I have been skeptical about SSDs using TLC particles. However, since the beginning of this year, with the progress of nm process and the gradual reduction of TLC SSD cost, TLC products have begun to be listed in large numbers, and at the same time, the share of MLC products has gradually declined.
The "progress" of technological products does not shift with the will or preference of people. That was the case when LCD monitors replaced CRT displays. Although CRTs have better color display effects, LCDs have advantages such as volume, power consumption, and cost. Therefore, The CRT is replaced by the LCD. Similarly, MLC has high P/E ratio and high performance compared to TLC. However, TLC only needs a low enough price, which is enough to make a lot of silks give up MLC and switch to TLC.
And after many years of technology accumulation, many brands have raised the P/E value of TLC SSDs from less than 1000 to about 2000. Coupled with the application of SLC Cache technology, TLC has been gradually narrowing both P/E and performance. MLC distance.
Finally, I could not hold myself back and start with a Kingston UV400 240G, mainly to see its brand is relatively large, the possibility of pit father is small. At the same time, in order to compare the gap between TLC and MLC, we added a previously purchased MX200 250G to compare performance.
First look at the price, Kingston UV400 240G East at 419 yuan, Magellan MX200 250G East at 629 yuan, you can see, TLC relative MLC still have a great price advantage.
Look at the appearance, the shells of both products are made of metal, UV400 is a silver-gray matte surface, and MX200 is a silver brushed surface. 
On the back, both products are very simple. According to the investigation data, UV400 uses Marvell 88SS1074 master, Toshiba 15nm TLC flash memory particles, and MX200 uses Marvell 88SS9189 master, magnesium 16nm IMFT MLC.
Both products use the standard SATA3.0 interface and have a thickness of 7mm.
The following test began, the test platform is as follows:
The test platform image is as follows:
A close-up.
SMART information for both SSDs.
As can be seen from the AS SSD Benchmark test, although the UV400 total score is slightly lower than the MX200, the performance of the two products is actually very close. Whether continuous reading or 4K reading and writing, the gap between the two products is very small.
CrystalDiskMark test, the two products are still very close.
TxBENCH test, the two products are still very close.
ATTO Disk Benchmark test results are similar to the previous one.
PCMark7 test, 5205 points to 5512 points, is still very close.
Another game test, using a stopwatch to record the time the GTA5 was loaded into the game, it can be seen that the UV400 using TLC particles is faster than the MLC MX200.
to sum up:
It can be seen from the test results that the difference between the UV400 performance using TLC and the MX200 using MLC is not very large. Considering the price difference between the two is more than 200, this performance gap is negligible. However, although the performance of UV400 is amazing, it does not mean that all TLC SSDs have such a powerful performance. Let's talk about some more about TLC SSDs:
1. With the advancement of technology, TLC particle SSD is no longer the same, regardless of performance or durability, have been greatly improved, but in the purchase of TLC SSD, still have to choose the big name, away from the cottage, Mo can be cheap Avoid being pitted.
2. At present, people's concerns about TLC are mainly concentrated on low P/E values. At present, some media sites have conducted long-term aging tests on several TLC products. From the test results, the excellent TLC products are P/E. The value can reach more than 2,000, which is quite good.
3. Using the TLC SSD of SLC Cache, when the SLC Cache is full, the write speed drops more severely, but fortunately, the probability of using continuous writes at home is relatively low, so this is not unbearable. Of course, local tyrants can ignore and buy expensive ones directly.