Team Group MP34 M.2 NVMe SSD Review: A Killer Value

Reviews
By
published

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Conclusion

Compared to other E12 based SSDs we've tested, Team Group’s MP34 is one of the best-performing to date. It does exactly what you would expect it to do: read and write your data fast.

And, it gives you an extra ~30GB of capacity over the 480GB BPX Pro. But the BPX Pro’s extra factory over-provisioning helps it to absorb twice the amount of data under writes before its SLC cache fills. Still, in most of our application tests, the difference in SLC cache size didn’t matter. Only during our large, 50GB file copy test did we see much difference between the two. And, actually, in SYSmark 2014 SE, the MP34 performed better, which is even more surprising given the Team Group drive's DDR3L DRAM cache instead of the DDR4 on most competing modern SSDs.

The MP34 isn’t much for looks. With a blue PCB and a black-and-white sticker on top of it, it can stick out like a sore thumb in an otherwise visually pleasing build. It also lacks a heatsink, which is something the new ADATA S11 Pro, WD Black SN750, Gigabyte Aorus, and Patriot Viper VPN100 all include. But the lack of a cooler didn't hurt performance, and its absence here means you get a drive that's cheaper. When you're pinching pennies to build your new rig, saving a few bucks on NVMe storage means you'll have more to spend on other components.

The only thing you really lose with the MP34 over competing drives is some warranty coverage. While other, high-end NVMe SSDs offer 5-year warranties, the MP34 is covered for only 3-years. But during those three years, you can bombard the heck out of this drive and still stay within you coverage limitations. Your typical desktop usage will bring in about 20 gigabytes of writes or so a day on average, or 7-8TB a year. Our 512GB sample is rated for 800TBW and the 1TB over 1,600TBW. With endurance figures that are almost triple that of competitors, you have little to worry about when it comes to write endurance.

Not everyone has the cash for the best drive, like the Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus, let alone something even more pricey from Intel in the Optane flavor.  If you're in the market for a solid, no-frills SSD be sure to add this to your short list. The Team Group MP34 is one of the best values available if you're are looking for fast NVMe SSD on a tight budget.

Image Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

See more SSDs Reviews
Sean Webster
Sean Webster
Storage Reviewer

Sean is a Contributing Editor at Tom’s Hardware US, covering storage hardware.

7 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Giroro
    The drive 476.94 GB to the user, not the 512GB for the "user" in the table.

    If their software actually meant, 476.94 GiB, then it why isn't using the correct unit of measurement?
    More needs to be done to call out manufacturers on their false advertising on SSD capacities, or at least to educte customers that the numbers on the box don't really mean anything anymore.
    Reply
  • 80-watt Hamster
    Giroro said:
    The drive 476.94 GB to the user, not the 512GB for the "user" in the table.

    If their software actually meant, 476.94 GiB, then it why isn't using the correct unit of measurement?
    More needs to be done to call out manufacturers on their false advertising on SSD capacities, or at least to educte customers that the numbers on the box don't really mean anything anymore.

    This is not new. Drive capacity has been measured in multiples of 1000 rather than 1024 for decades.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    80-watt Hamster said:
    This is not new. Drive capacity has been measured in multiples of 1000 rather than 1024 for decades.

    I am aware of that. Just because it isn't new, doesn't mean we all have to continue to sit by and accept deceptive marketing until the end of time.

    Every time we go up in capacity, the difference between the marketing and reality grows larger.
    Reply
  • seanwebster
    80-watt Hamster said:
    This is not new. Drive capacity has been measured in multiples of 1000 rather than 1024 for decades.
    +1
    GiB is the correct unit of measurement within Windows, but in my experience, many people confuse GB and GiB, so I usually just go with GB to reduce confusion when reporting Windows usable capacity even though it is technically GiB.

    Manufacturers sell drives at a power of 1000 while Windows calculates drives as powers of 1024.

    512GB, 500GB, and 480GB capacity SSDs usually all have the same RAW NAND capacity of 512GiB or 549,755,813,888 bytes. Manufacturers overprovision a bit from factory for wear leveling, garbage collection, bad block management, etc. Factory over provisioning varies per device but with our example of 512GB, 500GB, and 480GB SSDs, this means that a drive goes from a usable RAW capacity of 512GiB or 549,755,813,888 bytes to 512GB / 512,000,000,000 bytes, or 500GB / 500,000,000,000 bytes, or 480GB / 48,000,000,000 bytes, which is what the manufacturer sells them as. Windows then reports those capacities as a power of 1024, which converts to ~477GiB / 476,837,158,203 bytes, ~466GiB / 465,661,287,308 bytes, or ~447GiB / 447,034,835,815 bytes.

    We report the User capacity / Raw capacity in GB on our charts as to not get people too confused about the whole GiB thing, but I like to include what Windows reports anyways just because to me, it matters since that is what I'm working with within my Windows OS. Other OSes report the capacity in GB, not GiB.
    Reply
  • Mr Marshall
    Thank you for the quick, to the point, and easily understood article. I personally do not find it being blue PCB being much of an issue. As for me, as long as it isn't green I wouldn't list it as a con. Also, I agree that bringing up the entire argument of listed capacities etc. is beating a dead horse at this point by consumers. I do, however, have a question. If the drive is relatively filled let us say 70-80% does this affect the performance a lot especially when gaming? Sure maybe it isn't as noticeable now with a lack of over-provisioning (theoretically, not sure if you tested this or just an assumption) but I am thinking more in the near future with games going entirely to depend on SSDs of many forms.
    Reply
  • seanwebster
    Mr Marshall said:
    Thank you for the quick, to the point, and easily understood article. I personally do not find it being blue PCB being much of an issue. As for me, as long as it isn't green I wouldn't list it as a con. Also, I agree that bringing up the entire argument of listed capacities etc. is beating a dead horse at this point by consumers. I do, however, have a question. If the drive is relatively filled let us say 70-80% does this affect the performance a lot especially when gaming? Sure maybe it isn't as noticeable now with a lack of over-provisioning (theoretically, not sure if you tested this or just an assumption) but I am thinking more in the near future with games going entirely to depend on SSDs of many forms.
    It shouldn't affect read performance at all in your application...gaming is nearly all reads. Nor should that affect write performance since the SLC cache is a static size. All my testing is done with the SSD being used as the OS drive and 50% full as it is. (except the 15minutes write test which is done after a secure erase.)

    70-80% full won't make much of a difference. The only time it does is when drives feature dynamic caches. They will have a smaller SLC write cache when fuller with data, although many also have a static SLC cache in place to guarantee high burst write performance, which is plenty for most consumer applications.
    Reply
  • davrob01
    Team Group has recently extended the warranty on this SSD model to 5 years. Making it an even better deal!

    Sources:
    https://www.teamgroupinc.com/en/product/mp34

    https://www.amazon.com/TEAMGROUP-MP34-512GB-Solid-TM8FP4512G0C101/dp/B07PHMJR4Y
    Reply