Kioxia Exceria Plus G3 2 TB

[W1zzard]

The Kioxia Exceria Plus G3 M.2 NVMe SSD is a fantastic choice for those seeking excellent value. Our review confirms solid performance that beats many other budget drives. However, it's worth noting that the drive tends to run a bit hot under heavy loads, so additional cooling might be required.

Show full review

 

[bug]

Hm, low QD1 random reads, 1.3W+ power draw at idle, manages to throttle reads. It looks like this needs to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Chrispy_]

I've had decent experiences with the G1 and G2. They're cheap but dependable which is all I ask for in an OS drive, since even Gen3x2 ultra-budget NVMe drives from half a decade ago are fast enough that you really need scripted timers to tell the difference in OS and application performance.

Pricing is everything, and I guess that's regional. In the UK at least the SN770 and SN580 are very hard to beat when it comes to PCIe 4.0 and trying to avoid QLC, though the NM790 is often priced to match those two.

The slower NV2 is consistently about £5-10 cheaper than the SN580 if the SN770 isn't on offer for even less, and this Excercia G3 appears to be the NM2's newer, slightly better cousin so we'll have to see if it's priced competitively enough to sway people away from the outstanding real-world performance of the SN580/770.

 

[Selaya]

no thank you id rather have the g2 instead.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'd be ok with the performance/price balance if the drive was available here. That kinda sucks.

 

[Assimilator]

What is it with these companies continuing to make TLC drives that aren't available in 4TB?

Kioxia's drive comes with an SLC cache of 60%, or 435 GB...

Am I stupid, or is 60% of 2TB not 435GB?

 

[Wirko]

@W1zzard The endurance is 1200 TB for the 2TB model. -> https://apac.kioxia.com/en-apac/personal/ssd/exceria-plus-g3-nvme-ssd.html

But it's actually 800 TB for the G2, Plus G2, and Pro, despite all of them being declared as TLC ... and despite coming from a NAND chip maker itself!

 

[f0ssile]

Aren't these pros and cons in stark contradiction?

Pro - Incredible price/performance
Cons - Considerably lower performance than some alternatives

If there are alternatives that are better in general, it is assumed that they are comparable in price, so such an incredible price/performance ratio cannot be...

 

[bug]

What is it with these companies continuing to make TLC drives that aren't available in 4TB?

It takes many TLC NAND chips to build a 4TB drive. There are models out there (I have one), they just don't seem to be very popular, for some reason. Most of them use YMTC chips, that may be the reason.

Aren't these pros and cons in stark contradiction?


If there are alternatives that are better in general, it is assumed that they are comparable in price, so such an incredible price/performance ratio cannot be...

If it's slower than other drives, but also cheaper, the price/perf ratio can still be ok.
To compare drives, one looks at capacity, NAND tech, PCIe speed, price, performance... To be considered an alternative, a drive doesn't need to match all those, 3 out 5 would be enough imho.

 

[f0ssile]

I could understand that, but if you consider the performance as a whole you should consider it in relation to the overall price.
Then what do some alternatives mean? There are many that are better, apart from the fact that in common use you won't even notice...

The alternatives perhaps should not be considered based on the comparison with units without DRAM, with different NAND etc...
If anything, what you say underlines the situation better, it certainly doesn't justify it.

What do we do, in the next review of the possible 5060, add as a flaw the fact that it doesn't perform like the 5090?
It will be evaluated based on price, features and competition in the same range, right?
Do you understand where the problem is?

 

[bug]

I could understand that, but if you consider the performance as a whole you should consider it in relation to the overall price.
Then what do some alternatives mean? There are many that are better, apart from the fact that in common use you won't even notice...

The alternatives perhaps should not be considered based on the comparison with units without DRAM, with different NAND etc...
If anything, what you say underlines the situation better, it certainly doesn't justify it.

What do we do, in the next review of the possible 5060, add as a flaw the fact that it doesn't perform like the 5090?
It will be evaluated based on price, features and competition in the same range, right?
Do you understand where the problem is?

You can slice that a million ways, I guess. But the layman, it's always about capacity and whether it fits their motherboard.
You asked for an explanation about how those terms aren't at odds with each other, you got one. Make of it what you wish.

 

[Wirko]

I've had decent experiences with the G1 and G2. They're cheap but dependable which is all I ask for in an OS drive, since even Gen3x2 ultra-budget NVMe drives from half a decade ago are fast enough that you really need scripted timers to tell the difference in OS and application performance.

Pricing is everything, and I guess that's regional. In the UK at least the SN770 and SN580 are very hard to beat when it comes to PCIe 4.0 and trying to avoid QLC, though the NM790 is often priced to match those two.

The slower NV2 is consistently about £5-10 cheaper than the SN580 if the SN770 isn't on offer for even less, and this Excercia G3 appears to be the NM2's newer, slightly better cousin so we'll have to see if it's priced competitively enough to sway people away from the outstanding real-world performance of the SN580/770.

The NV2 is QLC if you're out of luck.

But I'd add the NM710 to this bunch, its price is close to the SN580 and Exceria Plus G3 (120 EUR in Germany for either of them), and performance is close too.

 

[f0ssile]

You can slice that a million ways, I guess. But the layman, it's always about capacity and whether it fits their motherboard.
You asked for an explanation about how those terms aren't at odds with each other, you got one. Make of it what you wish.

The explanation was not such, try to use my answer to understand why.

 

[Chrispy_]

The NV2 is QLC if you're out of luck.

The review sample was TLC, and that's why the NV2 is worth looking at whilst the NV1 was garbage-tier because of the QLC NAND.

Are you implying Kingston have been baiting-and-switching again? You'd think they'd learnt their lesson by now!

 

[mechtech]

Endurance rating seems low for 2TB??

 

[Wirko]

The review sample was TLC, and that's why the NV2 is worth looking at whilst the NV1 was garbage-tier because of the QLC NAND.

Are you implying Kingston have been baiting-and-switching again? You'd think they'd learnt their lesson by now!

And the lesson was... don't say it's TLC and put a 640 TBW rating on the 2TB drive.

Yes, the TPU database includes QLC 1TB and 2TB variants, and here is a post by an user who managed to buy a QLC drive soon after the launch.

 

[W1zzard]

Am I stupid, or is 60% of 2TB not 435GB?

435 GB x 3 (pSLC uses 3x the capacity of TLC) = 1305 GB
100% / 2048 GB * 1305 GB = 63.7%