Kingston NV2 1 TB M.2 NVMe SSD

[Wirko]

I need a better theory then. Thanks to both of you!

 

[SeBoLeX]

Just got this SDD. Any chance to verify is this TLC or QLC without unboxing?

 

[x-ray]

Just got this SDD. Any chance to verify is this TLC or QLC without unboxing?

View attachment 277704View attachment 277705

Quite a good chance for TLC. I've tested very similiar 2TB version bought a few days ago for around 125 euro.
It has confirmed TLC flash chips with SMI NVME SSD flash id utility:

v0.27a
OS: 10.0 build 19044
Drive : 2(NVME)
Scsi : 1
Driver : W10
Model : KINGSTON SNV2S2000G
Fw : SBK00104
HMB : 65536 - 65536 KB (Enabled, 64 M)
Size : 1907729 MB [2000.4 GB]
LBA Size : 512
AdminCmd : 0x00 0x01 0x02 0x04 0x05 0x06 0x08 0x09 0x0A 0x0C 0x10 0x11 0x14 0x80 0x84 0xC0 0xC1 0xC2 0xE0 0xE1
I/O Cmd : 0x00 0x01 0x02 0x04 0x05 0x08 0x09
Controller: [SM2267XT] bufferless
Bank00: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank01: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank02: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank03: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank04: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank05: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank06: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank07: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank08: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank09: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank10: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank11: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank12: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank13: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank14: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Bank15: 0x98,0x48,0x98,0x3,0x76,0xe4,0x8,0x16 - Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC 16k 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die 2Plane/die
Channel: 4
CE : 4
Plane : 2
Die/Ce : 1
Ch map : 0x0F
CE map : 0x0F
Bit Per Cell : (TLC)
Inter. : 4
Pages/Block : 1344(448)
First Fblock : 1
Total Fblock : 3222
Total Hblock : 29809
Fblock Per Ce : 3222
Fblock Per Die: 3222
Original Spare Block Count : 28
Vendor Marked Bad Block : 0
Bad Block From Pretest : 9
IOCtl: NVME_W10_GetLog 0x45d!

SM2263XT Telemetry data:


After pseudoSLC buffer this drive achieves around 450-500 MB/s sustained write.

 

[DrCR]

Just got this SDD. Any chance to verify is this TLC or QLC without unboxing?

View attachment 277704

The bottom-right corner appears to matches the photos from #41 and #78.

So if I've read this thread correctly so far, it's using the SM2267XT controller, not the Phison controller.

Which means ... it might be QLC but can't that can't be deduced until after opening the package? I'm fuzzy on this aspect. Maybe there's a visual difference, sticker in place and package unopened, between SM2267XT QLC and SM2267XT TLC that I'm not as of yet aware.

 

[MrTPU]

So if I've read this thread correctly so far, it's using the SM2267XT controller, not the Phison controller.

Yes

Maybe there's a visual difference, sticker in place and package unopened, between SM2267XT QLC and SM2267XT TLC that I'm not as of yet aware.

No.

 

[Plomienios]

Hey there,

So i've purchased two pieces of this SSD (2TB version) and got both TLC and QLC (which i intend to return).

Beelow some additional info, with pictures, for you to consider about which is which.

Top one, China manufactured, is TLC while Taiwan is QLC.

The package looks exactly the same, while only difference is on back label with same data as on above picture - meaning week of production, orgin and part_id.

Hope it helps a bit in searching for TLC versions.

 

[Relaxaflexer]

Hey there,

So i've purchased two pieces of this SSD (2TB version) and got both TLC and QLC (which i intend to return).

Beelow some additional info, with pictures, for you to consider about which is which.

Top one, China manufactured, is TLC while Taiwan is QLC.


The package looks exactly the same, while only difference is on back label with same data as on above picture - meaning week of production, orgin and part_id.

Hope it helps a bit in searching for TLC versions.

The photo examples we have seen earlier normally show some visible variations in SMD layout between types, dates and QLC and TLC. While you can never be sure what you will get, the differences are visible. Your two examples are exactly identical in SMD layout. Are you sure one is TLC and the other is QLC?

It might be wise, while they are unboxed anyways, to test their speeds before sending one back. In fact, the one with QLC chips might even be faster then the TLC.

 

[uBaH]

Hi everyone,
I have registered just to share my experience with a 2TB Kingston NV2, which I purchased yesterday from small online retailer in Bulgaria, EU. The price was 119 EUR or 129 USD.

Two strange things to note:
- The SSD came with 60 months warranty, despite the 36 months printed on the package / stated at Kingston's web site;
- It should have been the last one available at the retailer, as the product link was no longer active, just several hours after I ordered it. It was re-listed later, but with another item number, at higher price and with shorter warranty (36 months).

My sample has been produced in the 48th week of 2022, in Taiwan, has the SM2267XT controller (no surprise here), but also has the Toshiba 112L BiCS5 TLC.

What I noticed (could be just a coincidence) is that the second part of the model number "9907461-002.A01G" of my SSD matches the ones of another two 2TB SSDs, confirmed to be with TLC (posts #128 and #131 here).
While other 2TB drives, apparently QLC based, have different model number "9907461-013.A00G" (from this topic - #131, but also what I saw on photos from review samples on the Internet). Again, could be just a coincidence, but it is worth mentioning.

I have installed the NV2 as a second drive (1TB FireCuda 530 being the main one), in the second M.2 slot of a MSI B550-A PRO motherboard, paired with Ryzen 5800X. The drive runs at PCIe 3.0 x4 mode.

Win 10 Pro with all the latest updates, standard Microsoft NVME driver.

 

[MrTPU]

The photo examples we have seen earlier normally show some visible variations in SMD layout between types, dates and QLC and TLC.

Depending on the controller type they use a different PCB, see my post #93. There is no visible difference between QLC and TLC. If you estimate a difference post an example please.

What I noticed (could be just a coincidence) is that the second part of the model number "9907461-002.A01G" of my SSD matches the ones of another two 2TB SSDs, confirmed to be with TLC (posts #128 and #131 here).
While other 2TB drives, apparently QLC based, have different model number "9907461-013.A00G" (from this topic - #131, but also what I saw on photos from review samples on the Internet). Again, could be just a coincidence, but it is worth mentioning.

This could be a hint. I found:

1. 002.A00G - TLC - TW
2. 002.A01G - TLC - TW, CN
3. 005.A00G - TLC - CN
4. 007.A00G - ??? - TW
5. 009.A00G - QLC - CN
6. 012.A00G - ??? - TW
7. 013.A00G - QLC - TW
8. 019.A00G - ??? - TW

 

[SeBoLeX]

This could be a hint. I found:

1. 002.A00G - TLC - TW
2. 002.A01G - TLC - TW, CN
3. 005.A00G - TLC - CN
4. 007.A00G - ??? - TW
5. 009.A00G - QLC - CN
6. 012.A00G - ??? - TW
7. 013.A00G - QLC - TW
8. 019.A00G - ??? - TW

My 012.A00G was a QLC.

 

[randomvisitor]

Depending on the controller type they use a different PCB, see my post #93. There is no visible difference between QLC and TLC. If you estimate a difference post an example please.


This could be a hint. I found:

1. 002.A00G - TLC - TW
2. 002.A01G - TLC - TW, CN
3. 005.A00G - TLC - CN
4. 007.A00G - ??? - TW
5. 009.A00G - QLC - CN
6. 012.A00G - ??? - TW
7. 013.A00G - QLC - TW
8. 019.A00G - ??? - TW

019.A00G is QLC


v0.27a
OS: 10.0 build 22621
Drive : 4(NVME)
Scsi : 1
Driver : W10
Model : KINGSTON SNV2S1000G
Fw : SBM02103
HMB : 65536 - 65536 KB (Enabled, 64 M)
Size : 953869 MB [1000.2 GB]
LBA Size : 512
AdminCmd : 0x00 0x01 0x02 0x04 0x05 0x06 0x08 0x09 0x0A 0x0C 0x10 0x11 0x14 0x80 0x84 0xC0 0xC1 0xC2 0xE0 0xE1
I/O Cmd : 0x00 0x01 0x02 0x04 0x05 0x08 0x09
Controller: [SM2267XT] bufferless
Bank00: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank01: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank02: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank03: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank04: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank05: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank06: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank07: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Channel: 4
CE : 2
Plane : 4
Die/Ce : 1
Ch map : 0x0F
CE map : 0x03
Bit Per Cell : (SLC)
Inter. : 2
Pages/Block : 9216(2304)
First Fblock : 1
Total Fblock : 258
Total Hblock : 29809
Fblock Per Ce : 258
Fblock Per Die: 258
Original Spare Block Count : 21
Vendor Marked Bad Block : 0
Bad Block From Pretest : 6
IOCtl: NVME_W10_GetLog 0x45d!


$50 for 1TB, can't really be arsed to return it at this value QLC life for me

 

[billy02]

Hi all! I just read this whole review only after buying the 1TB NV2 from the USA and got it shipped to Madagascar.

It is new and unopened but after the reading the whole review and the discussions here on the forum, I think that I will resell it locally and try to buy a more decent SSD with DRAM. I am definitely not a picky user but as someone living in a place where it's hard to source components and , I have to buy stuff manually from abroad and will always look for the most reliable equipment that will last long while not breaking the bank (shipping fees+ impor taxes + customs fee). Not only that, but I don't have the luxury of returning things to the seller because I'm not happy with it.
It is still in its packaging and I think that I cannot run the risk of testing it only to find out it has QLC instead of TLC (like many of the users reported) or that it has a different controller other than the Phison.

The bottom line is that there should be no justification: mixing QLC with TLC in the same product line-up is slimy as hell if not illegal. I totally did not think about the post-Covid chip shortage and its effect on the manufacturing of these SSDs but the least that Kingston could have done is to clear the air up with some press release/blog/news articles on how they intend to integrate a different controller than the Phison. All I find on here is some theories, there was only silence from Kingston. No one should be spending too much time reading discussion forums and reviews up to the 5th pages only to find out they could have been hustled by Kingston.

 

[Relaxaflexer]

Hi all! I just read this whole review only after buying the 1TB NV2 from the USA and got it shipped to Madagascar.



It is new and unopened but after the reading the whole review and the discussions here on the forum, I think that I will resell it locally and try to buy a more decent SSD with DRAM. I am definitely not a picky user but as someone living in a place where it's hard to source components and , I have to buy stuff manually from abroad and will always look for the most reliable equipment that will last long while not breaking the bank (shipping fees+ impor taxes + customs fee). Not only that, but I don't have the luxury of returning things to the seller because I'm not happy with it.
It is still in its packaging and I think that I cannot run the risk of testing it only to find out it has QLC instead of TLC (like many of the users reported) or that it has a different controller other than the Phison.

The bottom line is that there should be no justification: mixing QLC with TLC in the same product line-up is slimy as hell if not illegal. I totally did not think about the post-Covid chip shortage and its effect on the manufacturing of these SSDs but the least that Kingston could have done is to clear the air up with some press release/blog/news articles on how they intend to integrate a different controller than the Phison. All I find on here is some theories, there was only silence from Kingston. No one should be spending too much time reading discussion forums and reviews up to the 5th pages only to find out they could have been hustled by Kingston.

I wonder if you would still try to resell it if it was just as reliable but even faster then you would expect from the initial review?
My QLC version for instance is much faster then most TLC versions mentioned here.

 

[billy02]

I wonder if you would still try to resell it if it was just as reliable but even faster then you would expect from the initial review?
My QLC version for instance is much faster then most TLC versions mentioned here.

I am happy for you that you got it running faster than the TLC versions! Yay!
For my part, I was planning to use it with a Thinkpad P70 workstation. It has a PCI 3.0 slot so technically speaking, I am limited to the Gen3 speed specs. I was planning to buy a second one if I get satisfactory results then raid 1 them!

In all fairness, PCI3.0 SSDs do the job to me, I was just hesitant to buy the NV1 so I went for the NV2. I will probably settle for 2 pieces of the WD SN570 or maybe the Samsung 970 Evo plus after all, because reliability is of utmost priority. I was also reading about the Samsung 970 PRO which have MLC cells but hey, they're expensive as heck!

 

[Relaxaflexer]

I am happy for you that you got it running faster than the TLC versions! Yay!
For my part, I was planning to use it with a Thinkpad P70 workstation. It has a PCI 3.0 slot so technically speaking, I am limited to the Gen3 speed specs. I was planning to buy a second one if I get satisfactory results then raid 1 them!

In all fairness, PCI3.0 SSDs do the job to me, I was just hesitant to buy the NV1 so I went for the NV2. I will probably settle for 2 pieces of the WD SN570 or maybe the Samsung 970 Evo plus after all, because reliability is of utmost priority. I was also reading about the Samsung 970 PRO which have MLC cells but hey, they're expensive as heck!

Since the NV2 does not exceed PCIe 3.0 speeds there is no problem there. My QLC version runs in PCIe 3.0 mode while being faster then most TLC versions mentioned.
The NV2 QLC and TLC version in practice should not differ much when it comes to being reliable. Other brand or type SSD's might be more or less reliable though.

 

[papayoyo]

Since the NV2 does not exceed PCIe 3.0 speeds there is no problem there. My QLC version runs in PCIe 3.0 mode while being faster then most TLC versions mentioned.
The NV2 QLC and TLC version in practice should not differ much when it comes to being reliable. Other brand or type SSD's might be more or less reliable though.

How did you confirm you have QLC? Your speeds look more like TLC. There is no rational explanation for why your 'QLC' drive is twice the sustained speed of all other NV2 QLC drives.

 

[Relaxaflexer]

How did you confirm you have QLC? Your speeds look more like TLC. There is no rational explanation for why your 'QLC' drive is twice the sustained speed of all other NV2 QLC drives.

I did read out the specs through the method mentioned and linked Russian software in this thread. It really was intel QLC 144. Could not make a screenshot though.
As you can see in the graphs I placed here, my NV2 does not reach the highest speeds in Aida64 that TLC graphs seem to indicate. That highest peak is missing in my SSD.

 

[billy02]

More expensive? I cannot take you seriously. Are you being intentionally blind and ignorant?

View attachment 262596

It's the same price (or actually cheaper); Not more expensive. Where are you getting that dumb shit into your head from? QLC is just worse for no cost savings whatsoever. You're getting a weaker, slower, shorter-lifespan drive for no reason.

If you're talking about QLC budget drives vs high-end PCIe 4.0 flagship drives, then yes, but that's not the discussion we're having, at least that's not the discussion I started. You quoted me on QLC vs TLC, and since QLC only exists at the rock-bottom/entry-level of the market, I have no idea why you're bringing premium flagship PCIe 4.0 storage into the discussion at all. That stuff is aimed at rich people with money to burn, and pro users who need fast local storage for writing to huge datasets like pointcloud analysis, high-res video editing, realtime market analysis etc. Those people can spend $25K on a PC and don't even consider dirt-cheap entry-level storage like the NV1, 660p, or RocketQ - so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

To put it simply, QLC is bad - but its weaknesses can be hidden well enough that it won't significantly underperform a TLC drive in the right combination of lightweight consumer workloads. A QLC drive will die in around one-third the lifespan of a TLC drive, and if you use a QLC drive for content creation it will absolutely suck the whole time you're using it and possibly die within the warranty period.

If QLC and TLC are the same price, there is absolutely no reason for QLC to exist. It's simply worse, weaker, slower, more fragile NAND that offers absolutely zero benefits. The one benefit it was supposed to offer, was reduced costs - but that simply hasn't materialised, so we're getting all of the downsides of QLC for no benefit at all.

Hi and sorry to quote you on an old thread. Where can I find the Large File Copy Transfer comparison table as well as the Sustained Writes comparison which you mentionned here on the discussion thread? It has the ''Techpowerup'' tag but I cannot seem to find it on the SSD database from this site. Thanks in advance

 

[Chrispy_]

Hi and sorry to quote you on an old thread. Where can I find the Large File Copy Transfer comparison table as well as the Sustained Writes comparison which you mentionned here on the discussion thread? It has the ''Techpowerup'' tag but I cannot seem to find it on the SSD database from this site. Thanks in advance

Large file copy on page 9 of the review:


Sustained writes on page 6:

 

[billy02]

@Chrispy_ Thank you for taking the time to reply. I found them now
One last question if you don't mind. Earlier in the discussion thread, you suggested that it's better to look for for TLC SSDs given that something like the WD Blue SN570 has the same price as the Kingston NV2 without having to store data on QLC cells. They also have the similar R/W speeds so totally agree with your point there.

In my case, I am looking for a better PCIe Gen3 alternative to the Kingston NV2 which I will use with a refurbished Thinkpad P70 (only has PCIe 3.0 slot) and I was definitely was checking the SN570. Now, looking at the prices, I found that Silicon Power P34A80's 2TB version caught my attention. It also has TLC and although its W/R speed is marginally lower than the SN570, this model seems to have many advantages over the SN570 including having DRAM, better endurance at 3115TBW (compared to 1200TBW on the WD), bigger SLC cache at 150GB (compared to the static 8GB SLC cache on the SN570) and currently priced at $110 (compared to SN570 2TB's $125 on Amazon). Did I miss something or would it be a better alternative to the NV2?

 

[Chrispy_]

@Chrispy_ Thank you for taking the time to reply. I found them now
One last question if you don't mind. Earlier in the discussion thread, you suggested that it's better to look for for TLC SSDs given that something like the WD Blue SN570 has the same price as the Kingston NV2 without having to store data on QLC cells. They also have the similar R/W speeds so totally agree with your point there.

In my case, I am looking for a better PCIe Gen3 alternative to the Kingston NV2 which I will use with a refurbished Thinkpad P70 (only has PCIe 3.0 slot) and I was definitely was checking the SN570. Now, looking at the prices, I found that Silicon Power P34A80's 2TB version caught my attention. It also has TLC and although its W/R speed is marginally lower than the SN570, this model seems to have many advantages over the SN570 including having DRAM, better endurance at 3115TBW (compared to 1200TBW on the WD), bigger SLC cache at 150GB (compared to the static 8GB SLC cache on the SN570) and currently priced at $110 (compared to SN570 2TB's $125 on Amazon). Did I miss something or would it be a better alternative to the NV2?

It's always in flux and depends on how much weight you lend to the criteria of cost/performance/endurance/power consumption etc. Based on what you're saying and with your current regional pricing, I would choose the P34A80 over the SN570. The only caveat is that it seems to get quite hot and power-hungry if you frequently write large datasets to it, and by that I mean that it thermal-throttled after 50s of continuous 2.6GB/s writes. It's pretty unlikely you'd ever need to write 130GB of data from RAM or another NVMe drive in a laptop, so I don't see it as anything to worry about.

The SN570 runs very cool by comparison, which means it may use a lot less power than the P34A80 - but power draw is not something TPU measure in SSD reviews. If you aren't overly concerned about battery life then it's unimportant; The difference bewteen the best and worst SSDs is going to be less than 5 Watts, either way.

 

[Wirko]

In my case, I am looking for a better PCIe Gen3 alternative to the Kingston NV2 which I will use with a refurbished Thinkpad P70 (only has PCIe 3.0 slot) and I was definitely was checking the SN570. Now, looking at the prices, I found that Silicon Power P34A80's 2TB version caught my attention. It also has TLC and although its W/R speed is marginally lower than the SN570, this model seems to have many advantages over the SN570 including having DRAM, better endurance at 3115TBW (compared to 1200TBW on the WD), bigger SLC cache at 150GB (compared to the static 8GB SLC cache on the SN570) and currently priced at $110 (compared to SN570 2TB's $125 on Amazon). Did I miss something or would it be a better alternative to the NV2?

Both numbers appear to be wrong according to SP's and WD's own data:

https://www.silicon-power.com/support/lang/big5/TBW.pdf

WD Blue SN570 NVMe™ SSD | Western Digital

Stay in the moment and create beyond your expectations with the WD Blue SN570 NVMe SSD. This powerful internal drive delivers up to 5X the speed of our best SATA SSDs so you can let your imagination flow and worry less about PC lag or load times.

www.westerndigital.com

The 2TB P34A80 has 1600 TBW and the 2TB SN570 has 900 TBW (nevermind the 1TB version has 600 TBW). I'm not saying that 900 TBW is bad - unless it's an indicator that WD is planning to silently switch the 2TB version to QLC.

(Also a note to @GabrielLP14 , you may want to recheck and correct the information in the TPUSSDDB)

 

[GabrielLP14]

Both numbers appear to be wrong according to SP's and WD's own data:

https://www.silicon-power.com/support/lang/big5/TBW.pdf

WD Blue SN570 NVMe™ SSD | Western Digital

Stay in the moment and create beyond your expectations with the WD Blue SN570 NVMe SSD. This powerful internal drive delivers up to 5X the speed of our best SATA SSDs so you can let your imagination flow and worry less about PC lag or load times.

www.westerndigital.com

The 2TB P34A80 has 1600 TBW and the 2TB SN570 has 900 TBW (nevermind the 1TB version has 600 TBW). I'm not saying that 900 TBW is bad - unless it's an indicator that WD is planning to silently switch the 2TB version to QLC.

(Also a note to @GabrielLP14 , you may want to recheck and correct the information in the TPUSSDDB)

Thanks for the update
I've updated the DB

 

[Dan1911]

Just registered to post this
Bought in Amazon Brazil (2tbversion)
013.A00G - QLC - TW


Drive : 6(NVME)
Scsi : 4
IOCtl: NVME_OF failed 0x1!
Driver : W10
Model : KINGSTON SNV2S2000G
Fw : SBM02103
HMB : 65536 - 65536 KB (Enabled, 64 M)
Size : 1907729 MB [2000.4 GB]
LBA Size : 512
Controller: [SM2267XT] bufferless
Bank00: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank01: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank02: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank03: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank04: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank05: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank06: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank07: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank08: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank09: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank10: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank11: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank12: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank13: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank14: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Bank15: 0x89,0xd3,0xac,0x32,0xc6,0x0,0x0,0x0 - Intel 144L QLC 1024Gb/CE 1024Gb/die
Channel: 4
CE : 4
Plane : 4
Die/Ce : 1
Ch map : 0x0F
CE map : 0x0F
Bit Per Cell : (SLC)
Inter. : 4
Pages/Block : 9216(2304)
First Fblock : 1
Total Fblock : 258
Total Hblock : 29809
Fblock Per Ce : 258
Fblock Per Die: 258
Original Spare Block Count : 21
Vendor Marked Bad Block : 0

 

[billy02]

Both numbers appear to be wrong according to SP's and WD's own data:
The 2TB P34A80 has 1600 TBW and the 2TB SN570 has 900 TBW (nevermind the 1TB version has 600 TBW). I'm not saying that 900 TBW is bad - unless it's an indicator that WD is planning to silently switch the 2TB

Silicon Power listing on Amazon US (sold by Amazon, not a third party seller) posted this 3115TBW spec.
Also, Silicon Power's direct Online Shop publishes the 3115TBW endurance rating.
https://sp-siliconpower.com/product...ie-gen3x4-m-2-2280-internal-solid-state-drive

So it may look to me that Silicon Power is (deliberately?) confusing us. Why would they use a number on the datasheet and a different one on the item description on their own online store. I don't know how @GabrielLP14 handles conflicting information but maybe this is something worth looking into.