The Addlink A93/S93 is a solid-performing PCIe 4.0, DRAM-less NVMe SSD that can save you a few bucks. But the A93 with its heatsink faces heavy competition from many similarly priced and often faster SSDs.
Price When Reviewed
This value will show the geolocated pricing text for product undefined
Best Pricing Today
PCIe 4.0 host memory buffer (HMB) SSDs like the Addlink S93 / A93 (heatsink) are all the rage these days. Without the cost of DRAM primary cache added to the mix, the modules are cheaper to produce and can still match DRAM-designs in most performance areas.
That said, the 1TB version of the S93/A93 I tested ranks low among a list of very fast SSDs — primarily due to a very slow time in our 450GB write compared to the 2TB competition.
Read on to learn more, then see our roundup of the best PCIe 4.0 SSDs to for comparison.
What are the Addlink S93’s features?
The S93 is a 2280, PCIe 4.0 x4 (four lane) NVMe 2.0 SSD sporting a Phison P27T controller and 162-layer TLC NAND. It’s a host memory buffer design, which means in lieu of DRAM, your device’s memory is used for primary caching duties.
When it first showed up, HMB designs were slower than DRAM in most areas. Now they regularly compete well in terms of sequential throughput, though DRAM still rules when it comes to random 4K operations. The gap seems to be slowly closing though.
Addlink warranties the S93/A93 for five years and the drives feature a 600TBW per every 1GB of capacity rating, though that’s from the NAND chart and not specifically stated anywhere except on the fact check spreadsheet Addlink returned to us. That’s dead on average for a TLC drive.
Note that if you ever want to see how close your SSD is to turning read-only, grab any utility that gathers S.M.A.R.T. info and check the “percentage used” value. I just did that on my 1.5 year-old Mac Studio and it was only 1 percent. As I’ve often said, most users don’t write nearly as much data as they think they do. Remember, reads don’t count.
The S93 is bargain, the A93, not quite so much.
The back of the S93 NVMe SSD.
TBW indicates the amount of data that may be written under warranty. Note, that you may be able to write a lot more than that before the drive turns read-only. This is basically a vendor risk calculation.
The S93 is bargain, the A93, not quite so much. It’s a nice heatsink, but few users need one and the graphene heat spreader/label on the S93 dissipates a fair amount of heat.
How fast is the Addlink S93?
The 1TB S93 Addlink proved mostly competitive performance-wise, if not up there with the best we’ve seen. What dragged down its overall performance to 24th out of 29 PCIe 4.0/HMB/TLC SSDs that I’ve tested was its miserable 450GB write time. That’s primarily thanks to having only half the NAND of its competitors available for secondary caching.
As you can see, CrystalDiskMark 8 rated the S93’s sequential transfer abilities highly when queues were in play. But the single-queue performance was more than a bit off the highly ranked WD Black SN7100’s.
As you can see, CrystalDiskMark 8 rated the S93’s sequential transfer abilities highly when queues were in play. But the single-queue performance was a bit off the competition. Longer bars are better.
Random performance in CrystalDiskMark 8 was better, and actually comparable with a single queue in play. The Lexar’s tragic numbers in these tests were largely a matter of subpar caching, as they turned competitive when we reduced the CrystalDiskMark 8 data set to 16GB.
Random performance in CrystalDiskMark 8 was a bit better, and actually comparable with a single queue. Longer bars are better.
I have nothing to complain about with the A93/S93’s 48GB transfer times. It’s good in common real-world scenarios.
I have nothing to complain about with the S93’s 48GB transfer times. Shorter bars are better.
The 450GB is where being only 1TB in capacity hurt the S93/A93 — there’s simply less NAND to treat as SLC secondary cache. However, the slowest write speed was still a SATA-like 600MBps, so this isn’t quite as tragic as you might think in the grand storage scheme.
The 450GB is where being only 1TB in capacity hurt the S93 compared to the competition — there’s simply less NAND to treat as SLC secondary cache. Shorter bars are better.
Again, in its 2TB flavor, the S93/A93 would likely have ranked a good deal higher.
Note that originally I was set to test the heatsink-clad A93 that Addlink also provided. Alas, to use the SSD in my upside-down secondary PCIe 5.0 M.2 slot, the heatsink had to go.
Rather startlingly, the two NAND chips came off the PC board along with the heatsink and its thermal coupling material. This should not happen, and was a first for me after performing numerous other similar operations. Make sure you opt for the bare S93 if you don’t need or can’t use a heatsink.
Should you buy the Addlink S93/A93?
The S93/A93 is hardly a barn burner in the category, but it will do the job, and in its S93 incarnation it’s outstandingly affordable. That said, I recommend the 2TB version and looking for it on sale.
This article was edited on March 18th, 2025 to change the TBW discussion which was reported as 300TBW per TB of capacity, to the 600TBW it actually is. Note that this was because of an error on the fact check sheet. Addlink doesn’t state the TBW rating anywhere in the S93/A93 documentation or Web pages.
How we test
Drive tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB and Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.
Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This can be less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with far faster late-generation NAND.
Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching.Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.
Jon Jacobi is a musician, former x86/6800 programmer, and long-time computer enthusiast. He writes reviews on TVs, SSDs, dash cams, remote access software, Bluetooth speakers, and sundry other consumer-tech hardware and software.
