KingDian M280 - 120GB mSATA SSD

A while ago, I did a review of the Netac N5M drive. I really liked it, but my plans changed and I needed it for another computer, so I had to buy another one, this time a 120GB model.
As usual, there’ll be tests and conclusions.

Back in June, I wrote that I’d bought a small fanless computer to replace my mini-server, and had to use the Netac N5M SSD in it, even though it was intended for a completely different computer.
But that didn’t solve the problem: the larger computer still needed an additional drive. I planned to move the 240GB SSD into it and buy a 120GB one for the smaller computer. 60GB would actually have been enough, but I bought a little extra for future needs.

While choosing a drive, I wanted to get a standard 2.5-inch model, but I really didn’t want to deal with cables, adapters, and the like, even though that would have been cheaper.

Anyway, I bought one, especially since they were offering 10% off coupons at the time. I also bought another device for the new computer (it’s related to the “move”), but I’ll tell you about that another time.
In the end, this drive cost me about $38.5.

The order arrived pretty quickly. The drive comes in a blister pack, not a box like the Netac N5M.


The form factor is mSATA. Drives in this form factor cost more than their 2.5-inch counterparts, but if you have a suitable slot, the layout inside the computer is neater.


Unlike the Netac N5M, this one came with a couple of small screws. My computer came with screws too, but extras are handy—the screws are tiny and easy to lose.


A couple of close-up photos.




A fairly large area on one side of the board is taken up by the power regulators.


1. Controller: SM2256K-AB. The Netac had an SM2246EN.
As far as I can tell, this controller is relatively new; it was announced about a year ago, unlike the SM2246EN, which is already three years old. It’s designed to work with TLC NAND.


2. The flash memory consists of four HTHA16S2T1-10 chips. I tried to find information about them, but all the links lead to Chinese sites. The 120GB Netac uses Intel memory, while the 240GB model uses Samsung. The activity LED is visible to the left.
3. The RAM is from the well-known manufacturer Nanya: NT5CB64M16FP-DH, with a capacity of 128MB (1Gb). To the right is a power converter, presumably for the memory chip.
4. Power converters for the controller and flash memory.


There isn’t much else to look at, and I wasn’t planning to decap the chips, so let’s move on to the performance tests. For the most part, these will repeat the tests from this review. I’ll also include results from the previous review in a few places for comparison.

The drive was, of course, completely blank, so the usual “getting acquainted” process with my computer was in order.
I see no point in creating a GPT partition, so I chose MBR.


Next, the usual formatting operation.


The result is a perfectly standard 111 GB of disk space.
The stated capacity is 120,000,000,000 bytes; in my case, it comes to 111.79×1024×1024×1024=120,033,598,504


The drive shows zero read/write values and zero power-on time.


In general, I'm skeptical about the power-on time counter. For example, here's a screenshot of a 240 GB Netac drive that's been running continuously for 2.5 months.


I'll start the tests with the information from the SSD-Z utility. Performance here is slightly higher than with the 240 GB Netac. By the way, larger-capacity drives are usually faster, but in this case we can see the opposite.


And a few more SSD-Z tests.


HD Tune test. As before, the test was run with an 8 MB block size.
The difference is within the measurement error; the only distinction is the peak speed: the Netac reached 325 MB/s.


The other tests are also similar, but the Netac has higher sequential write performance, at 414096 versus 320126 for the drive under review.


But the AIDA test really surprised me.
The read test is perfectly respectable, but write performance falls off a cliff. A reminder: AIDA runs its write test on an unpartitioned drive, and before the test I was asked three times whether I was sure.
The Netac managed an average write speed of 440 MB/s and a minimum of 369, while the drive under review managed just 61 average and 53 minimum.
I'll say right away that this was the only write-speed test of this drive that showed such low performance.


The AS SSD Benchmark test showed roughly similar read speeds and lower write speeds than the Netac. The drive under review is on the left in the screenshot.


A couple more tests of different types.


This test was run twice; you can see the difference in the results on the graph.


When copying with Windows, however, the difference is actually in favor of the drive under review.
The screenshot shows the write speed to the drive; data was read from a Samsung EVO 850 250 GB drive.
The drive under review is at the top, and the 240 GB Netac is at the bottom.


And finally, a test that will be more familiar to most readers: CrystalMark.
As last time, the test was run in three rounds: first the standard run in version 3.0.3, then version 5.1.2 with two settings, 1GB and 32GB.
The first line is the drive under review
The second is the Netac N5M
The third is the Samsung EVO 850 250GB


So, what can I say in conclusion? The drive is a little “asymmetrical”: in some tests, read speeds are noticeably higher than write speeds. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that it was compared with a 240GB drive, which isn’t entirely fair.
I probably wouldn’t use it as the main drive in my work computer, but it should be perfectly fine as the system drive in my “miniserver,” especially since there’s no critical data on it. It’s used only for the operating system and a few programs that can easily be restored.

For now, I’ve been testing the drive in my “big” computer, but in a few days I’ll install it in its regular workstation, where it’ll run 24/7. I may post its operating statistics and condition after it’s been running for a while.

Now, to answer the question: why not buy locally instead of from China?
It’s simple: an mSATA-form-factor drive costs from $60 here, which is one and a half times more.
And if you look online for an 8% off coupon, you can get it even cheaper :)

I hope you found this review useful.