The TeamGroup L5 LITE 3D (480GB) SATA SSD Review: Entry-Level Price With Mainstream Performance
by Billy Tallis on September 20, 2019 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- SSDs
- SATA
- Silicon Motion
- SM2258
- TeamGroup
Burst IO Performance
Our burst IO tests run at a queue depth of one and the amount of data transferred is limited to ensure that SLC write buffers don't fill up and controllers don't overheat. In between each burst there's enough idle time to keep the drive averaging a 20% duty cycle, allowing for some buffered writes and deferred garbage collection to be completed. The random read and write tests use 4kB operations and the sequential tests use 128kB operations. All the burst tests are confined to a 16GB portion of the drive, so DRAMless SSDs are not disadvantaged as much as they are for larger tests.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
The SATA SSDs in this bunch all perform very similarly on the burst sequential IO tests, though the TeamGroup L5 LITE 3D is hair slower than the rest for sequential writes. The random write performance is tied for first place among the SATA drives, but the random read performance is much slower than the Crucial MX500.
Sustained IO Performance
Our sustained IO tests measure performance on queue depths up to 32, but the scores reported here are only the averages for the low queue depths (1,2,4) that are most representative of real-world consumer workloads. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, and the tests are confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
The Team L5 LITE 3D's sustained sequential performance isn't quite the fastest among the SATA SSDs, but it does stand out for having pretty good performance when performing sequential reads on data that was written with random writes. The random write performance of the L5 LITE 3D is as good as any of the TLC SATA drives in this batch, but the random read performance is a bit slower than the top tier SATA drives.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
The L5 LITE 3D's power efficiency during the random write test is pretty good by TLC SATA standards, but otherwise it tends to fall short by a bit. The Mushkin Source DRAMless SATA drive turns in some great efficiency scores thanks to really low power draw (helped by the lack of DRAM), but DRAMless performance on random reads is far too low for it to remain competitive on that efficiency metric.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
Plotting the L5 LITE 3D's performance and power at various queue depths against all the other SATA drives in our database shows that the random read power consumption starts to look excessive at medium to high queue depths. For the other workloads, the L5 LITE 3D is at least nowhere near setting a record for good power efficiency, but it does sometimes manage to be better than average.
At high queue depths, the L5 LITE 3D reaches the same SATA throughput limits as everything else for read operations, but the the write speeds top out a bit below the practical maximum for the best SATA SSDs.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | |||||||||
| Random Write | |||||||||
| Sequential Read | |||||||||
| Sequential Write | |||||||||
Putting the L5 LITE 3D head to head against other TLC SATA drives makes it clear that the Team drive can almost always hold its own on the performance front. The power consumption is where it loses, and sometimes by a pretty wide margin: the Mushkin Source is a full 1W ahead of the L5 LITE 3D for sequential writes, and the Crucial MX500 is ahead by about 0.5W for random reads at high queue depths.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
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.