The Seagate FireCuda 510 SSD is up there with the premium, high-speed
PCIe NMVe SSDs easily matching 3400/3200MB/s sequential read/write speeds. It is for disk speed freaks, gamers and those
that understand what PCIe NVMe M.2 2280 is and its strengths and weaknesses.
GadgetGuy has recently reviewed the best offerings from Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus and WD Black. Like the Seagate FireCuda 510 SSD (website here) these use 64-layer NAND, their own controllers and various cache sizes and algorithms.
Seagate uses 64-layer, TLC (Triple Level Cell/3-bit) with 1MB DRAM per terabyte. It also reserves up to 28GB of the TLC for use in longer data transfer.
Specifications Seagate FireCuda 510 SSD (1/2TB)
Interface: NVMe PCIe Gen3 x 4 lanes, NVMe 1.3
NAND Flash Memory: 3D TLC
Cache: 1MB per TB plus 28GB reserve from TLC
Sequential Read/Writes: 3,450/3,200 MB/s
Durability: 1300/2600 TB (TBW)
Mean Time Between Failures: 1,800,000 hours
Capacity: 1TB and 2TB
Form Factor: M.2 2280
Warranty: 5 years
The result (in theoretical tests using Crystal Disk Mark –
and there are many others) is below. Note speeds can vary +/- a few percent
between tests and we run several tests over several days to get an average.
Random – Small
Random – medium
Randon – large
Random – small
Random – medium
Random – large
Let’s analyse this
Maximum sequential read – all pass
Maximum sequential write – all pass
Random Read – small files – FireCuda is 60/62%
Random Read – medium files – FireCuda is 27/57%
Random Read – large files – all pass
Random Write – small files – FireCuda is about
Random Write – medium files – FireCuda is about
Random Write – large files – FireCuda is 16%
faster than Samsung and 32% slower than WD
I would not write FireCuda off because these are results specific
to CrystalDisk Mark tests that may not reflect real-world use.
What it shows is that its cache gets overwhelmed for random reads/writes slowing down accordingly. This either means its cache or controller is optimised for overall sequential speed, or its cache is too small. The good news is that it is more firmware related, and I am sure Seagate will address this.
What does this mean to you?
Overall speed comes where the cache and controller have time
to sort the data and read/write it in an orderly (sequential) manner. This should
mean it is perfect for games.
Large files transfers are great just beating the Samsung 970
and coming second to WD Black.
It needs to be optimised for random read and write of disparate
We also used Windows Explorer to test copy rates from another
PCIe NVME SSD. For a medium size 50GB file, it starts well at around 1.8GBps
but quickly drops to about half that once the cache/reserve is full.
For a large 500GB file (yes, I know that a file of this size
would be unusual) it maintains 1.8GBps albeit with several small drops offs as
it comes up for air.
In layman’s terms, it is slowest in backing up from other storage
on a hard disk where files are fragmented and ranging from small to medium in
Cloning software Disk Wizard
enables a fast clone of an existing drive.
Price (average prices online plus delivery)
1TB $439 (44 cents per GB)
2TB $699 (35 cents per GB)
These are comparable to the Samsung 970 EVO and WD Black.
GadgetGuy’s take – Seagate FireCuda 510 SSD is fast but not the fastest
Seagate has a long reputation in storage with an excellent
warranty and disk recovery support.
It is ideal for gaming. It is comparable to the Samsung 970
EVO Plus and WD Black SSD in sequential read/write but significantly slower in
random read/write. The latter affects overall speeds for office productivity
and video/still editing/rendering.
Seagate may be able to address this issue via firmware
But as the prices are comparable, the Samsung and WD choices
offer better performance.