T-CREATE EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 OC10L 3600MHz CL18 is a quality and fast 2×16 GB memory kit for professional creators that we are reviewing to feature its overall performance potential and see how it compares versus a gaming kit on an i9-12900K/Z690 platform. We received a review sample from TeamGroup, who told us that we should have no issues reaching the advertised 3600MHz frequency by using its XMP 2.0 profile on our CPU platform. We will search for its maximum stable and safe overclock and compare its performance against our T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE DDR4-3600MHz 2x16GB premium gaming memory kit.

Our usual benchmarking PC features 2x16GB of T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE DDR4 CAS Latency (CL) 14 memory at 3600MHz (XMP profile). We will chart its performance data and check if the T-CREATE EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 OC10L kit is a good option for creators who want satisfying performance while gaming too.

Here are the memory kits that we are comparing:

• TeamGroup T-CREATE EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 OC10L PC4-28800 DDR4-3600MHz CL18 2x16GB kit
• TeamGroup T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE PC4-28800 DDR4-3600MHz CL14 2x16GB kit

The T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600 CL18 2x16GB kit is $111.99 at Amazon.com.

Testing Platform

Our testing platform is a recent clean install of Windows 11 Pro 64-bit, using a 12th Gen Intel Core i9-12900K at stock settings, an ASUS PRIME Z690-P D4 motherboard, a Samsung 500GB SSD 960 EVO NVMe M.2, two WD Blue 1TB SATA SSDs, a TeamGroup MP33 M.2 PCIe 1TB SSD, and 32GB T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz, or T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE DDR4-3600MHz. We used the Gigabyte AORUS RTX 3080 MASTER at stock clocks for our testing. The settings, benchmarks, and hardware are identical except for the two DDR4 kits and memory latency profiles we compare.

The Command Rates of these two memory kits are 2T by their respective default XMP profiles. The T-CREATE EXPERT is rated CL18-22-22-42 and 1.35V using its XMP profile, and the T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE is CL14-15-15-35 and 1.45V (XMP profile). We will compare the T-CREATE EXPERT performance versus T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE to chart the effect of their different XMP timings on the performance of 3 modern PC games: F1 2021, Far Cry 6, and Horizon Zero Dawn at maxed-out/ultra 1920×1080 resolution. We benchmark using multiple well-respected memory-related benchmarking tools such as AIDA64, Blender, Cinebench, Geekbench, Novabench, Sandra, 3DMark, and 7-Zip.

Product Specifications & Features

Here are the memory specifications of the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz from the TeamGroup website:

Below you can also see a summary of the memory specifications from the Thaiphoon Burner tool:

Using its default XMP profile, the voltage is automatically set at 1.35V for 3600MHz, but may be manually adjusted in the BIOS from between 1.20V to 1.50V – or higher. Here are the EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 features as taken from TeamGroup’s website.

Features

• Large capacity, overclocking, and stability all in one
• 10-layer board with professional anti-interference
• Customized high-temperature resistant capacitor
• High-efficiency multitasking

TeamGroup offers a lifetime warranty for their T-CREATE desktop memory, and EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 is available only in titanium grey color.

Unboxing

The T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz 2x16GB memory kit comes in a compact and moderately slim box with a soft touch that advertises its features on both upper and bottom faces and the specs on its reverse only.

Once you open the box, you see the two memory modules inside an anti-static plastic clamshell.

The plastic clamshell also includes the warranty and installation guide, and a sticker with the T-CREATE logo.

On the front of the modules, we see a printed T-CREATE logo over a sober titanium grey heatsink. “T-CREATE” is also printed in a soft silvery-grey font on its profiles, and “EXPERT” and “DDR4” are printed on the front.

The T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz modules feature a quality build, a sober but elegant style design, and look great once installed in our conservative – not very RGB-focused – gaming rig.

Before sharing our overclocking experience and offering the performance data and charts of each different analysis scenario, it’s important to describe both the hardware and software configuration used in our testing, as well as the analysis methodology.

Benching Methodology

Test Configuration – Hardware

• 12th Gen Intel Core i9-12900K (Hyper-Threading/Turbo boost on; stock settings)
• ASUS PRIME Z690-P D4 motherboard (Intel Z690 chipset, v.1008 BIOS)
• TeamGroup T-CREATE EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 OC10L PC4-28800 DDR4-3600MHz CL18 2x16GB kit, supplied by TeamGroup
• TeamGroup T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE PC4-28800 DDR4-3600MHz CL14 2x16GB kit, supplied by TeamGroup
• Gigabyte AORUS GeForce RTX 3080 MASTER 10GB (rev. 1.0); v.F4 VBIOS, stock clocks
• 1 x Samsung 500GB SSD 960 EVO NVMe M.2
• 2 x WD Blue 1TB SATA SSD
• 1 x TeamGroup MP33 M.2 PCIe 1TB SSD
• Corsair RM850x, 850W 80PLUS Gold power supply unit
• MSI MAG Series CORELIQUID C280, ARGB CPU Liquid Cooler (AIO) 280mm CPU water cooler
• ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q 27? IPS QuadHD (2560 x 1440) 165Hz 4ms G-Sync Monitor

Test Configuration – Software

• NVIDIA GeForce 511.23 drivers; ‘High Quality’ and ‘prefer maximum performance’ (on a per-game profile-basis); Shader Cache Size ‘Unlimited’ (globally); fixed refresh rate (globally).
• Resizable BAR On
• V-Sync application controlled in the control panel, V-Sync off in-game
• AA and AF as noted in games; all in-game settings are specified
• Windows 11 64-bit Pro edition, latest updates v21H2, High-performance power plan, HAGS off, Game Mode, Game DVR & Game Bar features off, Control Flow Guard (CFG) off on a per-game basis.
• GIGABYTE and ASUS tools not installed
• Latest DirectX
• All 3 games are patched to their latest versions at the time of publication
• AIDA64 Extreme, v6.60.5923 Beta
• Blender Benchmark, v2.93.1
• CapFrameX (CX), the latest version
• Cinebench R23, the latest version
• CPU-Z, the latest version
• Geekbench 5, the latest version
• Karhu RAM Test, the latest version
• Novabench
• OCCT, the latest version
• RivaTuner Statistics Server (RTSS), the latest version
• SiSoftware Sandra Bussiness 2021, v31.75
• Super PI, the latest version
• Thaiphoon Burner, the latest version
• ISLC (Purge Standby List) before each benchmark, the latest version
• UL 3DMark’s benchmark suite, the latest version
• wPrime, the latest version
• 7-Zip, v21.07 (x64)

GeForce Driver Suite-related

• We use DCH Game Ready drivers
• The display driver is installed
• We install the latest version of PhysX

Frametimes Capture & Analysis tool-related

• CapFrameX is used for capturing and analyzing the relevant performance numbers obtained from each recorded built-in game benchmark sequence.
• Consecutive runs until detecting 3 valid runs (no outliers) that can be aggregated by CapFrameX using the following method:
  • ‘Aggregate excluding outliers’:
    • Outlier metric: Third, P0.2 (0.2% FPS percentile)
    • Outlier percentage: 3% (the % the FPS of an entry can differ from the median of all entries before counting as an outlier)

Benchmark Suite

PC Game suite – Built-in Game Benchmarks

• F1 2021 (DX12)
• Far Cry 6 (DX12)
• Horizon Zero Dawn (DX12)

Synthetic Benchmarks

• AIDA64 Extreme – Cache And Memory Benchmark (Memory Tests)
  • Read
  • Write
  • Copy
  • Latency
• Geekbench 5 – CPU Benchmark
  • Single-Core
  • Multi-Core
• Novabench Test
  • Global
  • GPU
  • RAM
  • CPU
• SiSoftware Sandra Business 2021 – Memory Controller tests
  • Memory Bandwidth
  • Cache & Memory Latency
  • Cache & Memory Bandwidth
  • Memory Transaction Throughput
• Super PI Benchmark
  • 16M test
  • 32M test
• wPrime Benchmark
  • 32M test
  • 1024M test
• 7-Zip Benchmark

Hybrid Game Benchmarks

• 3DMark – Fire Strike (DX11)
  • Overall
  • Graphics
  • Physics (CPU)
  • Combined
• 3DMark – Time Spy (DX12)
  • Overall
  • Graphics
  • CPU

Non-Synthetic/Real-World Benchmarks

• Blender Benchmark – All benchmark scenes
• Cinebench R23 Benchmark
  • CPU (Multi-Core) test
  • CPU (Single-Core) test

NVIDIA Control Panel settings

Here are the global NVIDIA Control Panel settings:

Both ‘High-Quality’ values for texture filtering-quality setting and ‘Prefer maximum performance’ for power management mode are set on a per-game or program profile-basis via Manage 3D Settings > Program settings tab.

Let’s head to our overclocking and benchmarking results.

CPU-Z and Overclocking

Overclocking the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz CL18 2x16GB Kit

Before accepting the T-CREATE EXPERT 2x16GB DDR4-3600MHz CL18 memory kit for review, TeamGroup informed us that we should have no problem enabling and using its XMP profile on our Z690 CPU platform to run this RAM kit at its advertised frequency. So, we gladly accepted their review proposal and tried to confirm these expectations.

T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz XMP Profile

First, we enabled the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 3600MHz XMP profile (CL18-22-22-42 @ 1.35V) through our UEFI BIOS, and our system was able to POST and boot into Windows without issues. So, we can confirm that the advertised 3600MHz XMP profile of this memory kit is compatible with our Z690 CPU platform, and will likely be a viable option for other similar setups.

Here is CPU-Z showing the i9-12900K CPU report.

The T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 default JEDEC and XMP profile timings and frequencies are shown below.

Below is the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 operating at its default 2400MHz JEDEC specifications.

Here are T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 XMP clocks and details are shown below.

T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz XMP Manual Overclock

DDR4 Overclocking Approach

In this DDR4 memory kit review, aside from testing it with its XMP profile, we will also be increasing the DRAM voltage up to 1.4V max, and frequency in 200MHz increments until we find the highest achievable stable frequency for this kit. In the same way, DDR4 modules that use 1.4V/1.45V (XMP) will be tested up to 1.5V, and kits that operate at 1.5V up to 1.55V. Most DDR4 RAM kits can operate at higher voltages, but we don’t recommend doing so if you aim for a safe highest stable memory overclock.

We also considered increasing voltages and lowering timings instead of increasing the frequency of the modules as high as it can go, if stable and without going over 1.4V, but the real-world performance results are pretty much identical.

Highest Safe and Stable Overclock

T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 manually overclocked to 3800MHz with CL18-22-22-42 XMP timings and 1.380V for stability is shown below.

We used our self-imposed limit of 1.400V to stabilize the memory overclocks. After much trial and error, we finally settled on a maximum and stable overclock of 3800MHz by using a voltage of 1.380V and XMP timings.

We tested the overclock stability by using AIDA64 System Test, Karhu RAM Test, and OCCT Memory Test. These tests stress the memory and the CPU in search of memory errors. We also confirmed that our overclock to 3800MHz was stable by playing games and running other benchmarks.

It’s worth mentioning that we were also able to manually overclock our T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 memory kit sample to 4000MHz and achieve stability.

Below is the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 manually overclocked to 4000MHz and operating with increased CL19-23-23-45 primary timings, Command Rate set to 1T, and DRAM voltage set to 1.450V for stability.

However, we ruled out this overclock to 4000MHz because we had to loosen the XMP primary timings to CL19-23-23-45, enable Gear 2 and XMP II BIOS modes, and increase the voltage to 1.45V, which exceeded our self-imposed RAM voltage limit. All these conditions overall resulted in worse efficiency, latency, and pretty much the same performance on real-world workloads and games as we got using our 3800MHz CL18 memory overclock.

Notes on T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz Overclocking

Taking into account the above, we believe that overclocking the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600MHz +200MHz from XMP-3600MHz specs to 3800MHz CL18-22-22-42 @ 1.380V is an efficient good overclock for Z690 users wanting safe daily use, stability, and improved performance using this DDR4 memory kit.

Our overclocking experience shows a relatively good or moderate overclock headroom for a DDR4 memory kit sample that already has relatively high XMP frequency and relaxed timings.

Next, the summary charts and performance notes.

Intel Z690 Performance Results

Below you can find the summary charts of our selection of PC games and synthetic, hybrid, and real-world benchmarks. We select games that are CPU-dependent and use a display resolution that makes them overall more CPU-bound.

You can see the list of games’ graphics settings on the charts, and we run each built-in game benchmark’s sequence at 1920×1080 (Full HD). You may click on each chart to open a pop-up for the best viewing.

T-CREATE EXPERT DD R4-3600 CL18 vs. T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE DD R4-3600MHz CL14

Synthetic Benchmark Charts

AIDA64 Extreme – Cache & Memory Benchmark

While the T-FORCE EXPERT DDR4 kit shows significantly lower performance in AIDA64’s memory copy and write tests, it performs roughly the same as the XTREEM DDR4 memory kit in the memory read test.

As expected, based on its lower XMP latencies, the XTREEM ARGB WHITE kit shows a significantly lower latency score than the EXPERT DESKTOP kit in the AIDA64 memory latency test.

Geekbench 5 – CPU Benchmark

Here we see a tie between both DDR4 memory kits in the Geekbench 5 single-core score, despite their XMP timing differences.

The T-CREATE EXPERT DESKTOP memory kit scores significantly worse than the XTREEM ARGB WHITE kit in the Geekbench multi-core test.

Novabench Test – Global, GPU, RAM, and CPU Test Scores

We see that the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 shows a slightly lower overall score than the XTREEM ARGB WHITE kit.

Here we see how the EXPERT DESKTOP memory kit scores worse than the XTREEM ARGB WHITE kit in all three Novabench sub-tests, although the RAM test shows the only significant difference.

SiSoftware Sandra 2021 – Memory Controller Tests

The T-CREATE EXPERT memory kit shows a remarkably worse memory bandwidth score than the T-FORCE XTREEM kit in the Sandra 2021 memory bandwidth test.

Here is the EXPERT DESKTOP memory kit showing a notably worse memory latency than the XTREEM ARGB WHITE kit in the Sandra 2021 memory latency sub-test.

We don’t see a significant difference between DDR4 memory kits in the cache/memory bandwidth FMA/256 sub-test.

No significant performance differences were found between DDR4 memory kits when running this Sandra 2021 memory controller test.

Super PI Benchmark

It’s a benchmarking tool to calculate Pi (?) to a specified number of digits after the decimal point – up to a maximum of 32 million

While we saw a remarkable performance difference in the Super PI 16M test between our memory kits, we didn’t in the 32M test.

wPrime Benchmark

It’s is a benchmarking program that performs calculations of a set number of square roots using Newton’s method for estimating functions verifying the results by squaring them, then comparing them with the original numbers (Wikipedia).

Although the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 memory kit performed significantly worse than the XTREEM ARGB WHITE DDR4 kit in the wPrime 1024M test, there weren’t significant differences running the 32M test.

7-Zip Benchmark

The 7-Zip LZMA is a memory-sensitive compression/decompression test and a good synthetic benchmark to compare DDR4 memory kits.

Our results in this test show that the T-CREATE EXPERT memory kit performs worse than the T-FORCE XTREEM kit, probably due to the higher EXPERT DESKTOP’s DDR4-XMP primary timings.

Hybrid Game Benchmark Charts

3DMark – Fire Strike (DirectX 11)

The T-CREATE EXPERT memory kit performed notably worse than the XTREEM ARGB WHITE kit in 3DMark’s Fire Strike Physics CPU and Combined tests. However, both DDR4 RAM kits performed overall the same in the Graphics test.

These results overall allow us to expect likely minor to moderate advantages of the T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE DDR4-3600 CL14 memory kit over the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600 CL18 kit when playing DX11 games, depending on the CPU-boundedness of a particular gaming scenario.

3DMark – Time Spy (DirectX 12)

Although we see that the T-CREATE EXPERT memory kit performed notably worse than the XTREEM ARGB WHITE kit in the 3DMark Time Spy CPU test only, the Overall and Graphics scores didn’t show significant differences between both DDR4 memory kits.

Again, these results overall allow us to expect likely minor advantages of the T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE DDR4-3600 CL14 memory kit over the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600 CL18 kit when playing DX12 games, depending on the CPU dependency on a particular gaming scenario.

Later in this section, we will try to support this hypothesis by running our DX12 games and capturing and charting their performance figures using their corresponding built-in benchmark tools.

Non-Synthetic/Real-World Benchmark Charts

Blender Benchmark – All benchmark scenes (CPU)

We see no significant differences in image render times using both DDR4-3600MHz memory kits to complete the Blender benchmark, rendering all scenes. So, we are faced with another case of a technical tie.

Cinebench R23 – CPU (Multi-Core) test & CPU (Single-Core) test

Here is another case of a technical tie in image rendering performance with both memory kits.

The T-CREATE EXPERT 2x16GB DDR4-3600MHz CL18 memory kit matches the image rendering results of the T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE 2x16GB DDR4-3600MHz kit that features significantly lower primary timings (CL14-15-15-35) and a higher voltage (1.45V).

The outstanding performance results using the T-CREATE EXPERT 2x16GB DDR4-3600MHz CL18 memory kit in demanding image rendering workloads confirm the excellent job made by TeamGroup when designing these T-CREATE memory modules targeted to 2D/3D creators.

Game Benchmark Charts – Using the games’ built-in benchmark tools

F1 2021 (DirectX 12 API)

We saw no significant differences in raw performance and frametime consistency using both DDR4-3600MHz memory kits in F1 2021 (DX12). If we take a closer look, we see a slightly worse frame-pacing using the T-CREATE EXPERT memory kit that could be due to their higher CAS latency and XMP timings, but the difference is unnoticeable while playing.

Therefore, this is overall a tie case between both DDR4 memory kits.

Far Cry 6 (DirectX 12 API)

In this game, the T-CREATE EXPERT memory kit performed significantly worse than the T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE kit both in terms of raw performance and frametime stability, but not by a wide margin. The frame-pacing was also slightly worse using our EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 memory sample.

However, the Far Cry 6 performance results using the EXPERT memory kit were overall good if we consider its higher memory timings.

Horizon Zero Dawn (DirectX 12 API)

Here is a case of a technical tie in gaming performance with both memory kits. It’s good news!

T-CREATE EXPERT 2x16GB DD R4-3600MHz CL18 Performance Notes

From the charts, while we see an inferior performance in most synthetic tests using the T-CREATE EXPERT 2x16GB DDR4-3600MHz CL18 memory kit, we also see pretty much identical performance in both hybrid graphics and real-world benchmarks using both DDR4-3600MHz kits.

For gaming benchmarks, F1 2021 and Horizon Zero Dawn show no significant performance differences with approximately the same performance using both memory kits. Far Cry 6 is the only game with worse performance using the T-CREATE EXPERT memory kit, but not by a lot and granting an overall good gaming experience anyway.

Disclaimer

Please be aware that the following results, notes, and the corresponding product evaluation are valid for similar i9-12900K/Z690 gaming platforms on Windows 11 v21H2. Its representativeness, applicability, and usefulness on different CPU platforms, testing benches, and MS Windows versions may vary.

Conclusion and Verdict

We highly recommend the T-CREATE EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 OCL10 2x16GB 3600MHz CL18 for i9-12900K/Z690 users, professional creators (also those who want to play eventually), or conservative gamers who want an affordable, quality, high performance, solid, sober, and versatile DDR4 memory kit.

There are some key questions we tried to answer in this review, and that is why we put them back on the table for summarizing our answers to them after our testing. The first two questions arise more from checks of two statements from TeamGroup’s advertisements on the T-CREATE EXPERT memory kit than from an original personal questioning. So here are the questions and the answers that we can now share with you.

Is our T-CREATE EXPERT 2x16GB memory kit sample made for creators?

We are glad to say that it is. The T-CREATE EXPERT performance and power efficiency are excellent to the point that we were able to run demanding image rendering applications and related benchmarks without the need to apply a high voltage or need lower latencies to get great results.

Is large capacity, overclocking, and stability all-in-one a fact after testing our EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 memory kit sample?

Our answer here is also positive. 32GB of high-performance DDR4 RAM is considered an affordable, reasonable, and future-proof option for gamers and creators. The T-CREATE EXPERT sample we received features 32GB (2x16GB), so we consider it a large capacity kit. Also, our experience applying and running its XMP profile was seamless, without any compatibility or stability issues. The manual overclocking experience was also satisfactory since we achieved an efficient, safe, and stable 3800MHz CL18 1.38V overclock that further improved over its good 3600MHz XMP starting performance.

Finally, is the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4-3600 CL18 worth it for gaming?

I’d say these things always come in threes because our answer to this question is also affirmative. The EXPERT DESKTOP DDR4 performed very well in both hybrid gaming benchmarks and games, showing overall a similar gaming performance to our premium T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE 2x16GB DDR4-3600MHz CL14 1.45V gaming memory kit.

Worth mentioning is the operational efficiency of its relatively high stock frequency of 3600MHz, the lower voltage of 1.35V, and higher XMP timings than the more expensive – and likely less efficient – T-FORCE XTREEM ARGB WHITE memory kit. So for its reasonable price, good build quality, large capacity, high performance, and versatility, the T-CREATE EXPERT DDR4 is a memory kit that creators and gamers should consider as a purchase option.

Let’s Play!

***

Rodrigo González (aka ‘RodroG’) is an enthusiast gamer and tech reviewer especially interested in shooter games, open-world role-playing games, and software and hardware benchmarking. He is the author of the NVIDIA WHQL Driver Performance Benchmarks Series and founder and moderator of the r/allbenchmarks community on Reddit.

SSD (Solid State Drive) technology is continually improving and pricing remains reasonable as speeds and capacities increase. SSD technology has become very accessible, and gamers need significantly more capacity as games are getting larger. We received a 4TB T-FORCE M200 Portable SSD from TeamGroup which is a rugged and very fast 2,000MBps Read / 2,000 MBps Write USB Gen 2×2 Type-C SSD.

We put the M200 Portable through its paces against five other SSDs to see if it can compete with internal SATA and PCIe NVMe drives. The T-FORCE M200 Portable SSD is available in 2TB, 4TB, and 8TB capacities, and the 4TB version we tested is at Amazon for $593.99 that puts it in a similar price range as other similar portable 4TB SSDs currently available. We will see if 2,000MBps Read / 2,000MBps Write speeds make an external drive practical for gamers as a boot SSD with Windows 11 installed on it besides for game storage.

We will focus on the M200’s performance by comparing it with four other NVMe/PCIe SSDs and a fast SATA III SSD: (1) a fast 7,000MBps/6000MBps 2TB CARDEA A440 NVMe Gen 4×4 drive, (2) a 2TB CARDEA Ceramic C440 (5,000/4400MBps Gen 4 x4), (3) the Gen 4 x3 1TB CARDEA IOPS SSD (3,400/3000MBps), (4) a now midrange TeamGroup 1TB MP33 (1,800/1,500MBps) Gen 3 x4 SSD, and (5) a fast 1TB Delta MAX White RGB (560MBps/510MBps) SATA III SSD.

For comparison, the 1TB SATA III Delta MAX is $129.99 at Amazon and it offers RGB lighting. The TeamGroup 1TB MP33 SSD is $79.97, the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS is $119.99, the CARDEA Ceramic C440 2TB version is priced at $259, and the CARDEA A440 2TB drive is $328.48. However, once you get into 4TB pricing, the prices increase significantly – the CARDEA A440 priced at $328 for the 2TB version becomes $900 for the 4TB version, and similar competing 4TB portable drives usually sell for over $600.

Here are the features and specifications of the T-FORCE M200 Portable SSD which are taken directly from TeamGroup’s website.

FEATURES

• Tactical, military-style hanging hole. Ultra-light and portable
• Lightning fast speeds of USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 20Gbps transmissions
• Massive 8TB storage for any large audio or video files
• Designs inspired by the M200 sniper rifle
• Dual structure for ultimate cooling
• 2-Meter drop resistant
• Wide compatibility with gaming consoles

Specifications

The specifications, based on CrystalDiskMark, boast up to 2,000 Read / 2,000 MB/s Write for all versions which indicate that the speeds are being held back by the USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 specification. Of course, if you have a USB 3.1 or USB 3.2 Type-A interface, your speeds will be much more limited. Unfortunately, the M200 doesn’t have an IP-rating to be water resistant, but it has been tested to withstand falls of 2m on a carpeted floor without impacting stored data.

The M200 design appears to be inspired by the M200 Sniper rifle’s detachable box magazine with Picatinny rail motifs designed for the T-FORCE M200 giving it a unique look together with increased surface area for cooling. It uses TeamGroup’s graphene cooling technology inside its dual metallic structure for passive internal SSD cooling and stable data transmission.

The M200 specifications are based on CrystalDiskMark and boast up to 2,000 Read MBps / 2,000 MBps Write for all versions which indicate that its speeds are being held back by the USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 specification as it houses a NVMe SSD inside. According to CrystalDiskInfo, it uses S.M.A.R.T., TRIM, and a VolatileWriteCache that will probably degrade beyond its capacity threshold and isn’t capable of sustaining its write performance until full, but it should still be exceptional for gaming and most applications.

Next we unbox the T-FORCE M200 Portable SSD and take a closer look at it.

Unboxing, Temperatures Under Load, and Installing as C: Drive on Win 11

The TeamGroup T-FORCE M200 Portable SSD comes in a small box that advertises USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 Type-C. Read/Write speeds of 2000MB/s and a 5 year warranty are featured on the front cover.

Here is the back of the box which advertises its features and warns the buyer that the up to 2,000MB/s transfer speeds can vary according to the interface and are only to be used for basic reference.

Below is a closer look at the M200 SSD in its packaging.
Here is the M200.

The M200 is ruggedly good-looking and easily attaches to whatever you choose to hang it on.

Above, the back of the SSD case warns that it may be damaged by electrostatic discharge and warns against opening the cover. Below, the M200 comes with a Type-C USB cable capable of transmitting 2,000MB/s of data in both directions simultaneously. The other Type-A USB cable is limited to 1,000MB/s.

The M200 is approximately the same size as a SATA III drive, but the 4TB version weighs more at 87g or just over 3 ounces.
The M200 is slightly thicker than a SATA III internal drive.

Temperatures

We measured the temperatures using Crystal Disk Info and Hardware Info 64 which were in agreement. The highest temperature we saw under the most stressful (cloning or stress test benchmarking) conditions reached 69C internally and 70C externally which indicate that the external body of the M200 works to cool the SSD inside it. Most of the time, the temperatures remained low in the 40s-50s C.

After installing the M200, the user may need to format it before use. If you are planning to clone it, make sure both disks are GUID or convert one of them first. However, you may have issues using the M200 as a boot or C: Drive for Windows 11, either if you clone it from another drive or attempt to install Win on it directly.

Using the M200 USB drive as a Windows 11 C: drive

Fortunately, there is a workaround, Rufus.

Rufus is on Github which allows a user to easily and automatically create a bootable Windows 11 USB drive. We used the M200 both as a C: Drive as well as for game storage to load games to our fastest 7,000MBps CARDEA A440 drive. All of the benchmarks were tested with the M200 as a boot drive as well as for storage and the speeds were consistent.

Lets look at our test configuration next.

Test Configuration – Hardware

• Intel Core i9-12900KF (HyperThreading and Turbo boost at stock settings).
• ASUS ROG Maximus Apex motherboard (Intel Z690 chipset, latest BIOS with Resizable BAR enabled, PCIe 5.0/4.0/3.1/3.1 – USB 4.0 Type-C specification)
• T-FORCE DELTA 2x16GB DDR5 6400MHz CL40, supplied by TeamGroup
• GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, supplied by NVIDIA
• T-FORCE M200 Portable USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 Type-C 4TB SSD, supplied by TeamGroup
• T-FORCE CARDEA A440 1TB M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD, supplied by TeamGroup
• T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440 2TB PCIe Gen 4 x4 NVMe SSD
• T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS 1TB PCIe Gen 4 x3 NVMe SSD, supplied by TeamGroup
• TeamGroup MP33 1TB NVMe Gen 3 x4 PCIe SSD
• T-FORCE DELTA MAX White 1TB SATA III SSD, supplied by TeamGroup
• Super Flower LedEx, 1200W Platinum 80+ power supply unit
• MSI MAG Series CORELIQUID 360R (AIO) 360mm liquid CPU cooler
• Corsair 5000D ATX mid-tower (plus 1 x 140mm fan; 2 x 120mm Noctua fans)
• BenQ EW3270U 32? 4K HDR 60Hz FreeSync monitor
• LaserGrip 774 Infrared thermometer by Etekcity

Test Configuration – Software

• Nvidia’s GeForce 496.98 WHQL drivers. High Quality, prefer maximum performance, single display
• Gaming results show loading time in seconds and lower is better
• Windows 11 Professional edition; latest updates/build
• Latest DirectX
• All benchmarking programs are updated to their latest versions
• IOmeter
• S.M.A.R.T. Tool (TeamGroup)
• Rufus

PC Game & Level Loading Suite

• PCMark 8 (World of Warcraft & Battlefield 3)
• Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringers Benchmark – loading times of five different levels
• Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker Benchmark – loading times of five different levels
• 3DMark Storage Benchmark (Battlefield V, Call of Duty, Overwatch)

Synthetic Benching Tests & Suites

• SiSoft Sandra 2020/2021
• AIDA64
• PCMark 10 Pro version courtesy of UL (Full Storage Benchmark, Express, Extended)
• PCMark 8
• SPECworkstation3 (3.0.4) Benchmarks
• Anvil’s Storage Utilities
• CrystalDiskMark
• TxBENCH Basic
• HD Tune
• AS SSD
• ATTO
• HD Tach
• 100GB File Copy Timed Test

Let’s head to our benching results.

Benchmarking the M200 Portable SSD

Benchmarking SSDs are not an exact science as there is variability between runs, and different benchmarks may show different results depending on how they run their tests and how up-to-date the benchmarks are. However, by using enough real world and synthetic tests, it may be possible to get a good idea of the relative performance across all six tested drives. For benchmark results, the drives are listed in the following order on the charts:

1. T-FORCE M200 M.2 Portable Type C USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 SSD
2. T-FORCE CARDEA A440 M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 Gen 4 x4 SSD
3. T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440 1TB PCIe 4.0 Gen 4 x4 NVMe SSD
4. T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS 1TB PCIe Gen 3 x4 NVMe SSD
5. TeamGroup MP33 1TB NVMe Gen 3 x4 PCIe SSD
6. T-FORCE Delta MAX SATA III 1TB SSD

We did not set up Windows on the DELTA MAX SSD, so not all of the benchmarks could be run on it. All of the drives will have their results summarized in multiple charts. Let’s start first with TeamGroup’s own S.M.A.R.T. utility to get information on each tested SSD.

S.M.A.R.T.

This TeamGroup S.M.A.R.T. utility tests each drive using two different sets of tests.

First up, the T-FORCE M200 Portable dual performance tests starting with MB/s.

Next the M200 performance dual test results given in IOPS.

S.M.A.R.T. also measures the M200’s latency.

Now the CARDEA A440 dual performance tests starting with MB/s. Next, the CARDEA A440 performance dual test results given in IOPS. S.M.A.R.T. also measures the CARDEA A440 latency. Below are the performance tests in MB/s for the T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440. Next the CARDEA Ceramic performance dual test results given in IOPS Finally, the S.M.A.R.T. tool measures latency for the CARDEA Ceramic C440. Here are the dual performance tests in MB/s for the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS. Next we look at the performance tests in IOPS for the CARDEA IOPS S.M.A.R.T. next measures latency for the CARDEA IOPS. Below we look at the performance tests in MB/s for the TeamGroup MP33 SSD. Next, we look at the performance tests in IOPS for the TeamGroup MP33 SSD Now the dual latency tests for the MP33 SSD. Next, the Delta MAX dual performance tests starting with MB/s. Below we look at the performance tests in IOPS for the Delta MAX. Finally, S.M.A.R.T. measures the Delta MAX SATA III SSD latency. S.M.A.R.T. clearly shows the PCIe NVMe CARDEA A440 is the fastest SSD, followed by the CARDEA Ceramic C440, the CARDEA IOPS, then the TeamGroup MP33 SSD, the T-FORCE M200 Portable SSD, and in last place, the Delta MAX SATA III SSD.

TeamGroup’s S.M.A.R.T. tool is a great place to start, so let’s see what other synthetic and real world tests show. Let’s begin with 3DMark’s storage benchmark.

3DMark Storage Benchmark

3DMark’s Professional version by UL includes a Storage Benchmark (optional in the Advanced version) which also measures the time it takes to load several popular games.

First, the T-TORCE M200 Portable results with 1210.

Now the CARDEA Ceramic A440 results with 3844. The CARDEA Ceramic C440 scores 3009. Next up, the CARDEA IOPS manages 2587. The TeamGroup MP33 SSD gets 1538. And in last place, the Delta MAX SATA III SSD gets 1005. Here’s the summary chart.

It’s clear that the CARDEA A440 is the fastest SSD followed by the C440, the IOPS, the MP33, the M200 Portable, and the DELTA MAX. The M200 delivers impressive performance considering that it is an external drive transferring data over USB.

Next up, another important UL benchmark suite, PCMark 10 including the full benching suites – Express, Extended, and the Full System Drive Benchmark.

PCMark 10 Professional

UL (formerly Futuremark) has been a developer and publisher of PC benchmark applications for nearly two decades. Although PCMark benches are synthetic suites, they provide a good measure of system performance. PCMark 10 was primarily developed for Windows 10 and it builds upon the PCMark 8 suite for a package of vendor-neutral home and office benchmarks.

The regular version of PCMark 10 misses several key elements such as detailed storage testing, but the Professional version, which we use courtesy of UL, includes a storage benchmark and a full system drive benchmark. In addition, We use both PCMark 10’s Express and Extended suite also.

First up is the PCMark 10’s Full System Drive Benchmark.

Full System Drive Benchmark

First we test the M200 Portable which scores 955.

Next, we test the CARDEA A440 which scores 3474. Next the CARDEA Ceramic results give 2223. The CARDEA IOPS SSD scores 2027. The MP33 SSD manages 1187. The Delta MAX SSD was tested last and it scores lowest with 816.

Here’s the summary chart.

The SSDs line up in their expected order with the M200 Portable drive beating the SATA III drive.

The PCMark 10 Express benchmark suite is best suited for office tasks while the Extended benchmarks are for power users. To properly compare the PCMark 10 scores, look at the detailed results. All of the SSD results are presented as screenshots. Open the images in separate tabs for easy individual test result comparisons. These will be summarized after all of the screenshots are presented.

PCMark 10 Express

First up, the M200 Portable Express score with 6515.

Now the online validated score which gives more detailed results.

Next up, the CARDEA A440 Express score with 7480.

Now the online validated score which gives more detailed results. Next, the CARDEA Ceramic C440 Express score is 7188 Now online results. Next up is the CARDEA IOPS Express score with 7484. Online details are next. The Team Group MP33 Express score is given below with 7348 The online details follow. Delta Max could not be tested since windows is not set up on it. The Express summary chart is presented after the Extended scores.

PCMark 10 Extended

First up, the T-FORCE MP200 Portable SSD Extended score is 12483.

Here are the online details.

First up, the CARDEA A440 Extended score is 13452.

Here are the online details. The CARDEA Ceramic C440 Extended score is 13384. The online details are below. Next up is the CARDEA IOPS Extended score with 13304 The online details are below. The TeamGroup MP33 SSD manages 13210. Finally, the online results are detailed. The Delta MAX SATA III SSD could not be tested by the PC Mark10 Extended or Express benchmarks since Windows is not set up on it. Here are the summary charts followed again by the storage benchmark chart.

Let’s check out the older PCMark 8 benchmark suite which also uses dedicated storage tests.

PCMARK 8

Next up, the C440 Ceramic SSD Read tests. Now the CARDEA IOPS Read tests are shown below. Next, the MP33 series of benchmarks are presented below. Finally, the Delta MAX SATA III series of benches are below. Here is the summary chart comparing our six tested drives where higher is better except for the Average Read Access where lower is better.

Next we test the CARDEA A440.

Now we test the CARDEA Ceramic C440 SSD.

Below are the TeamGroup MP33 SSD results.

Finally, we test the 1TB T-Force DELTA MAX SATA III.

Below is presented the summary chart.

Below are the CARDEA IOPS SSD results:

Next the MP33 SSD.

Finally the Delta MAX SATA III results.

TxBENCH

TxBENCH is similar to CrystalDiskMark but with additional features including secure erase. According to the website, “It not only measures the performance of storage easily but also performs detailed speed measurements based on specified access patterns and long-period speed measurements. It also allows you to see each drive’s supported features, enabled features, and S.M.A.R.T. information.”

First we test the M200 Portable.

Next we test the A440. Next the CARDEA Ceramic C440 results. The T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS SSD results are shown below.

Finally, we test the 1TB T-FORCE Delta MAX SATA III SSD.

Here are the HD Tune benches summarized by the chart below.

Next are the T-FORCE CARDEA A440 AS SSD results showing the results in MB/s next to IOPS, and below them, the copy speeds. Below are the T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440AS SSD results. Here are the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS AS SSD benchmark results.

Finally, the T-FORCE Delta MAX SATA III SSD results also showing MB/s next to IOPS and below them, copy speeds.

Again, the M200 scores higher than the SATA III drive and its Read speeds are better than the MP33 NVMe PCIe drive.

The T-FORCE CARDEA A440 ATTO results are next.

HD Tach

HD Tach is a low level hardware benchmark for random access read/write storage devices that was developed by Simpli Software. HD Tach uses custom device drivers and low level Windows interfaces to determine the physical performance of the device. It is no longer supported and needs to be run in compatibility mode for Windows 10.

We present the benchmarks first with the Quick benchmark (8MB zones) on the left and the Long benchmark (32MB zones) on the Right.

Here are the M200 HD Tach results with an average read of 646.7MB/s for the Quick bench and 637.4MB/s for the Long bench.

Here are the A440 HD Tach results with an average read of 2212.5MB/s for the Quick bench and 2308.1MB/s for the Long bench. The T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440 HD Tach results give an average read of 2321.0MB/s for the Quick bench and 2150.7MB/s for the Long bench. Below are the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS HD Tach results with an average read of 2079.7MB/s for the Quick bench and 1822.5MB/s for the Long bench. Next, the TeamGroup MP33 HD Tach results show an average read of 1265.8MB/s for the Quick bench and 1198.2MB/s for the Long bench. Here are the Delta MAX SATA III HD Tach results with an average read of 409.8MB/s for the Quick bench and 405.8MB/s for the Long bench. Here are the HD Tach Disk benches summarized in a chart comparing our five drives. For read speeds, higher is better but for access times, lower is better.

The CARDEA A440 again generally scores the fastest in HD Tach although the CARDEA C440 trades blows followed by the IOPS, then by the MP33 SSD, followed by the M200 Portable while the SATA III Delta MAX takes last place as usual.

Next we look at game/level loading speeds.

The Game/Level Loading Timed Results – FFXIV

Game and game level loading time results are difficult to measure precisely but generally SSDs perform similarly with regard to game loading times and they all load significantly faster than any HDD. Even SSHDs require loading the same level or program over-and-over to get quicker. We tested 5 levels and overall loading times accurately by using the Final Fantasy XIV: Stormbringer & Endwalker benchmarks.

Shadowbringers Benchmark

The Shadowbringers Benchmark will not only give you accurate framerates averages, it precisely times how long it takes to load each of 5 different levels and the total loading time. We used maximum settings. Let’s start with the Shadowbringer benchmark using the M200.

Total Loading times are 12.204 seconds. We also use the newer Endwalker benchmark and then summarize the results of our six tested SSDs.

Endwalker Benchmark

The Endwalker benchmark is also just as detailed as Shadowbringers and is a very accurate test of loading game and level times.

Here is the Endwalker benchmark using the M200.

Total Loading times are 11.831 seconds.

Here is the summary chart of Shadowbringers and Endwalker giving all of the level loading and overall loading time comparisons. In addition, the game benches are repeated from PCMark 8.

For all 4 games and multiple levels tested, the CARDEA A440 stands out, followed generally by the C440, the IOPS, the MP33, and then the M200 Portable trade blows with Delta MAX. We only see a 2-3 second difference between our fastest SSD and our slowest SSD making the M200 a suitable external drive for gamers – either as C:drive with Windows installed, or for storage. Any of these SSDs are suitable for loading games quickly and far faster than any hard drive or solid state hard drive can hope to achieve.

However, until developers start to target SSDs for PC game storage, then we may see SSDs fully achieve the game loading performance they are capable of on Windows.

Lets look at file copy speeds next.

File Copy 102GB

File copy speeds are important to gamers especially when they want to quickly transfer their game files from one location to another. We copy a 102GB folder containing Horizon 5 from its Steam folder to a desktop folder which is something we do regularly when setting up Steam games on multiple PCs. Pay careful attention to the charts (in green) that show the consistency and speed of file copies. They tend to show the ups and downs where each SSD runs out of cache and how long it takes to empty and refill it.

102GB File Copy

The M200 Portable took 4 minutes and 5.0 seconds. to copy 102GB.

The A440 took 1 minutes and 44.0 seconds. to copy 102GB. The Ceramic C440 took 1 minutes and 59 seconds for the same copy.

The Delta Max SATA III SSD took 9 minutes 49 seconds for the same copy

The CARDEA A440 SSD excels at copying along with the other Gen 4 x4 SSD, the C440, compared to any of our other tested SSDs. The IOPS comes in third place ahead of the M200 Portable SSD in fourth which is faster than the MP33 SSD which is in turn faster than the Delta MAX SATA III SSD.

Even a SATA III SSD is much faster than any HDD or SSHD for copying large files and the M200 is almost two-and one-half times faster than a fast SATA drive making this external drive quite suitable for large file copying. Consider taking a nap if you are going to copy 102GB using a hard drive.

Finally, let’s revisit game/level loading times plus all of our Summary charts and then reach our conclusion.

Summary Charts and Conclusion

Here are all of the gaming and summary charts again for easy reference followed by our conclusion.

The Game/Level Loading Time Results

Game and game level loading time results are difficult to measure precisely (such as by using a stopwatch) but our tests are far more consistent. Here are the World of Warcraft and Battlefield 3 loading times again as measured precisely by PCMark 8’s storage test and accurately by Final Fantasy XIV: Stormbringer/Endwalker’s benchmarks. Lower (quicker/faster) loading times (measured in seconds) are better. PCMark’s Storage Benchmark also provides precise SSD bandwidth, loading times, game record, install, and save time comparisons.

All six SSDs load games quickly and the external M200 drive is generally faster than a fast SATA III SSD making it very suitable for an operating system drive or as a storage drive. After PC game developers start to target SSDs for game storage, only then may we see SSDs achieve the super-fast game loading performance they are capable of. Until then, console gamers can take advantage of the M200’s fast loading speeds.

Non-Gaming Summary Charts

Here are all of the summary charts presented again in one place.

A gamer who wishes to have the very fastest PC will choose an internal PCIe 4.0 Gen 4 x4 NVMe SSD. The CARDEA IOPS slots into third place ahead of the TeamGroup MP33 SSD, then the M200 Portable SSD, and finally the Delta MAX SATA III SSD is always in last place.

For gaming and for regular tasks on current PC platforms, any SSD will provide decent game and level loading performance well above that of mechanical hard drives or even hybrid (SSHD) drives and we now see that a portable USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 drive can easily beat internal SATA drives and even compete with some PCIe Gen3 NVMe drives.

Let’s head for our conclusion.

The Conclusion & Verdict

We would suggest that 1TB has become the minimum storage capacity for a gamer that includes the operating system since PC games have grown so large. It still is not mandatory to have a SSD if you only use your PC for gaming and have a lot of patience. Games do not perform significantly better on SSDs since most PC developers still target HDDs for game performance optimization. However, games usually take significantly longer to load from a HDD or SSHD than they do from any internal SATA III drive or even from an external USB 3.0 SSD.

If a gamer wants to get right back into the game, any SSD will improve immersion and decrease frustration compared with using a HDD or SSHD. Windows 10/11 have become positively painful to use when installed on a mechanical or even on a hybrid solid state/hard disk drive. Indexing, Search, or Anti-malware Windows programs often saturate the bandwidth of a mechanical drive, and even downloading or updating Steam games will slow your PC to an irritating crawl. This will not happen using a SATA III SSD or a fast external SSD like the M200 Portable.

As SSD pricing decreases there may no longer be a need for using HDDs for storage or for back-up especially if time matters. At just under $600, the 4TB M200 is expensive but it offers portability and very fast read/write speeds that greatly exceed the fastest SATA III drives, and it is flexible so as to be used as either a C:drive or for quickly loading games as storage drive.

Based on performance and price, we recommend the 4TB T-FORCE M200 portable SSD as a competitively-priced, fast, cool-running, and good-looking SSD for any use. A five year warranty backed by TeamGroup insures that a player will enjoy fast performance for years to come. The M200 is ruggedly built and also likely to survive a 6 foot drop onto a carpeted floor with its data intact unlike most hard drives or SATA SSDs.

Pros

• 5-year warranty backed by TeamGroup support
• Fast game/level loading speeds and very fast large file copy speeds
• Well-made and durable for portability together with style that increases its cooling capability
• The M200 is priced competitively with other USB 3.2 Type C Gen 2×2 SSDs

Cons

• Price, but then 4TB SSDs are expensive
• No IP-rating; not water resistant

The Verdict

The T-FORCE M200 portable SSD deserves BTR’s Editor’s Choice Award.

Stay tuned as Rodrigo is currently working a DDR4 review followed by a GeForce driver performance analysis. We will follow it next-week by continuing our DDR5 series focusing on latency using a 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 6000 CL36 kit versus an identical kit at CL40 using our 31-game benchmark suite and extensive suite of applications.

Happy Gaming!

We were eager to compare the T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz CL40 DDR5 2x16GB memory kit that TeamGroup sent BTR for review with our 2x16GB T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz CL18 DDR4 and 2x16GB T-FORCE VULCAN 5200 CL40 DDR5 kits. DELTA is available at Newegg for $539.99 which is above list price ($399.99) but currently less expensive than at Amazon. Is it worth it for gaming performance?

We used a full set of benchmarking tools and 31 games to see if gamers should choose DDR5 over DDR4 for Intel’s newest Z690 CPU platform and to see if faster DDR5 speeds make a performance difference. This is the second installment of BTR’s memory review series that compares DDR4 with progressively faster DDR5, and it will later focus on latency to also measure its effects on gaming performance.

Last year, BTR ran an extensive set of tests comparing DDR4 3600MHz CL18 with CL16 and the performance results were very similar for gaming, so our T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz CL18 2x16GB kit is representative of today’s fast DDR4. We started over with new benchmarks and have updated our testing tools to focus narrowly on DDR4 3600MHz CL18 versus DDR5 6400MHz CL40 versus DDR5 5200MHz CL40. We use an i9-12900KF on an ASUS Prime Z690 P-D4 Z690 DDR4 motherboard to compare memory performance against an ASUS ROG Maximus Apex Z690 DDR5 motherboard.

The VULCAN 5200 CL40 black kit (at Amazon for $359.99) has a MSRP of $349.99 that we are comparing to the DELTA DDR5 6400 kit (at Newegg for $539.99). However, the T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz CL18 DDR4 2x16GB kit sells for $115.00 on Amazon so there is a large difference between DDR5 and DDR4 pricing. The MSRP of the DELTA RGB DDR5 6400 2x16GB kit is evidently $399.99 although it is $539.99 at Newegg, and will update this review when we hear back from TeamGroup.

Since no motherboard supports both types of memory, most gamers have a choice of using their current DDR4 memory on a Z690 DDR4 motherboard or buying new memory for a Z690 DDR5 motherboard. When BTR originally upgraded its flagship PC from an i9-10900K to an i9-12900KF, we picked a solid midrange ASUS Prime Z690-P D4 board for our DDR4 3600 memory. We then purchased an ASUS ROG Maximus Apex Z690 DDR5 motherboard for this memory review series and will overclock our DELTA RGB DDR5 to see if we get any additional performance.

From our testing with Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Skylake, Coffee Lake, and Comet Lake platforms, using faster DDR over slower DDR brings only limited performance improvements for a few CPU-dependent games. However, we found that using faster memory brings extra overall performance gains for many other tasks and applications and we will compare overall DDR5 6400 performance with DDR5 5200 performance and versus DDR4 3600 using multiple synthetic and real world applications.

Our 2x16GB review sample of T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz CL40 DDR5 desktop memory is a high speed high-capacity gaming memory kit for Intel’s 12th Generation CPU platform. Here are the three memory kits that we are comparing:

• T-FORCE DELTA RGB PC5-51200 6400MHz DDR5 CL40 2x16GB kit
• T-FORCE VULCAN PC5-41600 5200MHz DDR5 CL40 2x16GB kit
• T-FORCE VULCAN DARK Z PC4-28800 DDR4 3600MHz CL18 2x16GB kit

Just like with video cards, predatory resellers have been buying large quantities at MSRP to resell them at inflated prices to turn a profit. If you want DDR5, please don’t buy from them. Fortunately, DDR5 supply is increasing and it is possible to buy at or near MSRP now.

Testing Platform, Product Specifications & Features

Our testing platform is a recent clean installation of Windows 11 Professional, using an Intel Core i9-12900KF at stock settings using either a 1) ASUS Prime P-D4 Z690 motherboard for DDR4 benchmarking or 2) an ASUS ROG Maximus Apex Z690 motherboard for DDR5 benching; a 2TB T-Force C440 CARDIA NVMe PCIe 5,000MB/s SSD, and with either: (1) 2x16GB T-FORCE DELTA RGB DDR5 6400MHz CL40; (2) 2x16GB of T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 CL40; or (3) 2x16GB T-FORCE Dark Z DDR 3600MHz CL18 memory. We use an RTX 3080 Ti Founders Edition at stock clocks as befits a high-end PC. The settings, benchmarks, testing conditions, and hardware are identical except for the three memory kits and their respective motherboards being compared.

Voltages are set at XMP profile defaults of 1.35V for the DDR4 3600MHz memory and DDR5 6400MHz memory, and 1.25V for the DDR5 5200MHz memory. Command Rates are also set by their respective default XMP profiles in the BIOS at 2T. The default XMP Profile timings of the T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz is CL18-22-22-42, the T-FORCE DELTA DDR5 6400MHz is 40-40-40-84, and the T-FORCE Vulcan DDR5 5200MHz is CL40-40-40-76.

There are several variants of DELTA RGB DDR5 as TeamGroup’s chart shows.

UPDATED 10:45 PM February 16, 2022

TeamGroup has just announced:

“After rigorous testing of ASRock, ASUS, Biostar, GIGABYTE and MSI motherboards with Intel processors, TEAMGROUP announced today that all of its T-FORCE DDR5 gaming memory have received Intel XMP3.0 certification, ensuring that gamers can enhance the performance of their processors using T-FORCE’s overclockable DDR5 memory. With just an easy single click, users will be able to fully experience the incredible performance of T-FORCE gaming memory with XMP’s easy-to-use overclocking profiles.”

“TEAMGROUP’s DDR5 product series strictly uses high-quality, specially selected ICs to provide gamers with stable and compatible memory. Its T-FORCE overclocking memory modules have all passed XMP3.0 certification tests, including frequencies of 4,800MHz, 5,200MHz, 6,000MHz, 6,200MHz and 6,400MHz, making T-FORCE the DDR5 memory brand with the most specification variety under Intel’s XMP3.0 certifications. To meet the demand for high-frequency, low-latency overclocking, TEAMGROUP created a proprietary DDR5 thermal module that enables T-FORCE DDR5 memory to operate smoothly and stably when overclocked to its very limits.”

We compare the performance of all three DDR kits, and we will also overclock the DELTA RGB DDR5. As this is a series comparing multiple DDR5 speeds/latencies on gaming performance, we benchmark the performance of 31 modern games at a maxed-out/ultra 3840×2160, 2560×1440, and 1920×1080 resolutions to see which games benefit from faster memory. We also benchmark using many of the recognized memory-related benchmarking tools including AIDA64, SANDRA 2020/21, PCMark 10, SPECworkstation3, 3DMark, Blender Benchmark, Cinebench, Frybench, GeekBench, Novabench, RealBench, CPU-Z Bench, 7-Zip Bench, Kraken JavaScript Bench, and Wprime.

Here are the DELTA RGB DDR5 features from TeamGroup’s website.

Features

TeamGroup offers a lifetime warranty for their T-FORCE DDR5 desktop memory.

Let’s unbox the DELTA RGB memory kit on the next page and take a closer look.

Unboxing

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 2x16GB memory kit comes in a anti-static blister pack inside of a box that pictures it on the front and advertises its features on its reverse. The T-FORCE logo uses a stylized hawk symbolizing a gamer’s independent spirit of flying free and it features a lifetime TeamGroup warranty.

DELTA’s features include one-click overclocking to 6400MHz supported by Intel’s XMP 3.0 profile of most Z690 motherboards and a wide 120 degree RGB lighting colors supported by an IC that can use multiple lighting software programs. Of course, check your motherboard’s qualified vendor list (QVL) to be sure the memory has been tested to support it or you may need to spend some time in the BIOS tweaking RAM settings.

We removed the memory out of the anti-static blister pack and it looks good in black.

The installation guide is illustrated and is easy to follow.

DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 looks great installed in a conservative or an RGB build and it is featured in BTR’s flagship i9-12900KF PC below.

There is plenty of room for this DELTA RGB memory in most builds although it is taller than non-RGB memory modules and may interfere with some large CPU air cooler installations. Make sure to measure your clearance if you use a CPU air cooler as DELTA RGB is 46.1mm (H) x 144.2mm (L) x 7mm (W).

Let’s look at our test configuration before we benchmark performance.

Test Configuration – Hardware

• Intel Core i9-12900KF – HyperThreading and Turbo boost are on, stock settings.
• ASUS Prime Z690-P D4 LGA 1700 motherboard (Intel Z690 chipset, latest BIOS, PCIe 5.0, DDR4)
• ASUS ROG Maximus Z690 Apex LGA 1700 motherboard (Intel Z690 chipset, latest BIOS, PCIe 5.0, DDR5)
• T-FORCE DELTA RGB PC5 51200 6400MHz DDR5 CL40 2x16GB kit, supplied by TeamGroup
• T-FORCE DARK Z PC4 28800 DDR4 3600MHz CL16 2x16GB kit, supplied by TeamGroup
• T-FORCE VULCAN PC5-41600 5200MHz DDR5 CL40 2x16GB kit, supplied by TeamGroup
• RTX 3080 Ti Founders Edition 11GB, at stock FE clocks, on loan from NVIDIA
• 2TB T-FORCE C-440 Ceramic NVMe SSD C: drive
• 1TB T-FORCE A-440 NVMe SSD for storage, supplied by TeamGroup
• 1.92 TB San Disk enterprise class SSD for storage
• 2 TB Micron 1100 SSD for storage
• 1TB Delta Max RGB SSD for storage, supplied by TeamGroup
• Super Flower Leadex Platinum SE 1200W 80+ Platinum power supply unit
• MSI MAG Series CORELIQUID 360R, ARGB CPU Liquid Cooler (AIO) 360mm CPU water cooler
• CORSAIR 5000D Mid-Tower ATX PC Case + 2 x 120mm + 1 x 140mm Noctua Fans
• BenQ 32″ 4K/60Hz display

Test Configuration – Software

• Nvidia’s GeForce 496.98 WHQL drivers. High Quality, prefer maximum performance, single display
• VSync is off in the control panel
• AA enabled as noted in games; all in-game settings are specified with 16xAF always applied
• Highest quality sound (stereo) used in all games
• Windows 11 Professional edition
• Latest DirectX
• MSI’s Afterburner, latest version.
• CPU-Z
• Karhu RAM Test
• Windows Memory Diagnostics

31 PC Game suite

Vulkan

• DOOM Eternal
• Wolfenstein Youngblood
• Red Dead Redemption 2
• Ghost Recon: Breakpoint
• World War Z
• Strange Brigade
• Rainbow 6 Siege

DX12

• Forza Horizon 5
• Guardians of the Galaxy
• Far Cry 6
• Resident Evil VIllage
• Metro Exodus – Enhanced Edition & regular edition
• Hitman 3
• DiRT 5
• Assassins Creed Valhala
• Watch Dogs Legions
• Horizon Zero Dawn
• Death Stranding
• F1 2020
• Borderlands 3
• Tom Clancy’s The Division 2
• Civilization VI – Gathering Storm Expansion
• Battlefield V
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider

DX11

• Chernobylite
• Days Gone
• Crysis Remastered
• Destiny 2 Shadowkeep
• Total War: Three Kingdoms
• Overwatch
• Grand Theft Auto V

Synthetic Game Benchmarks

• Firestrike
• TimeSpy
• VRMark
• Superposition

Synthetic/Real World Benching Suites & Tools

• SANDRA 2020/21 Engineer version courtesy of Sisoft
• AIDA64 courtesy of FinalWire
• PCMark 10 Professional Edition courtesy of UL
• SPECworkstation3
• 3DMark Professional Edition courtesy of UL
• Blender Benchmark
• Cinebench
• Frybench
• GeekBench
• RealBench
• Novabench
• CPU-Z benchmark
• 7-Zip benchmark
• Kraken JavaScript Bench
• Wprime

Nvidia Control Panel settings:

Texture Filtering has been set to High with ‘prefer maximum performance’ power selected and V-sync disabled, but the other settings are left stock. Before we head to our benching results, let’s briefly cover overclocking.

CPU-Z and Overclocking

Here is the CPU-Z 12900KF report.

DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 stock clocks and details are shown below.

The SPD is set as below by the XMP BIOS profile for 3200MHz (x2).

Before we look at benches, let’s explore overclocking the DELTA RGB DDR5 above 6400 MHz.

Overclocking

We used the DELTA RGB DDR5 6400 DDR5’s default timings to increase its clocks and we booted into Windows at 6600MHz at a fixed 1.4350V. Unfortunately, our motherboard doesn’t allow for setting general higher voltages currently (without a lot of individual tweaks), and DELTA failed Karhu’s RAM test after 10 minutes with an error. We will return to DDR5 overclocking in a couple of weeks versus a DDR5 6400 CL36 kit for a potential overclocking showdown – and for that review, we will also increase our i9-12900KF clocks to 5.3GHz / 5.1GHz.

Tightening DDR timings tend to bring less performance gain than increasing clock speed and should probably be left until after preliminary overclocking and stability tests have been completed. However, the timings could not be set from CL40 to CL36 at 6400MHz nor at CL38. We concluded that there is some performance headroom in our particular DELTA RGB sample that we will be able to access by further tweaking. From past experience with DDR on a new process, the overclocking headroom varies from sample to sample, often by a large margin.

A hardcore overclocker may wish to aim for the highest overclock that their memory can reach by using extreme voltage well beyond the recommended 1.35V to likely exceed 1.45V, and then fine-tune the timings and voltage for maximum memory performance without concern for their memory’s longevity. As a gamer, we haven’t see large gaming performance increases from memory overclocking that we see with GPU/CPU overclocks, so we left the DELTA RGB clocks at stock for our benchmarking and to set a baseline for BTR’s upcoming DDR5 reviews.

Benchmarking

Individual chart results are always listed in order: 1) DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5, 2) Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5, and 3) DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4.

Synthetic and Real World Benches

SiSoft Sandra 2020/21

To see where memory performance results differ, and there is no better tool than SiSoft’s Sandra 2020/21. SiSoftware Sandra (the System ANalyser, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant) is an complete information & diagnostic utility in a complete package. It is able to provide all the information about your hardware, software and other devices for diagnosis and for benchmarking. Sandra is derived from a Greek name that implies “defender” or “helper”.

There are several versions of Sandra, including a free version of Sandra Lite that anyone can download and use. It is highly recommended! We are using the full engineer suite courtesy of SiSoft. The latest version features multiple improvements over earlier versions of Sandra. It will benchmark and analyze all of the important PC subsystems and even rank your PC and give recommendations for improvement.

We run Sandra memory intensive benchmark tests focusing first on the CPU. Here is the chart summarizing the results.

The higher speeds and bandwidth generally gives DDR5 6400MHz a solid boost over DDR5 5200MHz, which in turn is faster than DDR4 3600MHz in many of Sandra’s synthetic benches.

Here are the memory controller tests.

In every memory controller test, the DDR5 6400MHz shows a solid performance improvement over DDR5 5200MHz.

We next feature AIDA64.

AIDA64 v6.60.5900

AIDA64 is the successor to Everest and remains an important industry tool for benchmarkers. Its memory bandwidth benchmarks (Memory Read, Memory Write, and Memory Copy) measure the maximum available memory data transfer bandwidth. AIDA64’s benchmark code methods are written in Assembly language, and they are extremely optimized for every popular AMD, Intel and VIA processor core variants by utilizing the appropriate instruction set extensions. We use the Engineer’s full version of AIDA64 courtesy of FinalWire. AIDA64 is free to to try and use for 30 days.

The AIDA64 Memory Latency benchmark measures the typical delay from when the CPU reads data from system memory. Memory latency time means the time is accurately measured from the issuing of the read command until the data arrives to the integer registers of the CPU. It also tests Memory Read, Write, and Copy speeds besides Cache.

Here are the DELTA RGB DDR5 AIDA64 Cache & Memory Benchmark results.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 results are next.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 results are next.

Here are the summary charts.

AIDA64 memory benchmarks that depend on fast memory show that DELTA DDR5 leads over the other memory tested with an exception that the DDR4 has lower latency. Next we test the AIDA64 CPU benchmarks.

The CPU benchmarks show variable results. The AIDA64 FPU benchmarks summary chart is next.

The AIDA64 FPU benchmarks results are less dependant on memory than the CPU benches and these results are all about the same. However, faster memory generally scores higher in memory benches. For AIDA64 synthetic memory benches, the DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 memory scores higher than the VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 which in turn are generally higher than DDR4.

Let’s look at PCMark 10 next to see if its benchmarks can reflect memory speed increases.

PCMark 10 Professional Edition

PCMark 10 has multiple tests which use real world timed benchmarks including web browsing, video group chat, photo, batch, and video editing, music and video tests, and even mainstream gaming. The PCMark 10 test offers three primary tests and we chose the Extended and also the Express version. We use the Professional Edition courtesy of UL.

First up are the Express version results which include the online results that show individual test results starting with the DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 with a score of 7082.

Now the online results.

Next are the Express version results including the online results that show individual test results with the Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5 with a score of 7025.

Here are the Vulcan DDR5 Express benchmark results validated online.

The DARKZ 3600MHz DDR4 scores highest – 7188 – on the Express test.

Here is the online validation

EXTENDED

Next are the Extended version results including the online results that show individual test results starting with the DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 with a score of 13292.

Now the online validated results.

Next is the Extended test and the DDR5 5200 scores 12829.

Here is the online validation

Again, the DDR4 results give a higher score of 13384.

Here is the online validation.

Here is the summary.

Using PCMark 10, the DDR4 equipped PC scores higher than either DDR5-equipped PC. Considering that in one case the slower DDR5 memory scores higher than the DELTA RGB memory, we may believe that memory speeds don’t make a significance difference in PCMark 10 benchmarks. We will look at memory latency in an upcoming review to see if that makes any difference.

SPECworkstation3 Benchmarks

All of the SPECworkstation3 benchmarks are based on professional applications, most of which are in the CAD/CAM or media and entertainment fields. All of these benchmarks are free except for vendors of computer-related products and/or services.

The most comprehensive workstation benchmark is SPECworkstation3. It’s a free-standing benchmark which does not require ancillary software. It measures GPU, CPU, storage and all other major aspects of workstation performance based on actual applications and representative workloads. We only tested the CPU-related workstation performance.

Here are our SPECworkstation 3.1.0 summary and raw scores for the DELTA DDR5 RGB 6400MHz equipped PC.

Here are our SPECworkstation 3.1.0 summary and raw scores for Vulcan DDR5 5200.

Next, the DDR4 3600MHz-equipped PC summary and raw scores.

Here is the summary of the DDR5-equipped PCs compared side-by-side with the DDR4 PC.

In most benchmarks, the DELTA RGB DDR5 equipped PC leads and sometimes by a significant margin. This is not the case where the 3600MHz DDR4 PC is sometimes faster than the DDR5 5200MHz equipped PC.

Let’s take a look at Blender.

Blender 2.93 Benchmark

We generally see the performance increasing with faster CPU and memory speeds, so we used Blender 2.93 benchmark which primarily measure CPU performance for rendering production files. Lower is better as the benchmark automatically renders a scene multiple times and gives the results in minutes and seconds. It may be downloaded from here.

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 PC is first.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC is up last.

Here is the Summary.

Our conclusion from Blender benchmarking is that there is little performance difference, but the 6400MHz DDR5 equipped PC has a slight advantage – It’s always faster than the 5200MHz DDR5 PC, and it ties or beats the DDR4-equipped PC in Blender’s rendering tests.

Next we benchmark using Cinebench.

Cinebench

CINEBENCH is based on MAXON’s professional 3D content creation suite, CINEMA 4D. This latest R20.0 version of CINEBENCH can test up to 64 processor threads accurately and automatically. It is an excellent tool to compare CPU/memory performance and higher is always better.

The T-FORCE DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 is first and scores 27605 Multi Core and 2021 Single Core.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 is tested next and it scores 27312 Multi Core and 2008 Single Core.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC scores 27585 Multi Core and 2012 Single Core.

There is very little difference between the scores as shown by the chart summarizing the Cinebench runs, but the DELTA RGB DDR5 PC is the fastest using Cinebench followed by the DDR4 3600MHz equipped PC, and then by the slower DDR5 5200MHz PC.

Let’s look at Frybench next.

Frybench

Frybench uses Fryrender in a similar manner as Cinebench uses the Cinema Rendering engine. The objective is to render as quickly as possible.

The T-FORCE DeLTA 6400MHz DDR5 PC is first and it completes the render in 56 seconds.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next and it completes the render in 58 seconds.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 completes the render in 57 seconds.

Here is the summary chart.

Again, the DELTA RGB 6400MHz PC is fastest, followed by the DDR4 3600MHz PC, and then by the DDR4 5200MHz PC. Do a couple of seconds matter? It depends on how much a PC is used for rendering.

Next up, GeekBench.

GeekBench

GeekBench is an excellent CPU benchmarking program which runs a series of tests and times how long the processor takes to complete the tasks. Faster memory means the CPU may be able to complete tasks faster than with slower memory.

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 PC is up first and here are the overall results.

Next the DELTA PC single-core results

DELTA’s multi-core results follow.

The T-FORCE Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5 PC is up next and here are the overall results.

Here are the detailed single-core test results.

Multi-core results are presented below.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 is tested next and the overall results are below.

Here are the single-core test results.

Multi-core DDR4 results follow.

Here is the Geekbench summary chart.

This time, the DDR5 6400MHz equipped PC scores highest followed by the DDR4 5200 PC and then the DDR4 PC.

Next we check out Real Bench.

RealBench v2.56

RealBench is a benchmarking utility by ASUS Republic of Gamers which benchmarks image editing, encoding, OpenCL, Heavy Multitasking, and gives an overall score. Some of these tests are affected by CPU and memory speeds.

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 PC is first and it scores 368,818.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next and scores 343,096.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC scores 365,051.

Here are the individual tests summarized.

RealBench results favor the DELTA RGB 6400MHz PC over the Dark Z 3600MHz PC which is in turn faster than the Vulcan DDR5 5200MHz equipped PC.

Next up, Novabench.

Novabench

Novabench is a very quick benching utility that also gives a memory score which shows the overall bandwidth speeds.

The T-FORCE DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 is first and the RAM scores 370.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 is next and the RAM scores 353.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 RAM scores 365.

Here are the Novabench memory scores summarized in a chart.

The Novabench results show the DELTA RGB DDR5 PC is fastest followed by the DDR4-equipped PC which is faster than the 5200MHz DDR5 equipped PC.

Next is the CPU-Z benchmark

CPU-Z bench

The CPU-Z benchmark can show differences in IPC between CPUs to generate a score to compare both CPU single-core and multi-core performance.

The DELTA 6200MHz DDR5-equipped PC is first and it scores 827.4 single-core and 11451.5 multi-core.

The Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5-equipped PC is first and it scores 818.9 single-core and 11386.0 multi-core.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4-equipped PC scores 822.0 single-core and 11463 multi-core. .

Here is the summary

This time, the DDR4-equipped PC scores highest in the multi-core test, but the DELTA PC is higher in the single core test. The 5200MHz equipped DDR5 PC is again in last place.

The Z-Zip benchmark is next.

7-Zip benchmark

The 7-Zip benchmark tests LZMA compression/decompression and gives a rating in MIPS (million instructions per second) which is calculated from the measured speed. It is dependent on RAM speeds and a good test to compare DDR4 against DDR5.

The T-FORCE DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 PC is first.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC follows.

Here is the summary showing the DELTA DDR5 equipped PC is the fastest.

On to Wprime and number crunching.

WPrime v2.10

WPrime is a multi-threaded benchmark which can show the differences in IPC between CPUs, and faster memory may also make a difference. Here are the tests using 24 threads, and we choose to calculate 1024 million digits and 32 million digits using multiple runs.

The DELTA 6200MHz DDR5 PC is presented first.

The Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next.

The DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC follows.

Here is the Wprime comparison chart with the fastest numbers from each set of runs compared.

If you increase the memory speed, the CPU may crunch numbers a little faster and DDR4 is significantly faster in the 32M tests, and slightly faster in the 1025M tests. The slower DDR5-equipped PC is in last place.

Next, the Kraken JavaScript benchmark.

Kraken JavaScript Benchmark

The Kraken JavaScript benchmark was created by Mozilla to measures the speed of several different tests based on the SunSpider benchmark. The results are reported in milliseconds and lower (quicker) is better.

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 PC is up first.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 is next.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC results follow.

Here is the summary:

Again, the DELTA RGB DDR5-equipped PC is fastest by a significant margin, followed by the DDR4 PC and then the slower DDR5 PC.

Next, the gaming benchmarks, the summary charts, and then followed by the conclusion.

Game Performance Results, Summary Charts, & Conclusion

Gaming Performance Summary Charts

Here are the summary charts of 31 games and 6 synthetic tests. The highest settings were always chosen and the settings are listed on the chart. The benches were run at 1920×1080, 2560×1440 and at 3840×2160 to compare DDR5 vs DDR4 platforms.

Most results, except for synthetic scores, show average framerates, and higher is better. Minimum framerates are next to the averages in italics and in a slightly smaller font. Games benched with OCAT show average framerates, but the minimums are expressed by frametimes (99th-percentile) in ms where lower are better.

Although the benchmarking margin of error may cloud the results, there is a trend showing that although the DDR5-equipped PCs are faster in some games, others show higher framerates for the DDR4 equipped PC. For the games where memory speeds make a difference, however, the DELTA RGB DDR5 equipped PC stands out.

Depending on the resolution and settings, Guardians of the Galaxy, Far Cry 6, Hitman 3, Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, Watch Dogs Legions, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding, F1 2020, Crysis, and GTA V together with some other games, show the DELTA RGB DDR5 6400MHz has a performance advantage, sometimes significant.

Synthetic Summary Charts

Here are all of the Summary charts presented again – in one location.

Let’s head for the conclusion.

Conclusion and Verdict

We have previously seen that that running DDR memory at a faster clock speed produces performance gains and saves time with some tasks. In addition, some CPU-dependent games may benefit from faster system memory and the higher bandwidth of DDR5. However, the higher latency of Vulcan DDR5 5200MHz CL40 platform appears to put it at a disadvantage overall versus the DDR4 3600MHz CL18 platform. This is not the case with the DELTA RGB DDR5 6400MHz equipped PC where it is generally faster than the other two memory kits we tested.

Although we could not recommend the Vulcan DDR5 5200MHz CL40 memory to a gamer because at the MSRP of $349.99, the Vulcan 2×16 GB DDR5 kit is triple the price, and the overall performance favored the DDR4 equipped PC. However, the faster DELTA DDR5 6400MHz CL40 kit is faster overall than either the DDR4 3600MHz PC or the slower DDR5 5200MHz PC – sometimes by a large margin – even in gaming.

The only issue is its price. It’s expensive and at $539, it is a difficult recommendation to make except to the gamers with a top PC who want the very best performance at any price. For budget 12th generation Intel gamers, stick with fast DDR4, and TeamGroup offers an excellent selection of very fast and low latency DDR4 3600. However, MSRP is evidently $399.99 which is quite reasonable considering that the Vulcan DDR5 5200MHz 2x16GB DDR5 kit is $349.99. If you are patient, it will eventually come down in price. We think it’s worth waiting for unless you are upgrading now, in which case, it is priced similarly to other 6000MHz+ 32GB kits above $500.

For the gamer who wants the very best performance, the DELTA RGB DDR5 6400MHz not only looks great with RGB, it performs very well, beating a very fast DDR4 3600MHz PC in most of our extensive benching suite. It is backed by TeamGroup who offers a lifetime warranty. For those gamers, we highly recommend it!

It is possible that lower latency DDR5 will benefit gamers and our memory series will add G.Skill DDR5 6000MHz CL36 versus identical memory at CL40 to focus on latency versus memory speeds. Stay tuned!

Next up is a review of a T-FORCE M200 4TB USB 3.2 Gen2x2 Type-C Portable SSD that offers 2000MB/s as an external drive! One can never have enough fast storage.

Happy Gaming!

SSD (Solid State Drive) technology is continually improving and its pricing remains reasonable as speeds and capacities increase. SSD technology has become very accessible, and gamers need significantly more capacity as games are getting larger. We received a 1TB T-FORCE CARDEA A440 from TeamGroup which is a very fast Gen 4 x4 PCIe 4.0 7,000MBps / 5,500 MBps PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD. We put the A440 through its paces against four other SSDs to see if it is an upgrade from our 2TB 5,000 MBps / 4,400 MBps NVMe Gen 4 x4 SSD for gaming.

The 1TB T-FORCE CARDEA A440 SSD is available in 1TB and 2TB capacities, and the 1TB version is at Amazon for $169.99 that puts it in a similar price range as the other fast SSDs currently available. We will see if 7,000MBps / 5,500MBps speeds make a practical difference for gamers, and we will focus on its performance by comparing it with three other NVMe/PCIe SSDs and a fast SATA III SSD: (1) a 2TB CARDEA Ceramic C440 (5,000/4400MBps Gen 4 x4), (2) the Gen 4 x3 1TB CARDEA IOPS SSD (3,400/3000MBps), (3) a now midrange TeamGroup 1TB MP33 (1,800/1,500MBps) Gen 3 x4 SSD, and a fast 1TB Delta MAX White RGB (560MBps/510MBps) SATA III SSD.

The 1TB SATA III Delta MAX is $129.99 at Amazon and it offers RGB lighting. The TeamGroup 1TB MP33 SSD is $79.97, the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS is $119.99, the CARDEA Ceramic C440 1TB version is priced $129.99 ($259 for the 2TB version). Here are the features and specifications of the T-FORCE CARDEA A440 SSD which are taken directly from TeamGroup’s website.

FEATURES

• Enjoy the lightning speed of the PCIe Gen4 x4
• Featuring two patented heat sinks
• Effective cooling—flexible installation
• Supports the latest NVMe 1.4 standard
• Taiwan Utility Patent (number: M541645)
• Taiwan Invention Patent (number: I703921)
• China Utility Patent (number: CN 211019739 U)

Specifications

The specifications, based on CrystalDiskMark, boast up to 7,000 Read / 5,500 MB/s Write for the 1TB version and a higher Read speed to 6,900MB/s for the 2TB version which are excellent for a Gen 4 x4 PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD. Although it features a SLC cache that will degrade beyond its capacity threshold and isn’t capable of sustaining its write performance until full, it is exceptional for gaming and most applications. The 1TB model is rated for up to 700TB of Write backed by a five year guarantee and it features S.M.A.R.T and Trim support.

Next we unbox the T-FORCE A440 CARDEA SSD and take a closer look at it.

Unboxing, Heatsink installation, and Temperatures Under Load

The TeamGroup T-FORCE A440 CARDEA SSD comes in a small box that advertises PCIe 4.0 and two heatsinks as pictured on the front.

Here is the back of the box which warns the buyer that the up to 7,000 / 6,900 MB/s transfer speeds can vary according to hardware/software conditions and are only to be used for basic reference. It offers a 5-year warranty and demonstrates the two heatsinks – a thin Graphene copper foil that will allow the SSD to be placed behind a video card, and a thicker finned heatsink for maximum cooling.

Here is a closer look at the T-FORCE A440 CARDEA SSD in its packaging next to the box. The front of the CARDEA A440 carries a sticker which warns that the warranty may be void if removed. It’s meaningless as there is only a bare PCB below the sticker.

The ICs are on one side of the PCB and the A440 uses Phison’s E18 and Micron’s 96L TLC to achieve its rated speeds.

The A440 comes with two heatsinks. The Graphene heatsink is covered with a lot of unnecessary text, but it is designed to be thin and hidden behind a video card. It would also be ideal for installation in a PlayStation 5.

The finned heatsink is good-looking and easily attaches to a NVMe SSD.

Installing the heatsink is simple as shown in TeamGroup’s video.

It is important to use a heatsink as temperatures will easily exceed 70C without one. Using the graphene heatsink behind a video card drops temperatures to a manageable below-65C, but using the finned heatsink drops temperatures well below 60C. Stressing the A440 by copying 100GB over and over only resulted in temps of 58C, and using AIDA64’s drive torture test, it only reached 60C. Unlike the CARDEA Ceramic C440 (5,000MBps/4400MBps) that has ICs on both side of its PCB, the A440 only uses ICs on one side and it’s relatively easy to cool. We measured the temperatures using Crystal Disk Info and Hardware Info 64 which were in agreement.

The A440 looks good installed in a PC using the finned heatsink.

If your motherboard has an integrated NVMe heatsink, you may wish to use it instead. Either way, the A440 will remain cool under its most stressful conditions.

After installing the CARDEA A440, the user may need to format it before use. If you are planning to clone it, make sure both disks are GUID or convert one of them first. Lets look at our test configuration next.

Test Configuration – Hardware

• Intel Core i9-12900KF (HyperThreading and Turbo boost at stock settings)..
• ASUS Prime PD-4 motherboard (Intel Z690 chipset, latest BIOS with Resizable BAR enabled, PCIe 5.0/4.0/3.1/3.1 – USB 4.0 Type-C specification)
• T-FORCE Dark Z 2x16GB DDR4 3600MHz CL18, supplied by TeamGroup
• GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, supplied by NVIDIA
• T-FORCE CARDEA A440 1TB M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD, supplied by TeamGroup
• T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440 2TB PCIe Gen 4 x4 NVMe SSD
• T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS 1TB PCIe Gen 4 x3 NVMe SSD, supplied by TeamGroup
• TeamGroup MP33 1TB NVMe Gen 3 x4 PCIe SSD
• T-FORCE DELTA MAX White 1TB SATA III SSD, supplied by TeamGroup
• Super Flower LedEx, 1200W Platinum 80+ power supply unit
• MSI MAG Series CORELIQUID 360R (AIO) 360mm liquid CPU cooler
• Corsair 5000D ATX mid-tower (plus 1 x 140mm fan; 2 x 120mm Noctua fans)
• BenQ EW3270U 32? 4K HDR 60Hz FreeSync monitor

Test Configuration – Software

• Gaming results show loading time in seconds and lower is better
• Windows 11 Professional edition; latest updates/build
• Latest DirectX
• All benchmarking programs are updated to their latest versions
• IOmeter
• S.M.A.R.T. Tool (TeamGroup)

PC Game & Level Loading Suite

• PCMark 8 (World of Warcraft & Battlefield 3)
• Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringers Benchmark – loading times of five different levels
• Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker Benchmark – loading times of five different levels
• 3DMark Storage Benchmark (Battlefield V, Call of Duty, Overwatch)

Synthetic Benching Tests & Suites

• SiSoft Sandra 2020/2021
• AIDA64
• PCMark 10 Pro version courtesy of UL (Full Storage Benchmark, Express, Extended)
• PCMark 8
• SPECworkstation3 (3.0.4) Benchmarks
• Anvil’s Storage Utilities
• CrystalDiskMark
• TxBENCH Basic
• HD Tune
• AS SSD
• ATTO
• HD Tach
• 100GB File Copy Timed Test

Let’s head to our benching results.

Benchmarking the CARDEA A440

Benchmarking SSDs are not an exact science as there is variability between runs, and different benchmarks may show different results depending on how they run their tests and how up-to-date the benchmarks are. However, by using enough real world and synthetic tests, it may be possible to get a good idea of the relative performance across all five tested drives. For benchmark results, the drives are listed in the following order on the charts:

1. T-FORCE CARDEA A440 M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 Gen 4 x4 SSD
2. T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440 1TB PCIe 4.0 Gen 4 x4 NVMe SSD
3. T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS 1TB PCIe Gen 3 x4 NVMe SSD
4. TeamGroup MP33 1TB NVMe Gen 3 x4 PCIe SSD
5. T-FORCE Delta MAX SATA III 1TB SSD

We did not set up Windows on the DELTA MAX SSD, so not all of the benchmarks could be run on it. All of the drives will have their results summarized in multiple charts. Let’s start first with TeamGroup’s own S.M.A.R.T. utility to get information on each SSD tested.

S.M.A.R.T.

This TeamGroup S.M.A.R.T. utility tests each drive using two different sets of tests.

First up, the CARDEA A440 dual performance tests starting with MB/s.

Next the CARDEA A440 performance dual test results given in IOPS.

S.M.A.R.T. also measures the CARDEA A440 latency.

Next, the performance tests in MB/s for the T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440.

Next the CARDEA Ceramic performance dual test results given in IOPS

Finally, the S.M.A.R.T. tool measures latency for the CARDEA Ceramic C440.

Here are the dual performance tests in MB/s for the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS.

Next we look at the performance tests in IOPS for the CARDEA IOPS

S.M.A.R.T. next measures latency for the CARDEA IOPS.

Next we look at the performance tests in MB/s for the TeamGroup MP33 SSD.

Next we look at the performance tests in IOPS for the TeamGroup MP33 SSD

Now the dual latency tests for the MP33 SSD.

Next, the Delta MAX dual performance tests starting with MB/s.

We look at the performance tests in IOPS for the Delta MAX.

Finally, S.M.A.R.T. measures the Delta MAX SATA III SSD latency.

S.M.A.R.T. clearly shows the PCIe NVMe CARDEA A440 is the fastest SSD, followed by the CARDEA Ceramic C440, the CARDEA IOPS, then the TeamGroup MP33 SSD, and in last place, the SATA III SSD – the Delta MAX SSD.

TeamGroup’s S.M.A.R.T. tool is a great place to start, so let’s see what other synthetic and real world tests show. Let’s begin with 3DMark’s storage benchmark.

3DMark Storage Benchmark

3DMark’s Professional version by UL includes a Storage Benchmark (optional in the Advanced version) which also measures the time it takes to load several popular games.

First, the CARDEA Cermic A440 results with 3844.

The CARDEA Ceramic C440 scores 3009.

Next up, the CARDEA IOPS manages 2587.

The TeamGroup MP33 SSD gets 1538.

And in last place, the Delta MAX SATA III SSD gets 1005.

Here’s the summary chart.

It’s clear that the CARDEA A440 is the fastest SSD followed by the C440, the IOPS, the MP33, and the DELTA MAX.

Next up, another important UL benchmark suite, PCMark 10 including the full benching suites – Express, Extended, and the Full System Drive Benchmark.

PCMark 10 Professional

UL (formerly Futuremark) has been a developer and publisher of PC benchmark applications for nearly two decades. Although PCMark benches are synthetic suites, they provide a good measure of system performance. PCMark 10 was primarily developed for Windows 10 and it builds upon the PCMark 8 suite for a package of vendor-neutral home and office benchmarks.

The regular version of PCMark 10 misses several key elements such as detailed storage testing, but the Professional version, which we use courtesy of UL, includes a storage benchmark and a full system drive benchmark. In addition, We use both PCMark 10’s Express and Extended suite also. First up is the Full System Drive Benchmark.

Full System Drive Benchmark

First we test the CARDEA A440 which scores 3474.

Next the CARDEA Ceramic results give 2223.

The CARDEA IOPS SSD scores 2027.

Finally, the MP33 SSD manages 1187.

The Delta MAX SSD could not be tested since Windows was not set up on it.

Here’s the summary chart.

Again, we see the NVMe PCIe SSDs line up in their expected order from fastest (left) to slowest (right).

The PCMark 10 Express benchmark suite is best suited for office tasks while the Extended benchmarks are for power users. To properly compare the PCMark 10 scores, look at the detailed results. All of the SSD results are presented as screenshots. Open the images in separate tabs for easy individual test result comparisons. These will be summarized after all of the screenshots are presented.

PCMark 10 Express

First up, the CARDEA A440 Express score with 7480.

Now the online validated score which gives more detailed results.

Next, the CARDEA Ceramic C440 Express score is 7188

Now online results.

Next up is the CARDEA IOPS Express score with 7484.

Online details are next.

The Team Group MP33 Express score is given below with 7348

The online details follow.

Delta Max could not be tested since windows is not set up on it.

The summary chart is presented after the Extended scores.

PCMark 10 Extended

First up, the CARDEA A440 Extended score is 13452.

Here are the online details.

The CARDEA Ceramic C440 Extended score is 13384.

The online details are below.

Next up is the CARDEA IOPS Extended score with 13304

The online details are below.

The TeamGroup MP33 SSD manages 13210.

Finally, the online results are detailed.

The Delta MAX SATA III SSD could not be tested since Windows is not set up on it.

Here’s the summary chart.

The CARDEA IOPS SSD actually scores highest followed by the A440, the MP33, and then the C440 in the least demanding office Extended Office benchmarks, but the more demanding Extended suite lines up the SSDs in their expected order.

Let’s check out the older PCMark 8 benchmark suite which also uses dedicated storage tests.

PCMARK 8

All of the SSDs load games and levels quickly and the PCIe SSDs are the quickest with the CARDEA A440 just edging out the CARDEA C440 and IOPS, and the MP33 is faster than the Delta MAX SATA SSD by about a second. The fastest PCIe SSD loads 2-3 seconds faster than the SATA III SSD. However, using a FireCuda 2TB SSHD, it takes nearly twice as long to load the same games. It’s past time to relegate HDDs to storage-only.

Next up, the C440 Ceramic SSD Read tests.

Next the CARDEA IOPS Read tests are shown below.

Next, the MP33 series of benchmarks are presented below.

Finally, the Delta MAX SATA III series of benches are below.

Here is the summary chart comparing our five tested drives where higher is better except for the Average Read Access where lower is better.

Again the CARDEA A440 leads the C440 in most of the tests, followed by the CARDEA IOPS and then the MP33 SSD which is well ahead of the Delta MAX SATA III SSD.

First we test the CARDEA A440.

Next, we test the CARDEA Ceramic C440 SSD.

Below are the TeamGroup MP33 SSD results.

Finally, we test the 1TB T-Force DELTA MAX SATA III.

Below is presented the summary chart.

Next are the CARDEA IOPS SSD results:

Next the MP33 SSD.

Finally the Delta MAX SATA III results.

TxBENCH

TxBENCH is similar to CrystalDiskMark but with additional features including secure erase. According to the website, “It not only measures the performance of storage easily but also performs detailed speed measurements based on specified access patterns and long-period speed measurements. It also allows you to see each drive’s supported features, enabled features, and S.M.A.R.T. information.”

First we test the A440.

Next the CARDEA Ceramic C440 results.

The T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS SSD results are shown below.

Finally, we test the 1TB T-FORCE Delta MAX SATA III SSD.

Here are the HD Tune benches summarized by the chart below.

Below are the T-FORCE CARDEA A440 AS SSD results showing the results in MB/s next to IOPS, and below them, the copy speeds.

Next are the T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440AS SSD results.

Below are the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPSAS SSD benchmark results.

Finally, the T-FORCE Delta MAX SATA III SSD results also showing MB/s next to IOPS and below them, copy speeds.

Again, the CARDEA A440 stands out. The CARDEA C4400 is next followed by the IOPS, the MP33 and finally the Delta MAX.

The T-FORCE CARDEA A440 ATTO results are first.

HD Tach

HD Tach is a low level hardware benchmark for random access read/write storage devices that was developed by Simpli Software. HD Tach uses custom device drivers and low level Windows interfaces to determine the physical performance of the device. It is no longer supported and needs to be run in compatibility mode for Windows 10.

We present the benchmarks first with the Quick benchmark (8MB zones) on the left and the Long benchmark (32MB zones) on the Right.

Here are the A440 HD Tach results with an average read of 2212.5MB/s for the Quick bench and 2308.1MB/s for the Long bench.

The T-FORCE CARDEA Ceramic C440 HD Tach results give an average read of 2321.0MB/s for the Quick bench and 2150.7MB/s for the Long bench.

Below are the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS HD Tach results with an average read of 2079.7MB/s for the Quick bench and 1822.5MB/s for the Long bench.

Next, the TeamGroup MP33 HD Tach results show an average read of 1265.8MB/s for the Quick bench and 1198.2MB/s for the Long bench.

Here are the Delta MAX SATA III HD Tach results with an average read of 409.8MB/s for the Quick bench and 405.8MB/s for the Long bench.

Here are the HD Tach Disk benches summarized in a chart comparing our five drives. For read speeds, higher is better but for access times, lower is better.

The CARDEA A440 again generally scores the fastest in HD Tach although the CARDEA C440 trades blows followed by the IOPS, then by the MP33 SSD, while the SATA III Delta MAX takes last place as usual.

Next we look at game/level loading speeds.

The Game/Level Loading Timed Results – FFXIV

Game and game level loading time results are difficult to measure precisely but generally SSDs perform similarly with regard to game loading times and they all load significantly faster than any HDD. Even SSHDs require loading the same level or program over-and-over to get quicker. We tested 5 levels and overall loading times accurately by using the Final Fantasy XIV: Stormbringer & Endwalker benchmarks.

Shadowbringers Benchmark

The Shadowbringers Benchmark will not only give you accurate framerates averages, it precisely times how long it takes to load each of 5 different levels and the total loading time. We used maximum settings.

Let’s start with the Shadowbringer benchmark – first with the A440. Total Loading times are 7.659 seconds.

We also use the newer Endwalker benchmark and then summarize the results of our five tested SSDs.

Endwalker Benchmark

The Endwalker benchmark is also just as detailed as Shadowbringers and is a very accurate test of loading game and level times.

Let’s begin with the Endwalker benchmark by first using the A440. Total Loading times are 7.608 seconds.

Here is the summary chart and we also include PCMark 8’s game loading tests.

For all 4 games and multiple levels tested, the CARDEA A440 stands out, followed generally by the C440, the IOPS, the MP33 and then the Delta MAX. We see a 2-3 second difference between our fastest SSD and our slowest SATA III SSD. It does make an immersion difference for getting right back into the game. When we played God of War, although we use the C440 for our boot drive, we set the game up on the A440 and the loading times were blazing fast.

However, until developers start to target SSDs for PC game storage, then we may see SSDs fully achieve the game loading performance they are capable of on Windows. In the meantime, PS5 gamers can take full advantage of the A440’s fast loading speeds. No matter what, faster is better when a gamer wants to load or get back into a game.

Lets look at file copy speeds next.

File Copy 102GB

File copy speeds are important to gamers especially when they want to quickly transfer their game files from one location to another. We copy a 102GB folder containing Horizon 5 from its Steam folder to a desktop folder which is something we do regularly when setting up Steam games on multiple PCs. Pay careful attention to the charts (in green) that show the consistency and speed of file copies. They tend to show the ups and downs where each SSD runs out of cache and how long it takes to empty and refill it.

102GB File Copy

The A440 took 1 minutes and 44.0 seconds. to copy 102GB.

The Ceramic C440 took 1 minutes and 59 seconds for the same copy.

The Delta Max SATA III SSD took 9 minutes 49 seconds for the same copy

The CARDEA A440 SSD excels at copying along with the other Gen 4 x4 SSD, the C440, compared to any of our other tested SSDs. The IOPS comes in second place well ahead of the MP33 SSDs which is in turn faster than the Delta MAX SATA III SSD. Yet no matter how you look at it, even a SATA III SSD is much faster than any HDD or SSHD for copying large files. Consider taking a nap if you are going to copy 102GB using a hard drive.

Finally, let’s revisit game/level loading times plus all of our Summary charts and then reach our conclusion.

Summary Charts and Conclusion

Here are all of the gaming and summary charts again for easy reference followed by our conclusion.

The Game/Level Loading Time Results

Game and game level loading time results are difficult to measure precisely (such as by using a stopwatch) but our tests are far more consistent. Here are the World of Warcraft and Battlefield 3 loading times again as measured precisely by PCMark 8’s storage test and accurately by Final Fantasy XIV: Stormbringer/Endwalker’s benchmarks. Lower (quicker/faster) loading times (measured in seconds) are better.

PCMark’s Storage Benchmark also provides precise SSD bandwidth, loading times, game record, install, and save time comparisons.

All five SSDs load games quickly but the two Generation 4 x4 PCIe SSDs stand out from the Generation 3 x4 and especially SATA III SSD. When PC game developers start to target SSDs for game storage, only then may we see SSDs achieve the super-fast game loading performance they are capable of. Until then PlayStation 5 gamers can take full advantage of the CARDEA A440’s fast loading speeds.

Non-Gaming Summary Charts

Here are all of the summary charts presented again in one place.

A gamer who wishes to have the very fastest PC will choose an internal PCIe 4.0 Gen 4 x4 NVMe SSD, and the CARDEA Ceramic A440 SSD is the fastest drive, and noticeably faster than the CARDEA A440. The CARDEA IOPS slots into third place well ahead of the TeamGroup MP33 SSD, and finally the Delta MAX SATA III SSD is always in last place.

For gaming and for regular tasks on current Intel platforms, any SSD will provide decent game and level loading performance well above that of mechanical hard drives or even hybrid (SSHD)drives, but a PCIe 4.0 NVMe Gen 4 x4 will provide the highest performance. Let’s head for our conclusion.

The Conclusion & Verdict

We would suggest that 1TB has become the minimum storage capacity for a gamer that includes the operating system since PC games have grown so large although 512GB may be acceptable. It still is not mandatory to have a SSD if you only use your PC for gaming and have a ton of patience. Games do not perform significantly better on SSDs since most PC developers still target HDDs for game performance optimization. However, games usually take significantly longer to load from a HDD or SSHD than they do from any internal SATA III drive or even from an external USB 3.0 SSD.

If a gamer wants to get right back into the game, any SSD will improve immersion and decrease frustration compared with using a HDD or SSHD. Windows 10/11 have become positively painful to use when installed on a mechanical or even on a hybrid solid state/hard disk drive. Indexing, Search, or Anti-malware Windows programs often saturate the bandwidth of a mechanical drive, and even downloading or updating Steam games will slow your PC to an irritating crawl. This will not happen using a SATA III SSD. But for maximum performance with the least frustration, using a PCIe NVMe SSD is the only way to fly. HDDs should be relegated only for storage and for back-up.

Let’s recap pricing. The 1TB SATA III DELTA MAX is $129.99 at Amazon and it offers RGB lighting. The TeamGroup 1TB MP33 SSD is $79.97, the T-FORCE CARDEA IOPS is $119.99, the CARDEA Ceramic C440 1TB version is priced $129.99 and the 1TB T-FORCE CARDEA A440 SSD can be purchased at Amazon for $169.99. We believe that spending the extra $40 is worth it for a super-fast 1TB NVMe PCIe Gen 4 x4 SSD as long as your motherboard supports PCIe 4.0. If not, the CARDEA IOPs is an excellent choice.

Of course, gamers on a budget should also look for sales. Because of today’s close pricing and competition, choosing an SSD is easier than ever. Based on performance and price, we will recommend the T-FORCE CARDEA A440 SSD as a competitively-priced, fast, cool-running, and good looking SSD.

A five year warranty backed by TeamGroup insures that a player will enjoy fast performance for years to come. Having a choce of two heatsinks sweetens the deal to give the gamer a choice to display the SSD or hide it behind a video card while still keeping it cool.

Pros

• 5-year warranty backed by TeamGroup support
• Blazing fast game/level loading speeds and very fast large file copy speeds
• Choice of two heatsinks to keep the A440 cool. It may be hidden behind a video card or used in a PS5 and it will stay cool using the Graphene heatsink, or it can be used and displayed with the finned aluminum heatsink for a cool look and for even cooler operating temperatures
• The A440 is priced competitively and not much higher than slower Gen 4 x3 SSDs

Cons

• None.

The Verdict

Stay tuned as Rodrigo is currently working on his Adrenalin 22.1.2 Optional (WHQL) driver performance analysis. We will follow it up mid-week with a RTX 3050 review focusing on VR before we return to our DDR5 series featuring the T-FORCE Delta 6400 CL40 2x16GBB kit. We’ll compare it with the G.Skill Trident Z5 6000 CL36 kit using our 31-game benchmark suite and extensive suite of applications.

Happy Gaming!