Tweet
Seagate is the latest company to enter the race to manufacture the best 2230-sized SSDs for handheld gaming PCs like the Steam Deck and ROG Ally with its FireCuda 520N. With speeds rated for up to 5,000MB/s, it’s a bit of an improvement over drives that come in most handhelds and offers much more storage with a 2TB model. Upgrading to the 520N means more games on faster storage, which is always great.
However, the 520N neither offers new levels of performance nor an exciting low price for users interested in 2230 SSDs, which is this drive’s biggest problem. While the 2TB model is priced well enough to be a decent option, the 1TB model is priced too high to make any sense. Though the 520N is boring, the 2TB model gets the job done as well as its rivals. With a price cut or a discount, the 520N could be a great choice for your handheld gaming PC, though right now, it’s not particularly notable.
About this review: Seagate sent me the FireCuda 520N 2TB for the purposes of this review, and did not see its contents before publishing.
Seagate FireCuda 520N
Good but a little pricey
Awkwardly squeezed between two other 2230 SSDs
Seagate’s FireCuda 520N is a 2230 M.2 NVMe SSD compatible with the Steam Deck, ROG Ally, and laptops like the Microsoft Surface. It offers two models: 1TB and 2TB.
Storage capacity
1TB, 2TB
Hardware Interface
PCIe Gen4 x4 NVMe 1.4
Compatible Devices
2230 M.2 NVMe SSD
Transfer rate
Up to: 5,000MB/s read; 3,200MB/s writes
TBW
450 (1TB); 660 (2TB)
MTBF
1.8 million
Warranty
Five-year limited
Pros
- Good overall performance
- 2TB model is priced well enough
- Better than Steam Deck and ROG Ally stock SSDs
Cons
- 1TB model is way too expensive
- 2TB model isn’t that much cheaper than the SN770M
- Doesn’t offer anything particularly new for the market
Pricing and availability
The FireCuda 520N has been out since October, and it’s only been available at Amazon since. The 520N is available in 1TB and 2TB sizes, and although the 2TB model is faster, performance should be roughly similar on both drives. Since launch, the 1TB and 2TB models have been going for $110 and $190, respectively.
The 520N’s availability gets much weirder in the wider market. The 1TB model is pretty expensive, while the 2TB model is relatively cheap. At $110, the 520N 1TB is as expensive as Western Digital’s SN770M 1TB option, and significantly more expensive than Corsair’s MP600 Core Mini 1TB and Teamgroup’s MP44S 1TB. The 2TB model, however, is only $10 more than the MP44S 2TB, $10 cheaper than the MP600 Core Mini 2TB, and $30 cheaper than the SN770M 2TB. The 1TB and 2TB versions are fairly different products from the competition just because of pricing.
Performance
How the Seagate FireCuda 520N 2TB was tested
For this review, I tested the FireCuda 520N alongside three of its competitors in my Intel test bench using the Core i9-14900K, ASRock’s Z790 Taichi Lite, and 32GB of DDR5 clocked at 5,600MHz and running with CL40 timings. There is one caveat to this, as all the popular handheld gaming PCs run AMD APUs, but Intel CPUs (especially the desktop models) are generally more able to extract the full performance of SSDs. However, the data here will be largely applicable to devices like the Steam Deck and ROG Ally, though they might not be able to run these drives quite as fast as an Intel desktop PC.
The 2TB model of the 520N is what you should get if you want good value for a 2230 SSD that has a trustworthy brand behind it.
I benchmarked the four SSDs in three applications: CrystalDiskMark, the storage test in 3DMark, and IOMeter. I’ve chosen these three benchmarks to show the biggest picture of the drive’s overall performance, but since 2230 SSDs are mostly used for gaming these days, I’m mostly focused on the results from 3DMark, and I don’t value the performance results from the other two tests quite as much.
CrystalDiskMark
I first used the six default tests that come with CrystalDiskMark. These tests vary in several parameters: sequential vs. random workload, block size, queue depth, and thread count. This is a synthetic test and shows peak performance rather than real-world performance, but the data is useful nonetheless.
| 5,150/3,929 |
5,183/4,874 |
5,145/3,863 |
5,158/3,877 |
| 3,090/3,929 |
5,006/4,869 |
2,930/3,865 |
2,947/3,879 |
| 5,150/3,925 |
5,236/4,877 |
5,105/3,862 |
5,157/3,872 |
| 2,201/3,969 |
2,664/3,379 |
2,157/3,849 |
2,148/3,859 |
| 927/812 |
1,067/1,242 |
888/771 |
902/808 |
| 73/447 |
80/356 |
73/463 |
73/442 |
Scores are organized by read/write and are measured in MB/s.
The 520N 2TB, MP600 Core Mini 2TB, and MP44S 2TB perform more or less the same here, with no substantial performance differences. This isn’t that surprising given that the field of 2230 SSDs is getting crowded, and companies like Seagate aren’t designing every part of the SSD in-house. In fact, the MP600 Core Mini and MP44S use identical or near-identical controllers and NAND chips, and although I don’t know what exactly is inside the 520N, I would suspect it uses pretty much the same components based on its performance.
Neither the 520N, MP600 Core Mini, or MP44S were a match for the SN770M, however. It was slower in just three instances and otherwise tied or beat the other three drives. Again, this is a synthetic benchmark that’s not very applicable to games, but if you’re interested in the 520N for a small laptop, this might be relevant, especially if you make a lot of large file transfers.
3DMark
3DMark’s storage test benchmarks SSDs in games like Overwatch and Battlefield V, which is as real-world as you can get. The score is calculated by 3DMark from the results of the individual tests and indicates overall performance.
| 2,721 |
3,183 |
3,162 |
2,762 |
The 520N is technically in second here, tied with the MP44S, while the SN770M and MP600 Core Mini are tied for first. It’s a perfectly fine result, and I’d imagine the 520N is good for gaming. I doubt there would be a particularly noticeable difference between it and the faster drives.
When it comes to gaming, the FireCuda 520N 2TB checks all of the important boxes.
IOMeter
IOMeter is a benchmark I use to show writing performance over a long period of time, which can vary due to two important factors: cache and fill rate. All SSDs are equipped with a small cache of data that runs at a high speed, while the rest of an SSD runs at a slower speed. If that cache is depleted faster than it recovers, writing performance plummets. Additionally, filling up an SSD also reduces writing performance since it’s faster to fill up a drive when there’s lots of empty space to dump data into. I ran a 15-minute write-only test on each SSD in IOMeter to show how they perform under this intensive workload.
This first test shows writing speed when the drives are filled up by 50%, with the graph showing each SSD’s performance across the entire test and the table displaying the average write speed.
| 260 |
2,021 |
141 |
488 |
Scores are measured in MB/s.
Although the 520N isn’t in dead last, it’s well behind the MP44S and nearly an order of magnitude slower than the SN770M. Although this isn’t really that important for gaming itself, it can be important for installing games, which is a writing operation. However, internet speeds of 260MB/s (roughly two gigabits) are offered in just a handful of places in the world, and game transfers over USB would be bottlenecked by other factors like the device on the other side and the USB connection itself.
What’s very interesting about the 520N is that it can maintain peak speeds for a relatively long time at higher fill rates.
But for laptops, that 260MB/s write speed could become seriously annoying, and it’s pretty clear that Seagate doesn’t really intend for the 520N to be used in anything but gaming or very casual usage. The SN770M is the only option for a high-end 2230 SSD if you plan on filling it up with any decent amount.
This next graph details writing performance at 10%, 50%, and 90% fill rates. Additionally, the table below details the performance of the other three SSDs at the same fill rates.
| 3,879 |
4,501 |
3,856 |
3,802 |
| 260 |
2,021 |
141 |
488 |
| 183 |
1,176 |
154 |
137 |
Scores are measured in MB/s.
At 10% full, the 520N is able to run at mostly full bore, equal to the MP600 Core Mini and MP44S but behind the SN770M by a decent margin. Things at 90% filled aren’t that different from 50% filled (which is what I showed in the last graph and table), but the 520N does overtake the MP44S, and the SN770M is not nearly as far ahead as it was. However, the 520N still loses decisively to the SN770M, even though its performance was cut in half from 50% filled to 90% filled.
What’s very interesting about the 520N, though, is that it can maintain peak speeds for a relatively long time at higher fill rates. Neither the MP44S nor the MP600 Core Mini can sustain anything above three digits in the first few seconds of the 90% fill rate test, while the 520N was able to hit just under 4,000MB/s for about 10 seconds. In the 50% fill rate test, the MP600 Core Mini didn’t hit peak performance at all, while the 520N and the MP44S sustained it for about a minute.
Should you buy the Seagate FireCuda 520N 2TB?
You should buy the Seagate FireCuda 520N 2TB if:
- You want a decently priced 2230 SSD
- You want to upgrade the SSD in your gaming handheld
You shouldn’t buy the Seagate FireCuda 520N 2TB if:
- You want great SSD performance overall
- You want an SSD that’s always fast, no matter how full it is
When it comes to gaming, the FireCuda 520N 2TB checks all the important boxes. It’s a bit more expensive than the MP44S 2TB, but the performance is about the same, and the price difference is only $10. While its sustained writing performance under a higher fill rate isn’t very good, that’s realistically not going to matter for gaming on devices like the Steam Deck.
However, if you’re looking to get the 520N 2TB for something like a Surface laptop, I would recommend you pass due to its poor sustained writing performance. Good writing performance doesn’t usually matter that much, but it really sucks having to see a very slow file transfer, and that’s just not the experience you’d want if you could help it. The SN770M 2TB is just $30 more expensive than the 520N 2TB, and $30 on top of $190 is definitely worth paying when the performance difference is as big as it is.
With a price cut or a discount, the 520N could definitely be a great choice for your handheld gaming PC.
The 520N 1TB is also priced poorly, not just for laptops but in general. At $110, it’s the same price as the SN770M 1TB, $15 more than the MP600 Core Mini 1TB, and $30 more than the MP44S 1TB. I didn’t review any 1TB models, so I don’t know for sure how they measure up to each other, but I would assume the performance differences are roughly the same. The 1TB model isn’t a good purchase right now and definitely needs a price cut.
However, I can say that the 2TB model is still good to get; it’s just not particularly impressive or interesting. It mostly accomplishes what the MP44S 2TB does, which is fine enough. I’m hoping the 1TB model’s price is cut to $90 at least so that it can actually make sense as a product. For now, though, the 2TB model of the 520N is what you should get if you want good value for a 2230 SSD from a trustworthy brand.
Seagate FireCuda 520N
Good but a little pricey
Awkwardly squeezed between two other 2230 SSDs
Seagate’s FireCuda 520N is a 2230 M.2 NVMe SSD compatible with the Steam Deck, ROG Ally, and laptops like the Microsoft Surface. It offers two models: 1TB and 2TB.
** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **
More...
