The OWC Aura Pro X2 SSD Review: An NVMe Upgrade For Older Macs
by Billy Tallis on June 5, 2019 10:15 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The OWC Aura Pro X2 performs about the same on The Destroyer as the other SM2262EN-based drive, the HP EX950. These are both fairly slow compared to other current high-end NVMe SSDs, but almost twice as fast as the early Apple PCIe SSD.
The average latency for the Aura Pro X2 on The Destroyer is in line with expectations, but the 99th percentile latency is far higher than the HP EX950 and the older Apple SSD.
The OWC Aura Pro X2 shows more differences from the other SM2262EN drive when the average latency is broken down by reads and writes. For reads, the OWC drive is significantly faster than the HP EX950 and is comparable to the Phison E12-based Silicon Power drive. For writes, the OWC is slower than the EX950 but still well ahead of the Apple SSD and the current entry-level NVMe drives.
The 99th percentile read latency of the Aura Pro X2 on The Destroyer is competitive with other current high-end NVMe drives, but the 99th percentile write latency is a problem: it's a bit worse than the MLC-based Apple SSD, and several times higher than the best current TLC drives.
The OWC Aura Pro X2 is more power efficient than expected, using less energy to complete The Destroyer than most other drives in this batch, while the Apple SSD and the HP EX950 are some of the most power-hungry under load.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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