the fact that the Apple drive doesn't have an SLC cache and never gets much above 800 MB/s during the fill, while the Aura Pro X2 writes at nearly 2.5GB/s for any ordinary real-world duration.

macOS Sequential IO Performance AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
Comments Locked

32 Comments

View All Comments

  • danielfranklin - Thursday, June 6, 2019 - link

    Exactly,
    What a load of crap marketing this in devices that do NOT support NVME properly in the firmware.
    I expect more from OWC given the prices and that they are Mac specific.
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, June 5, 2019 - link

    QLC is looking abominable here, particularly in the latency tests.
  • nicolaim - Wednesday, June 5, 2019 - link

    The sentence "The OWC Aura Pro X2 declares support all the usual power management features expected on a modern M.2 NVMe SSD, with two idle states that balance power savings against transition latency." is missing the word "for" and has an extra space.
  • jabber - Thursday, June 6, 2019 - link

    Apple Legal Team ban hammer in 5...4...3...2...
  • Samus - Thursday, June 6, 2019 - link

    Can they? I mean, OWC has been making these SSD's for YEARS without a threat from Apple. Clearly Apple doesn't believe they have a case.

    If anything this works in Apples favor because it is an easy way for them to void peoples warranties or refuse to service their PC's, much like they refuse to service iPhones with replacement 3rd party screens and batteries.
  • The_Assimilator - Friday, June 7, 2019 - link

    Not to mention OWC is a large payer of the Apple Tax.
  • playtech1 - Thursday, June 6, 2019 - link

    I recently upgraded the SSDs in a 13 inch MBP and a 15 inch MBP, both from 2015. I upgraded the 13 inch MBP with a 1TB Apple SSD from eBay and the 15 inch MBP with a 2TB Intel 760p plus a Sintech short NVMe adapter.

    Both new SSDs work at roughly the same speed as the 512GB SSDs they replaced. However, I am considering ditching the 2TB SSD from the 15 inch MBP as it has reduced the battery life by several hours and increased the drain on standby. The Apple SSD in the 13 inch has had no negative side effects. I might hope that an OS update will bring with it better driver support for NVMe low power states, but it seems optimistic given that these models were never designed with NVMe in mind and it's something of a miracle that Apple ever enabled their use.
  • danzeb - Thursday, June 6, 2019 - link

    I been looking into swapping out the ssd on my 13 inch 2015 MBP for a larger capacity one. Going by what I've read on the forums it seems increased battery drain is an unavoidable issue with NVMe drives when installed in our Macs. Would a third party AHCI drive have less power issues than a NVMe?
  • maxtech567 - Thursday, June 6, 2019 - link

    This review disregarded many crucial issues with OWC's Pro X2.

    Pro X2's issues:
    1. You only get less 1500MB/s in most models (33 out of 38 supported models). Exceptions are 2015 MacBook Pro 15 and 4 iMac models, which are the lucky ones with PCIe 3.0 x4. They can take advantage of the full speed. Most other users are stuck with PCIe 2.0 x4, which is 1500MB/s.

    I have a MacBook Air 2013. With the newly bought Pro X2 256GB, I'm only getting 1000MB/s write and 1500MB/s read. This is worse than most third-party solutions like Feather SSD from Fledging.

    2. This solution has all flaws in an NVMe SSD (cannot wake up from hibernation, older boot ROM recognition, etc)
    3. SM2262EN is one of the hottest controllers out there and significantly decreases battery life compare to SM2263XT or Phison E12
    4. Even the destroyer test shows worse performance across the board in real life use cases comparing this SSD to Phison E12

    Besides, the fitting on the adapter is overstated. There are plenty of short or low high ones that work perfectly without poking through the back.
  • burgerkingjr - Thursday, June 6, 2019 - link

    Any chance of a comparison with the Transcend JetDrive 850 or 820?

    https://www.transcend-info.com/Products/No-956

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now