ORICO Chroma CN300 500GB External SSD with USB-C Interface

I’ve already reviewed a 128GB external SSD from Orico, but when I was offered the chance to test a new version, this time with 500GB, I thought, why not? The previous one works fine, and as they say, “you can never have too much storage.”


This review will focus mainly on testing, because in my opinion looks are secondary, though I’ll give them a little attention too.

First, the packaging. The drive and everything included with it are packed in a blister pack, but the seller wrapped it in a sheet of cardboard for extra protection, so everything arrived safe and sound.
The bottom of the package lists the technical specifications, a link to the manufacturer’s website, the support email address, and other information.


What’s included:
1. ORICO Chroma CN300 drive
2. USB-C to USB-C cable
3. USB-A to USB-C cable
4. Manual and warranty card.



There’s nothing interesting in the manual, and the warranty card is no more useful, but having two cables is very convenient: you can connect the drive to either a USB-C port or a “regular” USB-A port.
The package contents are identical to those of the GV100; the only difference is the drive itself.


The store offers three storage capacities (256GB, 500GB, and 1TB) and four color options for the case.


I was able to get the 500GB version. Of the colors, I liked the purple one best, but that’s a matter of taste, of course. It’s not much bigger than a matchbox. In the store photo it looked a little larger, and definitely shorter than the GV100. You can’t attach it to a keychain, though; then again, there wasn’t much point in doing that with the GV100 either, since it still needs a cable.
It looks good and is neatly made; on visual inspection, there’s really nothing to complain about. One end has a USB-C port and a blue activity LED. It isn’t too bright and isn’t annoying.


The list of technical specifications on the product page is extremely brief. You can only find the claimed speed in the main product image and on the packaging.


As a brief note, the tests were run on two versions of Windows, 7 and 10. I started with Windows 7, then remembered that Windows 10 handles storage devices somewhat differently, so I repeated the critical tests. During the review, I’ll mention which OS each test was run on, although in some cases you can tell from the screenshots.

But first, here’s some general system information showing how it was detected.


The first test checks the capacity. In this case, though, I was more interested in measuring the read/write speed across the entire drive in a single pass.
After writing about 60–70 GB, it looked like the speed had dropped a little, so I took a screenshot. The capacity was fine, and the write/read speeds were 61 and 268 MB/s. This test was run in Windows 10.


Temperature about an hour into the test, then near the end of the write test, and in idle mode.


Information from SSD-Z.


The first tests are also from the same program. Since I ran them more as a side test, the results are only for Windows 7.


Next are the more familiar tests: first, CrystalDiskMark, using 1 and 32 GB test files. Windows 7 is at the top, Windows 10 at the bottom.


AS SSD Benchmark, 1 and 10 GB. Windows 7 is at the top again. The results are noticeably higher in Windows 10, but I also noticed something strange: when testing in Windows 7, the program showed 31 KB - BAD, while everything was fine in Windows 10.


Anvil's benchmark, again starting with Windows 7, also flags a problematic 31.5 KB area.


The same test with the same software in Windows 10 gave an overall score three times higher, without reporting any problems.


HD Tune Pro.
Here are three results from Windows 7 first.




It’s hard to tell from the graphs above how much data the SSD can write before it “falls back” to its regular speed. The Windows 10 tests were more revealing, though they took longer to run.
As in the previous test, I first set the test file size to 50 GB, but ended up with two straight lines (write and read) at around 400 MB/s.
That wasn’t what I wanted, so I set the limit to 100 GB and got exactly the same result. Then I raised it to 150 GB, and the program drew this strange graph. I think I was seeing the thermal protection kick in, since I’d been pushing the drive for quite a while.


And sure enough, after leaving the drive alone for a couple of hours and repeating the same test, I got two straight lines. Even at 150 GB, though, the drive didn’t slow down.


Only when I set the test file size to 200 GB did I see the threshold where the speed drops. In this case, it was around 175 GB, after which the speed fell to 50 MB/s.
Interestingly, once the drive switched to “slow” mode, the read speed dropped too, then recovered. I tried test sizes of 200 and 250 GB. The results differed slightly, but the pattern was the same: read speed dropped to 270 MB/s, then climbed back to 400.

Also, in both cases, when the test moved on to measuring random 4 KB multi-block performance, the software returned an I/O error. It didn’t really affect the drive’s operation, but it was a little annoying.



And now the usual read and write tests.


The write test was run on an unpartitioned drive. Interestingly, the speed dropped after just 70 GB, not 175 GB as shown above.


USB Flash Benchmark



Tests that are closer to real-world usage scenarios.
1. Copying a file of about 7 GB to an empty drive
2. Then copying a 40 GB file. The initial slowdown was my fault—I “distracted” the computer.
3. About 25% of the drive is occupied; copying a 7 GB file.
4. About 30% of the drive is occupied; copying a folder containing 37,000 files with a total size of 34 GB, or about 500 KB per file. In reality, though, the files ranged from 100–200 KB to 2–3 MB.


In practice, when simply copying from the SSD, I never saw speeds above 290 MB/s. I thought the computer's storage might be limiting the speed, but then I found my own review where I'd tested it. A repeat test confirmed the results.


Measuring power consumption.
1. Idle
2. Writing in USB 2.0 mode. Read-mode power consumption was about the same, around 240 mA.
3, 4. Writing and reading a large file in USB 3.0 mode. When I tried writing a folder with small files, power consumption fluctuated between 220 and 320 mA.

This drive is more power-efficient than the GV100. After measuring its power consumption, I was surprised that its case reached 60 degrees during use.


I wanted to open it up, but unfortunately, I didn't succeed. The most I managed was to remove one of the decorative covers completely and partially bend back the other. The problem is that not only is the drive's case glued together, but the decorative covers are glued to it as well. The U-shaped ones can at least be removed somehow, but the corner piece—and especially the one that covers the entire length of the case—probably can't be removed without breaking it, since it's glued on. I tried bending, prying, and twisting, but no luck, I'm sorry to say.


To find out what was inside, I first tried CheckUDisk, which showed the VID&PID and Vendor Description.


That didn't seem like enough, and I remembered a program once posted by a user named vlo. Many thanks to them for that.
This showed that the controller is an SMI2258XT and the memory is Intel 64L B17A.


It looks like the drive really does use the advertised 3D NAND memory, TLC type. The comparison information is from here.


That seems to be everything, so I can draw some conclusions.
First, about speed: the drive has a USB 3.1 Gen2 interface, but I tested it with the older USB 3.0, which may be why I didn't get the full 540 MB/s. Still, even 400 is pretty good.
I should also note that it does run faster in Windows 10. But although benchmarks show a sequential write speed of 400 MB/s, in practice I got no more than 290 MB/s.
I'd call its power consumption low and its temperature rise moderate. Still, the case is plastic and doesn't dissipate heat very well, which (presumably) can cause the speed to drop in steps when writing more than 50% of the capacity in one go. Though it turned out to be quite difficult to get it into that state.

Overall, it performs quite well. It has reasonably good flash memory inside, although it's paired with a fairly old, budget controller. So far, I have no complaints during normal use.

That's all for today. I hope you found the review useful.