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
Whole-Drive Fill
This test starts with a freshly-erased drive and fills it with 128kB sequential writes at queue depth 32, recording the write speed for each 1GB segment. This test is not representative of any ordinary client/consumer usage pattern, but it does allow us to observe transitions in the drive's behavior as it fills up. This can allow us to estimate the size of any SLC write cache, and get a sense for how much performance remains on the rare occasions where real-world usage keeps writing data after filling the cache.
 |
|||||||||
The ATSB tests already showed that the TeamGroup L5 LITE 3D doesn't lose much performance when it is full, but actually plotting its performance through the process of filling it up is surprising. The sequential write throughput does drop slightly after about 5GB, but only by 10-15MB/s, and there are no further performance drops for the rest of the fill process. This is a lot more consistent than most drives, and provides more evidence that SLC caches running out aren't a problem for this SSD.
 |
|||||||||
| Average Throughput for last 16 GB | Overall Average Throughput | ||||||||
Working Set Size
When DRAMless SSDs are under consideration, it can be instructive to look at how performance is affected by working set size: how large a portion of the drive is being touched by the test. Drives with full-sized DRAM caches are typically able to maintain about the same random read performance whether reading from a narrow slice of the drive or reading from the whole thing. DRAMless SSDs often show a clear dropoff when the working set size grows too large for the mapping information to be kept in the controller's small on-chip buffers.
 |
|||||||||
As expected, the L5 LITE 3D maintains fairly steady random read performance regardless of working set size. The DRAMless Mushkin Source starts off with significantly lower random read IOPS and declines even more as working set sizes grow to more than a few GB of active data. The three drives here with Phison controllers (one SATA, two NVMe) all show at least some decline in performance with large working set sizes, even though those drives all have the usual 1GB DRAM to 1TB NAND ratio.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
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.