<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: SanDisk X400 SSD Review (512GB)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thessdreview.com/featured/sandisk-x400-ssd-review-512gb/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/featured/sandisk-x400-ssd-review-512gb/</link>
	<description>The Worlds Dedicated SSD Education and Review Resource &#124;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:22:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: porsche		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/featured/sandisk-x400-ssd-review-512gb/#comment-23571</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[porsche]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2016 18:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=92358#comment-23571</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Sean (or anyone:) ), I was about to buy a 512GB X400, but noticed that at userbenchmark.com, the older X300 series seems to have outperformed the X400 in write speeds by as much as 50%. Can anyone provide any insight?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Sean (or anyone:) ), I was about to buy a 512GB X400, but noticed that at userbenchmark.com, the older X300 series seems to have outperformed the X400 in write speeds by as much as 50%. Can anyone provide any insight?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sean Webster		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/featured/sandisk-x400-ssd-review-512gb/#comment-23368</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sean Webster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 05:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=92358#comment-23368</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thessdreview.com/featured/sandisk-x400-ssd-review-512gb/#comment-23366&quot;&gt;HERETIC&lt;/a&gt;.

No, it is not the Ultra II replacement. The Ultra II is part of their consumer product line. The X400 is part of their client/business product line.

We will look into the Samsung 650.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thessdreview.com/featured/sandisk-x400-ssd-review-512gb/#comment-23366">HERETIC</a>.</p>
<p>No, it is not the Ultra II replacement. The Ultra II is part of their consumer product line. The X400 is part of their client/business product line.</p>
<p>We will look into the Samsung 650.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: HERETIC		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/featured/sandisk-x400-ssd-review-512gb/#comment-23366</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HERETIC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2016 02:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=92358#comment-23366</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hey Sean-Is this a replacement for the Ultra 2??????
Would have liked to have seen how large the SLC cache is-guessing around 8GB.


If you ever get a chance-could you test a Samsung 650.It&#039;s a strange one,it sits
below the 750 EVO (which is not much more than a 640 EVO) and yet best I can
tell it&#039;s 3d nand.Perhaps lower binned nand that don&#039;t make 850 spec................]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Sean-Is this a replacement for the Ultra 2??????<br />
Would have liked to have seen how large the SLC cache is-guessing around 8GB.</p>
<p>If you ever get a chance-could you test a Samsung 650.It&#8217;s a strange one,it sits<br />
below the 750 EVO (which is not much more than a 640 EVO) and yet best I can<br />
tell it&#8217;s 3d nand.Perhaps lower binned nand that don&#8217;t make 850 spec&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
