Why promote this drive without mentioning anything about the failure rates? Some Team Group SSDs have 27% 1-star reviews on newegg. That's MUCH higher than other manufacturers.. That's not worth saving $5 at all... Is Anandtech really that tone-deaf now?
-I would not recommend this drive to others -- 5 months, dead. -Not safe for keep your data.Highly recommend not to store any important data on it -DO NOT BUY THIS SSD! Total lack of support for defective products! Took days to reply after TWO requests for support, and then I am expected to pay to ship their defective product back when it never worked!? -Failed and lost all data after just 6 months. ...
Definitely not. However there's not much we can say on the subject with any degree of authority. Obviously our test drive hasn't failed, and the drive has survived The Destroyer (which tends to kill obviously faulty drives very early). But that's the limit to what we have data for.
Otherwise, customer reviews are a bit tricky. They're a biased sample, as very happy and very unhappy people tend to self-report the most. Which doesn't mean what you state is untrue, but it's not something we can corroborate.
* We've killed a number of SSDs over the years. I don't immediately recall any of them being Team Group
Ryan, I appreciate your response. Question: which SSDs have given up the ghost when challenged by the "destroyer"? Any chance you can name names? Might be interesting for some of us, even in historic context. Thanks!
I don't usually keep track of which test a drive was running when it failed. The Destroyer is by far the longest test in our suite so it catches the blame for a lot of the failures, but sometimes a drive checks out when it's secure erased or even when it's hot-swapped.
Which brands have experienced a SSD failure during testing is more determined by how many of their drives I test than by their failure rate. All the major brands have contributed to my SSD graveyard at some point: Crucial, Samsung, Intel, Toshiba, SanDisk.
Billy, I appreciate the reply, but would really like to encourage you and your fellow reviewers to "name names". An SSD going kaplonk when stressed is exactly the kind of information that I really want to know. I know that such an occurrence might not be typical for that model, but if the review unit provided by a manufacturer gives out during testing, it doesn't bode well for regular buyers like me.
You can read every article, I remember a lot of them discussing the death of a sample (Samsung comes to mind). But it really isn't indicative of anything: sample size is crap, early production samples (hardware), early production samples (software). Most SSDs come with 3 years of warranty. Just buy from a reputable retailer, have a brand that actually honors warranty and make sure to back up your data. Then you're fine. If you don't follow those those rules, even using the very limited data Billy could give you won't help you out in any way.
To add: I don't just mean the manufacturers' names, but especially the exact model name, revision and capacity tested. Clearly, a major manufacturer like Samsung or Crucial has a higher likelihood of the occasional bad apple, just due to the sheer number of drives they make. But, even the best big player produces the occasional stinker, and I'd like to know which one it is, so I can avoid it.
This. One data point isn't a trend. Hell, several data points aren't a trend if they aren't representative of the whole *and you don't know if they are*.
"They're a biased sample, as very happy and very unhappy people tend to self-report the most. Which doesn't mean what you state is untrue, but it's not something we can corroborate."
Ryan, that doesn't explain why one model/brand can have 27% 1-star reviews, and another has 7%.... Unless you think Team Group customers are SEVERAL TIMES MORE outspoken than Crucial/Samsung/whatever customers for some reason. You can't ignore those reports. Ofc the product doesn't have a 27% failure rate, but it's likely much higher than competing products.
...Then you'd have to explain why ONLY TEAM GROUP SSDs have tons of fake 1-star reviews, and other SSDs don't. Seems Anandtech commenters are not that bright..
maybe one person who bought one, it failed, then to try yo get even, created more then one account ? unless you can PROVE these supposed 1 star reviews are real reviews, then i guess you are not that bright as well... cant really prove your point, so you resort to insults.. grow up
I have nearly a thousand of thier drives from 128g to 480g and so far no failures. Also yes cheap products have poor support, that's one of the reasons why they are cheaper.
I'd err on the side of caution when dealing with Team Group, though. Failed memory (which I've seen plenty of over the years) is one thing, but failed data storage is a lot more catastrophic. I can't believe I'm saying this but I'd feel safer with an ADATA SSD than a Team Group SSD...and I've seen a number of ADATA's fail, though none recently (in the last few years)
Aye, especially with SSDs where data recovery is harder than with a HDD. Personally, I pop critical data on two local SSDs and then a memory stick, phone or other system. I don't like the cloud as it is at the mercy of the Internet or another company and I've had access issues which have denied me access to data or, weirdly, only given me access to months old versions. So I prefer a dual local backup, so if a drive fails I can just switch to the backup immediately, and also another copy which is not linked to the same system in case of some catastrophic PSU weirdness that takes out other components (happened once a long time ago and with a cheap PSU) or malware attacks. If I was getting a cheap SSD with a reduced warranty, knowing it uses whatever NAND is cheap at the time, I'd not be using that in a critical system without adequate redundancy (RAID, most likely). You pays your money and takes your choice but if you buy cheap, ensure you're protected... And if you buy expensive.... Ditto.
Technically speaking the failure rates should be no higher then other manufacturers, after all they are using the same NAND and controllers as everyone else. That said there is something to be said for poor customer service. I don't know how they are getting that many 1 star reviews though, not unless they are just rebranding B stock.
Also, you shouldn't trust only one source for reviews and you should always look at who is posting the bad reviews. For example, this guy seems to be the exact same guy who posted on Newegg as well
He seems to leave a lot of bad reviews and often times does not do a good job explaining why. Judging by their English usage, I'd also say they are not a native speaker. There are plenty of companies in China they also pay people to go out and write both good and bad reviews for competing products which makes research on reviewers all the more important.
I'm not saying they don't deserve their rating, I'm just saying you should always check not just the reviews but the reviewers as well. 2 sources minimum as well. It's a PITA but there are so many fake reviews out there (especially on Amazon) that it's required if you want to get what you paid for.
Because anonymous user reviews on the internet are meaningless? I've purchased products with 1% 1-star reviews that were complete turds (last one was a USB drive claiming to be a terabyte. Knew it was fake, but I bought it anyway and returned it so Amazon would damn the seller to hell, which they did).
The MX500 uses literally the same controller, albeit with custom firmware (which is where most of the partial power loss protection comes from).
And since apparently today is one of the days that the L5 LITE 3D is on sale (it wasn't yesterday when I checked), the price difference is more than $15 for the 480/500GB drives. The Crucial MX500 is 30% more expensive at the moment.
And yet, despite using the same controller, that custom firmware makes ALL the difference. Just take a look at team SSD failure rates VS crucials.
It doesnt matter if the team drives are $10-15 cheaper. Skip a single meal at your prefered fast food joint of choice and get a drive that is going to actually work properly.
ALL drives can and WILL eventually fail and if you don't have a proper back up you are just gambling that it doesn't happen while you still care about what's on the drive. If you do have a proper backup a drive failure is just a minor inconvenience and proof that your backup process works. I have a 240gb version of this drive installed in my wife's laptop to upgrade her from the 120gb drive that came in it and I'm not worried about it at all. If the drive dies I'll simply restore the nightly backup from the NAS to a new drive and she's back up and running with minimal data loss and downtime. I'd rather spend money on a NAS and a proper back than on a "better" ssd to gamble that the better drive won't fail on me.
Partially agree. However, it's not just about the direct cost of a drive. Even if the PC is just used for web browsing and entertainment, I still have to spend time and effort on replacing the drive, installing the OS and software etc. Thus, spending a few dollars more for a more reliable drive might well be worth it.
"spending a few dollars more for a more reliable drive might well be worth it" - the thing is, as many don't seem to understand, that we can't measure reliability in any useful way right now. All data we have is incomplete. Basing any kind of decision on that data means that decision is either good, neutral or bad and no one will know.
This can't possibly be any crummier than the EDGE drives I purchased at work a few years ago. I purchased a batch of twenty 512GB SATA SSDs through Amazon, and EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM failed between 13 and 17 months from the day that they were first installed. Standard desktop usage on PCs that were nowhere near considered write heavy was their environment. Just terrible in every way.
In the consumer segment so am I. For an OEM one I can understand more easily, it's performance is still better than a typical eMMC while being between the eMMC and a 240GB m.2. Going into sub $500 systems even a few dollars on the BOM are significant because margins are so low, and this offers a cheaper upgrade from eMMC than the 240 which like you I'd strongly recommend spending the extra few bucks for if building a system.
I have to agree with some of the other commenters here that the conclusion is inconclusive and is primarily focused on price and performance, which are obviously important, but should not be the only factors in consideration when recommending a drive. A few points that I feel were left out in the conclusion:
1. NAND switching has always been a big no-no. Why? Because it's impossible to guarantee that an end-user will receive a drive with the same BOM. While the review unit has competitive performance, what if it is the highest performing of the known four variants? For example, going from 256Gbit dies to 512Gbit dies could easily halve the write performance and substantially change the ATSB numbers. At a minimum, AT should request Team to disclose the different NAND configurations along with their internal performance data, so that a first degree conclusion of the performance between the different variants could be drawn.
2. Reliability has very little to do with the physical controller. It's a piece of silicon like a CPU and rarely fails unless subjected to extraordinary environmental conditions (heat, humidity etc). What matters are the firmware and NAND. Firmware in this case is likely just a standard SMI FW with minimal modifications, so that’s not much of a risk. But the NAND is a big question mark. It being Team branded means it’s not a qualified component from a NAND vendor, but something that has been packaged by 3rd party. That opens a possibility for using unqualified NAND i.e. dies that don’t meet the NAND vendors’ specs, such as having too many bad blocks from the beginning. Many of these Tier2/3 SSDs mix good and bad dies to drive the cost down and that’s also why most of them are 240GB instead of 250 or 256GB since the extra spare area helps to cover more bad blocks. Of course it’s no guarantee that the drive will fail prematurely, but there is always a reason why a certain product is cheaper than others.
3. Amazon/NewEgg reviews are not bulletproof, but serve as a good first degree reality check, especially if the drive has already been in the market for a while. With 27% 1-star reviews, I would personally not have the guts to recommend the drive unless it’s substantially (>20%) cheaper than any household SSD brand/model.
4. RMA process and general support are areas that have more importance now since the performance differences between SATA SSDs especially are becoming minor. Some vendors offer very good terms with e.g. advance replacement, which can be highly important if the SSD is used in a primary system. Including a paragraph on the company’s policy would be something I recommend as it can be a real headache especially with lesser known brands (e.g. long response time, need to wait weeks for a replacement etc). It may not be possible for AT to test the process, but the key aspects can be covered with a paper comparison.
None of these points mandate an overhaul of the conclusion as the Lite 3D may very well be an excellent choice for a budget-focused buyer, but at least there should be a disclaimer of the caveats to raise the question whether saving $5 or $10 is worth it over a safe, well-known Tier1 brand.
Furthermore, on the topic of random NAND types in the same model, since the drive here was provided by the manufacturer, it's almost certain they provided the best variant. For all we know it could be a NAND type they don't even use anymore.
Find it good that also low-priced products are tested. To my knowledge Anandtech should be the first to give a Team L5 Lite 3D SSD a professional test. I wrote last year for the 120GB and 240GB model of this SSD series two user reviews on Hardwareluxx Germany and was a bit impressed by the performance for a budget drive. Since then I have recommended this SSD series as a possible budget option. Both SSDs run now for 1 / 1.5 years without problems and good S.M.A.R.T. values.
A long-term write test would be interesting to see how much terrabyte TBW the unknown NAND can withstand. Would this be possible with Anandtech? :)
$96 for 1 TB is priced attractively, but, I think I'd just spring the extra $5-10 on Crucial's MX500...; it would need to be $68.99 to get me to risk it! :)
I have two of these 480GB drives and one 240GB drive. I was so impressed with the first one I got two more for other PCs. Really great value, but the gold color doesn't match common PC colors.
Might be worth asking them when and why they change the NAND variety. I know its going to be price, but what stops them using DongCrap NAND? , what is their Baseline criteria ..## commercially sensitive Blah blah. Maybe they are hoping that three years is good enough until 480 layer Penta cell NAND takes over. Price IS the main consideration when buying sata drives tho ...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
42 Comments
Back to Article
flyingpants265 - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Why promote this drive without mentioning anything about the failure rates? Some Team Group SSDs have 27% 1-star reviews on newegg. That's MUCH higher than other manufacturers.. That's not worth saving $5 at all... Is Anandtech really that tone-deaf now?-I would not recommend this drive to others -- 5 months, dead.
-Not safe for keep your data.Highly recommend not to store any important data on it
-DO NOT BUY THIS SSD! Total lack of support for defective products! Took days to reply after TWO requests for support, and then I am expected to pay to ship their defective product back when it never worked!?
-Failed and lost all data after just 6 months.
...
Ryan Smith - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
"Is Anandtech really that tone-deaf now?"Definitely not. However there's not much we can say on the subject with any degree of authority. Obviously our test drive hasn't failed, and the drive has survived The Destroyer (which tends to kill obviously faulty drives very early). But that's the limit to what we have data for.
Otherwise, customer reviews are a bit tricky. They're a biased sample, as very happy and very unhappy people tend to self-report the most. Which doesn't mean what you state is untrue, but it's not something we can corroborate.
* We've killed a number of SSDs over the years. I don't immediately recall any of them being Team Group
eastcoast_pete - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Ryan, I appreciate your response. Question: which SSDs have given up the ghost when challenged by the "destroyer"? Any chance you can name names? Might be interesting for some of us, even in historic context. Thanks!keyserr - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Yes anecdotes are interesting. In an ideal world we would have 1000 drives of each model put through its paces. We don't.It's a lesser known brand. It wouldn't make too much sense if they made bad drives in the long term.
Billy Tallis - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
I don't usually keep track of which test a drive was running when it failed. The Destroyer is by far the longest test in our suite so it catches the blame for a lot of the failures, but sometimes a drive checks out when it's secure erased or even when it's hot-swapped.Which brands have experienced a SSD failure during testing is more determined by how many of their drives I test than by their failure rate. All the major brands have contributed to my SSD graveyard at some point: Crucial, Samsung, Intel, Toshiba, SanDisk.
eastcoast_pete - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Billy, I appreciate the reply, but would really like to encourage you and your fellow reviewers to "name names". An SSD going kaplonk when stressed is exactly the kind of information that I really want to know. I know that such an occurrence might not be typical for that model, but if the review unit provided by a manufacturer gives out during testing, it doesn't bode well for regular buyers like me.Death666Angel - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
You can read every article, I remember a lot of them discussing the death of a sample (Samsung comes to mind). But it really isn't indicative of anything: sample size is crap, early production samples (hardware), early production samples (software). Most SSDs come with 3 years of warranty. Just buy from a reputable retailer, have a brand that actually honors warranty and make sure to back up your data. Then you're fine. If you don't follow those those rules, even using the very limited data Billy could give you won't help you out in any way.eastcoast_pete - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
To add: I don't just mean the manufacturers' names, but especially the exact model name, revision and capacity tested. Clearly, a major manufacturer like Samsung or Crucial has a higher likelihood of the occasional bad apple, just due to the sheer number of drives they make. But, even the best big player produces the occasional stinker, and I'd like to know which one it is, so I can avoid it.Kristian Vättö - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
One test sample isn't sufficient to conclude that a certain model is doomed.bananaforscale - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
This. One data point isn't a trend. Hell, several data points aren't a trend if they aren't representative of the whole *and you don't know if they are*.jabber - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
Always be wary of 1 Star tech reviews on Amazon. 60% of them are usually disgruntled "Doesn't work on Mac!" reviews.flyingpants265 - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
"They're a biased sample, as very happy and very unhappy people tend to self-report the most. Which doesn't mean what you state is untrue, but it's not something we can corroborate."Ryan, that doesn't explain why one model/brand can have 27% 1-star reviews, and another has 7%.... Unless you think Team Group customers are SEVERAL TIMES MORE outspoken than Crucial/Samsung/whatever customers for some reason. You can't ignore those reports. Ofc the product doesn't have a 27% failure rate, but it's likely much higher than competing products.
Korguz - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
ever consider that maybe the bad reviews are either fake, or made up reviews with the person not actually owning, or even bought the product ?flyingpants265 - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
...Then you'd have to explain why ONLY TEAM GROUP SSDs have tons of fake 1-star reviews, and other SSDs don't. Seems Anandtech commenters are not that bright..Korguz - Sunday, September 29, 2019 - link
maybe one person who bought one, it failed, then to try yo get even, created more then one account ? unless you can PROVE these supposed 1 star reviews are real reviews, then i guess you are not that bright as well... cant really prove your point, so you resort to insults.. grow upKraszmyl - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
I have nearly a thousand of thier drives from 128g to 480g and so far no failures. Also yes cheap products have poor support, that's one of the reasons why they are cheaper.Samus - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
I'd err on the side of caution when dealing with Team Group, though. Failed memory (which I've seen plenty of over the years) is one thing, but failed data storage is a lot more catastrophic. I can't believe I'm saying this but I'd feel safer with an ADATA SSD than a Team Group SSD...and I've seen a number of ADATA's fail, though none recently (in the last few years)bananaforscale - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
It's your responsibility to make backups. Never allow a single point of failure.philehidiot - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
Aye, especially with SSDs where data recovery is harder than with a HDD. Personally, I pop critical data on two local SSDs and then a memory stick, phone or other system. I don't like the cloud as it is at the mercy of the Internet or another company and I've had access issues which have denied me access to data or, weirdly, only given me access to months old versions. So I prefer a dual local backup, so if a drive fails I can just switch to the backup immediately, and also another copy which is not linked to the same system in case of some catastrophic PSU weirdness that takes out other components (happened once a long time ago and with a cheap PSU) or malware attacks. If I was getting a cheap SSD with a reduced warranty, knowing it uses whatever NAND is cheap at the time, I'd not be using that in a critical system without adequate redundancy (RAID, most likely). You pays your money and takes your choice but if you buy cheap, ensure you're protected... And if you buy expensive.... Ditto.evernessince - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
Technically speaking the failure rates should be no higher then other manufacturers, after all they are using the same NAND and controllers as everyone else. That said there is something to be said for poor customer service. I don't know how they are getting that many 1 star reviews though, not unless they are just rebranding B stock.Also, you shouldn't trust only one source for reviews and you should always look at who is posting the bad reviews. For example, this guy seems to be the exact same guy who posted on Newegg as well
https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AF...
He seems to leave a lot of bad reviews and often times does not do a good job explaining why. Judging by their English usage, I'd also say they are not a native speaker. There are plenty of companies in China they also pay people to go out and write both good and bad reviews for competing products which makes research on reviewers all the more important.
I'm not saying they don't deserve their rating, I'm just saying you should always check not just the reviews but the reviewers as well. 2 sources minimum as well. It's a PITA but there are so many fake reviews out there (especially on Amazon) that it's required if you want to get what you paid for.
eek2121 - Thursday, September 26, 2019 - link
Because anonymous user reviews on the internet are meaningless? I've purchased products with 1% 1-star reviews that were complete turds (last one was a USB drive claiming to be a terabyte. Knew it was fake, but I bought it anyway and returned it so Amazon would damn the seller to hell, which they did).User reviews are meaningless these days.
TheinsanegamerN - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Spend the extra $5 and get the Crucial MX line instead, with Power Off Protection and higher NAND and controller quality.Billy Tallis - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
The MX500 uses literally the same controller, albeit with custom firmware (which is where most of the partial power loss protection comes from).And since apparently today is one of the days that the L5 LITE 3D is on sale (it wasn't yesterday when I checked), the price difference is more than $15 for the 480/500GB drives. The Crucial MX500 is 30% more expensive at the moment.
TheinsanegamerN - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
And yet, despite using the same controller, that custom firmware makes ALL the difference. Just take a look at team SSD failure rates VS crucials.It doesnt matter if the team drives are $10-15 cheaper. Skip a single meal at your prefered fast food joint of choice and get a drive that is going to actually work properly.
kpb321 - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
ALL drives can and WILL eventually fail and if you don't have a proper back up you are just gambling that it doesn't happen while you still care about what's on the drive. If you do have a proper backup a drive failure is just a minor inconvenience and proof that your backup process works. I have a 240gb version of this drive installed in my wife's laptop to upgrade her from the 120gb drive that came in it and I'm not worried about it at all. If the drive dies I'll simply restore the nightly backup from the NAS to a new drive and she's back up and running with minimal data loss and downtime. I'd rather spend money on a NAS and a proper back than on a "better" ssd to gamble that the better drive won't fail on me.eastcoast_pete - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Partially agree. However, it's not just about the direct cost of a drive. Even if the PC is just used for web browsing and entertainment, I still have to spend time and effort on replacing the drive, installing the OS and software etc. Thus, spending a few dollars more for a more reliable drive might well be worth it.Death666Angel - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
"spending a few dollars more for a more reliable drive might well be worth it" - the thing is, as many don't seem to understand, that we can't measure reliability in any useful way right now. All data we have is incomplete. Basing any kind of decision on that data means that decision is either good, neutral or bad and no one will know.Samus - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link
It isn't the controller, it's the quality of the NAND. Crucial uses excellent quality NAND.lightningz71 - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
This can't possibly be any crummier than the EDGE drives I purchased at work a few years ago. I purchased a batch of twenty 512GB SATA SSDs through Amazon, and EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM failed between 13 and 17 months from the day that they were first installed. Standard desktop usage on PCs that were nowhere near considered write heavy was their environment. Just terrible in every way.Scott_T - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
With 240gb drives being so cheap I'm surprised anyone would come out with a new 120gb drive these days.DanNeely - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
In the consumer segment so am I. For an OEM one I can understand more easily, it's performance is still better than a typical eMMC while being between the eMMC and a 240GB m.2. Going into sub $500 systems even a few dollars on the BOM are significant because margins are so low, and this offers a cheaper upgrade from eMMC than the 240 which like you I'd strongly recommend spending the extra few bucks for if building a system.Kristian Vättö - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Ryan & Billy,I have to agree with some of the other commenters here that the conclusion is inconclusive and is primarily focused on price and performance, which are obviously important, but should not be the only factors in consideration when recommending a drive. A few points that I feel were left out in the conclusion:
1. NAND switching has always been a big no-no. Why? Because it's impossible to guarantee that an end-user will receive a drive with the same BOM. While the review unit has competitive performance, what if it is the highest performing of the known four variants? For example, going from 256Gbit dies to 512Gbit dies could easily halve the write performance and substantially change the ATSB numbers. At a minimum, AT should request Team to disclose the different NAND configurations along with their internal performance data, so that a first degree conclusion of the performance between the different variants could be drawn.
2. Reliability has very little to do with the physical controller. It's a piece of silicon like a CPU and rarely fails unless subjected to extraordinary environmental conditions (heat, humidity etc). What matters are the firmware and NAND. Firmware in this case is likely just a standard SMI FW with minimal modifications, so that’s not much of a risk. But the NAND is a big question mark. It being Team branded means it’s not a qualified component from a NAND vendor, but something that has been packaged by 3rd party. That opens a possibility for using unqualified NAND i.e. dies that don’t meet the NAND vendors’ specs, such as having too many bad blocks from the beginning. Many of these Tier2/3 SSDs mix good and bad dies to drive the cost down and that’s also why most of them are 240GB instead of 250 or 256GB since the extra spare area helps to cover more bad blocks. Of course it’s no guarantee that the drive will fail prematurely, but there is always a reason why a certain product is cheaper than others.
3. Amazon/NewEgg reviews are not bulletproof, but serve as a good first degree reality check, especially if the drive has already been in the market for a while. With 27% 1-star reviews, I would personally not have the guts to recommend the drive unless it’s substantially (>20%) cheaper than any household SSD brand/model.
4. RMA process and general support are areas that have more importance now since the performance differences between SATA SSDs especially are becoming minor. Some vendors offer very good terms with e.g. advance replacement, which can be highly important if the SSD is used in a primary system. Including a paragraph on the company’s policy would be something I recommend as it can be a real headache especially with lesser known brands (e.g. long response time, need to wait weeks for a replacement etc). It may not be possible for AT to test the process, but the key aspects can be covered with a paper comparison.
None of these points mandate an overhaul of the conclusion as the Lite 3D may very well be an excellent choice for a budget-focused buyer, but at least there should be a disclaimer of the caveats to raise the question whether saving $5 or $10 is worth it over a safe, well-known Tier1 brand.
sheh - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Agreed.Furthermore, on the topic of random NAND types in the same model, since the drive here was provided by the manufacturer, it's almost certain they provided the best variant. For all we know it could be a NAND type they don't even use anymore.
Kenaz - Friday, September 20, 2019 - link
Find it good that also low-priced products are tested. To my knowledge Anandtech should be the first to give a Team L5 Lite 3D SSD a professional test.I wrote last year for the 120GB and 240GB model of this SSD series two user reviews on Hardwareluxx Germany and was a bit impressed by the performance for a budget drive. Since then I have recommended this SSD series as a possible budget option. Both SSDs run now for 1 / 1.5 years without problems and good S.M.A.R.T. values.
A long-term write test would be interesting to see how much terrabyte TBW the unknown NAND can withstand. Would this be possible with Anandtech? :)
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
MDD1963 - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
$96 for 1 TB is priced attractively, but, I think I'd just spring the extra $5-10 on Crucial's MX500...; it would need to be $68.99 to get me to risk it! :)ballsystemlord - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Billy, having to click to see each image slows down the experience, could you guys just allow the page to load most or all of the images? Please?takeshi7 - Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - link
I have two of these 480GB drives and one 240GB drive. I was so impressed with the first one I got two more for other PCs. Really great value, but the gold color doesn't match common PC colors.MASSAMKULABOX - Wednesday, October 16, 2019 - link
Might be worth asking them when and why they change the NAND variety. I know its going to be price, but what stops them using DongCrap NAND? , what is their Baseline criteria ..## commercially sensitive Blah blah. Maybe they are hoping that three years is good enough until 480 layer Penta cell NAND takes over. Price IS the main consideration when buying sata drives tho ...MASSAMKULABOX - Wednesday, October 16, 2019 - link
£124 for 1tb AMZ/uk , so not even in the running really ...Scour - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link
I hoped to get more info about this SSD, but it looks like a flameware about the brand.I don´t know how many of these ppl who flamed about Teamgroup ever had a article from this brand, but probably not many.
I have my L3 since almost 4 years and it never had problems and it´s still faster than many newer entry-level-SSDs.