The majority of those, with their ultra-light workloads, wouldn't even notice the difference between QLC and TLC
I think if this came installed in a laptop you'd be okay with it. It's QLC but the SLC cache is plenty good enough for use as an OS drive and light-duty applications. You wouldn't choose to buy it yourself over better
and faster
and higher-endurance
and cheaper drives, but it's definitely fit for purpose and I'd be happy to have one in a prebuilt.
The consumer experience, whilst SSD-class, is
relatively terrible compared to the other drives you've tested; The slowest windows boot drive in your dataset except the flawed and terrible BX500 and poor showings in the program installation (windows updates are implied here)/search/AV scan - arguably the four most important cornerstones of a typical consumer SSD experience.
Another typical use case for a large and cheap drive like this would be a capacity upgrade from a previous drive - if someone was migrating data from a full 1TB drive to this new 2TB drive, the very first experience of using the new SSD could run into the abysmal QLC raw write rate. I'm less concerned about this because it's not a common occurence - once or maybe twice ever in a drive's consumer lifespan; It would just suck as a first impression!
One thing that also isn't tested but an important feature for 15W ultraportables is power consumption and most QLC drives perform poorly here as the controller has to work twice as hard for the 33% capacity improvement over TLC. It has been a while since I saw a detailed power consumption test - probably because NVMe power consumption is much harder to test than SATA, but bad TLC SATA drives could use enough power that they'd significantly hurt battery life in a thin&light laptop over a more efficient MLC one.
