In Issue 011 of UNREDACTED Magazine, I devoted an article to the importance of drive specifications in regard to the disk speed which can be achieved. The purpose of the article was two-fold. I wanted to explain how important protocols were, such as Thunderbolt 3/4/5, USB 2/3.2 Gen 2/3.2 Gen 2x2/4, PCIe Gen 2/3/4/5, and SATA I/II/II, when we considered drives for our daily use, but I also wanted to be sure people were not wasting their money on the latest speed marketing if their devices did not support those promises. The focus of the article was on 40Gbps NVMe drive enclosures which were reliable delivering 3,000 MB/s in real-world use, which is quite impressive for an external drive. In that article, I briefly stated that the only way we could do better was with 80Gbps enclosures and ports which supported those speeds. The response was immediate. Readers wanted to know how to get more speed from large external drives.
In that article, I found that the Qwiizlab 40Gbps USB4 enclosure (https://amzn.to/3OgrIub performed better than more expensive competitors, so I went back to that company to test their 80Gbps option (https://amzn.to/3Nj3zD2 I inserted the same 4 TB Samsung 990 Pro NVMe drive (https://amzn.to/4qwf7Ar into the new enclosure and began my tests. The following displays the device next to a Mac Studio computer.
I first tried it on my aging MacBook Pro M1 Pro which only has Thunderbolt 4 ports. As expected, I achieved results similar to the tests with the 40Gbps enclosure within the magazine. This is because port specifications matter. That computer simply does not have ports capable of taking advantage of an enclosure offering 80Gbps. For that computer, a less expensive enclosure and drive would work almost as well. However, this was a much different story when connected to a more modern computer.
I found the fastest computer in the office, a Mac Studio with a M4 Max chip and Thunderbolt 5 ports. First, I tested the internal 2TB drive for reference:
This was standard for the large drive and Max chip. This gives me blazing fast access to large chunks of data on the internal drive. Next, I tested the external 80Gbps enclosure:
I was shocked. I was getting faster speeds from an external, non-apple, drive than the overpriced Apple drive soldered onto the motherboard. I was skeptical at first, but larger data speed test were just as fast. I pivoted to my real-world test. I copied a 250 GB database from the internal drive to the external:
There were no pauses or signs of throttling. In less than a minute, I copied over this huge database which would have taken 30 minutes on a portable USB disk. The device did get warm, but never hot. There is no fan, so it is important to attach the included thermal pad to the drive as explained in the manual.
The catch: price. Like any other technology, the latest advancements will cost more than the previous generation. I once paid $500 for a 1TB, dual 3.5" SATA disk array many years ago. It was slow but offered unbelievable storage at the time. I now pay less than $100 for a 1 TB microSD card which is tiny and faster. Expect to pay just under $200 for an 80Gbps enclosure while the 40Gbps options will be less than $70. I suspect we will see these prices eventually drop, but it may be a while before we see 120Gbps drives emerge. We will need faster NVMe options before than can be a possibility, but I am thrilled with 7,000 MB/s in real-word use.
Who is this for? Only people who have the need for the speed. If you have a computer with ports capable of 80Gbps or higher, then you might be justified in this upgrade. Since I move huge databases around often, I am now hooked on this enclosure. I was able to offload a terabyte of data from my internal drive to the external in approximately two minutes. It seems too good to be true.
I will repeat myself from the magazine article. My first hard drive was a 5400 RPM spinning disk which achieved 100 MB/s. The later 7200 RPM drives achieved 130 MB/s and the rich people who had SCSI drives were getting 150 MB/s. When I had an early SSD offering 480 MB/s , I was confident that was the end. I never imagined that we would get over 30x those speeds on solid-state medium back then. I often remind myself of this when I start looking at the latest gadgets. We are truly spoiled.
Disclosures: I am not affiliated with any companies mentioned within this article. I was not paid or asked to write this article. I receive commissions through Amazon affiliate links, but not directly from any of
these companies.
Facts Only
A Qwiizlab 40Gbps USB4 enclosure was previously tested and outperformed more expensive competitors.
The author tested a Qwiizlab 80Gbps enclosure with a Samsung 990 Pro 4 TB NVMe drive.
The enclosure was connected to a MacBook Pro M1 Pro with Thunderbolt 4 ports, yielding speeds similar to 40Gbps enclosures.
The same enclosure was tested on a Mac Studio with an M4 Max chip and Thunderbolt 5 ports.
The Mac Studio’s internal 2TB drive served as a performance baseline.
The external 80Gbps enclosure achieved faster speeds than the Mac Studio’s internal drive in real-world tests.
A 250 GB database was copied from the internal drive to the external enclosure in under a minute.
The enclosure warmed during use but did not overheat, requiring the included thermal pad for heat dissipation.
The 80Gbps enclosure costs approximately $200, while 40Gbps options cost under $70.
The author has no direct affiliations with the companies mentioned but includes Amazon affiliate links.
The author’s first hard drive achieved 100 MB/s, while modern NVMe drives exceed 7,000 MB/s.
The analysis suggests 120Gbps drives may emerge in the future but require faster NVMe technology.
Executive Summary
The analysis explores the performance and practicality of high-speed external NVMe drive enclosures, specifically comparing 40Gbps and 80Gbps options. The author tested a Qwiizlab 80Gbps USB4 enclosure with a Samsung 990 Pro NVMe drive, finding that while older devices like a MacBook Pro M1 Pro with Thunderbolt 4 ports couldn’t leverage the enclosure’s full speed, a Mac Studio with Thunderbolt 5 ports achieved real-world speeds exceeding 7,000 MB/s—faster than the internal drive. The enclosure performed consistently during large data transfers, such as a 250 GB database copy in under a minute, though it required proper thermal management. The cost of 80Gbps enclosures remains high (~$200) compared to 40Gbps options (~$70), making them niche for users with compatible hardware and demanding workloads. The author reflects on the rapid evolution of storage technology, from early SSDs to today’s multi-gigabyte-per-second speeds, emphasizing that such advancements, while impressive, may not be necessary for average users.
The piece also highlights the importance of matching hardware capabilities with drive specifications to avoid overspending on unutilized performance. While the results are compelling for professionals handling large datasets, the high cost and limited compatibility may deter casual users. The author’s disclosures clarify no direct affiliations with the mentioned companies, though affiliate links are present.
Full Take
**Steelman:** The narrative presents a compelling case for the value of cutting-edge storage technology when paired with compatible hardware. The author’s hands-on testing demonstrates that 80Gbps enclosures can outperform even high-end internal drives, offering tangible benefits for professionals who frequently transfer large datasets. The piece thoughtfully acknowledges the cost barrier and limited applicability, avoiding hype while still celebrating technological progress. The historical context—contrasting early hard drives with today’s speeds—grounds the discussion in a broader arc of innovation, making the advancements feel both remarkable and inevitable.
**Pattern Scan:** The article avoids overt manipulation, but a few subtle patterns merit note. The emphasis on "real-world use" and skepticism toward "speed marketing" (ARC-0012 *Appeal to Pragmatism*) serves as a counterbalance to tech industry hype, though it could also be read as a *Motte-and-Bailey* (ARC-0043) if the "real-world" framing were used to dismiss legitimate performance benchmarks. The disclosure of affiliate links, while transparent, introduces a mild *Conflict of Interest* (ARC-0031) dynamic, though the author’s lack of direct ties to the companies mitigates this. The historical reflection on storage speeds risks *Nostalgia Bias* (ARC-0052), framing past limitations as quaint rather than structurally constraining for users at the time.
**Root Cause:** The narrative is driven by a tech-enthusiast paradigm that equates speed with progress, assuming that faster storage is inherently desirable. This overlooks the diminishing returns for average users and the environmental costs of rapid hardware turnover. The unstated assumption is that professionals with high-speed needs are the primary audience, sidelining questions about accessibility or whether such speeds are necessary for most workflows.
**Implications:** For human agency, this technology empowers those who can afford it, reinforcing a divide between professionals with cutting-edge tools and others stuck with slower hardware. The cost-benefit analysis favors niche use cases, but the environmental impact of manufacturing and discarding high-speed enclosures remains unaddressed. Second-order consequences include potential vendor lock-in (e.g., Thunderbolt 5 compatibility) and the pressure to upgrade hardware prematurely.
**Bridge Questions:** How might the environmental costs of high-speed storage innovation outweigh its benefits for non-specialist users? What alternative metrics (e.g., reliability, energy efficiency) could better guide purchasing decisions than raw speed? Would the adoption of universal standards (beyond proprietary ports like Thunderbolt) democratize access to these speeds?
**Counterstrike Scan:** A bad actor pushing this narrative might exaggerate the necessity of 80Gbps speeds for average users, downplay compatibility limitations, or omit cost considerations to drive sales. The actual content resists this by explicitly noting the niche applicability and cost barriers, aligning more with genuine enthusiasm than manipulation. No structural red flags detected.
Sentinel — Human
The article exhibits strong human characteristics, including personal voice, erratic sentence structure, and detailed firsthand testing, making synthetic origin highly unlikely.