TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan 500GB SSD CrystalDiskMark Results
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan 500GB SSD CrystalDiskMark Read Graph

In the graph above we are comparing CrystalDiskMark Read performance only between the three drives.  This shows SEQ1M Q8T1, SEQ1M Q1T1, RND4K Q32T16, and RND4K Q1T1 performance.  The white bar is the TeamGroup SSD, and the blue bar is the SAMSUNG 860 EVO and the grey bar is the Mushkin Reactor.

The results here are quite positive for the TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan SSD.  It has a highest read speed of 550.6 MB/s on SEQ1M Q8T1.  Remember, the quoted rated read speed of the SSD by the specs is 560 MB/s, so we are coming very close to its theoretical maximum performance.  It actually has a higher read speed than the SAMSUNG 860 EVO in Sequential Reads across the board!  That’s pretty amazing since the SAMSUNG drives are often known for their performance. 

It’s also much faster than the Mushkin SSD in Random Reads, and almost on par with the SAMSUNG 860 EVO, very close.  It really blows the doors off the Mushkin drive though, offering much better random read performance.

TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan 500GB SSD CrystalDiskMark Write Graph

Now we are looking at the sequential and random write performance.  On these tests, we do see a write advantage across the board on the SAMSUNG 860 EVO SSD.  It achieves up to 488 MB/s.  However, the TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan SSD is not really that far behind, hitting a maximum of 478.2 MB/s write.  The TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan SSD is also way faster on write speeds compared to the Mushkin Reactor SSD.  It has improved write speeds across the board compared to that SSD which maxed at 426 MB/s. 

At 478.2 MB/s we are only around 30 MB/s shy of the theoretical maximum of 510 MB/s write.  It should also be noted that the SAMSUNG 860 EVO at 488.8 MB/s is also about 30 MB/s shy of its theoretical 520 MB/s write speeds in sequential. 

Therefore, both are equally shy of their maximum in this particular benchmark, so in that sense, you could say they are hitting the max writes.  In fact, you’ll notice both are exactly 10 MB/s apart, which just so happens to be the difference in theoretical maximums between both (510MB/s on the TeamGroup and 520MB/s on the SAMSUNG.)  In other words, both are hitting their max, and the writes are really good on both SSDs. 

Anvil’s Storage Utilities

TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan 500GB SSD Anvil Storage Utilities Benchmark
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan 500GB SSD Anvil Storage Utilities SSD Benchmark Graph

In the above graph is the overall total score from Anvil’s Storage Utilities benchmark.  You will find the SAMSUNG 860 EVO is on top with a score of 4047, but the TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan SSD is close behind at 3614 total score.  The TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan SSD beats the Mushkin Reactor SSD a great deal. The wins for the SAMSUNG 860 EVO are mainly in the write results. 

Don’t Miss Out on More FPS Review Content!

Our weekly newsletter includes a recap of our reviews and a run down of the most popular tech news that we published.

Brent Justice

Brent Justice has been reviewing computer components for 20+ years, educated in the art and method of the computer hardware review he brings experience, knowledge, and hands-on testing with a gamer-oriented...

Join the Conversation


  1. “There is no reason to have a mechanical drive anymore with prices like this. 500GB is plenty for a boot drive, or as your only drive.”

    Uhh, not with 50+GB game downloads it’s not. Boot drive / laptop upgrade maybe.

    I have a $100 Toshiba 5TB hdd for my game drive / steam library. I look forward to that price for a huge SSD, 5+ years from now. But by the time that happens, the $100 hdd will probably be a 10+TB one.

  2. Nice to see a large amount of test programs used in the review. TeamGroup seems to have some of the better options for price/perf these days for sata drives. Happy so far with mine.

    I agree with Burt though, 500gb is my standard now for a boot drive and maybe 1-2 games. Everything else on dedicated ssd’s or hdd. 250GB is workable but getting too small and for quality brands it seems worth it to just jump to 500gb at $50-65 over a $30-40 250gb.

  3. Oops, missed this review. Adding some extra detail.

    Very good drive – basically a Crucial MX500 clone. The MX500 often comes with 96L flash now (which is also denser, but has twice the planes). Team’s coding here is clearly from Intel/Micron with the “01T” meaning 1Tb packages (x4 = 512GiB). This is in contrast to the similar L5 Lite 3D and drives like it – SU800, X3, S280, etc – which use inferior flash. Much like the L5 Lite 3D, it has static SLC – ~6GB at this capacity – which makes for uniform performance (can see this in HD Tune); the MX500 has a significantly larger, dynamic cache that is slower outside SLC at this capacity. Warranty is of course lackluster, but if you want a top-tier SATA drive this is among them in terms of performance.

    The firmware revision matches typical SM2258 encoding which usually refers to the type of flash it’s using. For example you common see Qx6/7xxA in the cheaper drives using second-tier Samsung TLC, Hynix’s 72L TLC (which isn’t great), inferior BiCS (SanDisk/Kioxia), older Intel/Micron 32L TLC, etc. Older revisions were for the 32L/384Gb IMFT TLC. In any case, R/S is for the newer and better flash products, e.g. B16A/B17A which is 64L Intel/Micron TLC (B17A is double the density but also double the planes, so same interleaving).

    My only advice for reviewing is that FIO is a strong option for benchmarking, whether on Linux or Windows, although ultimately you would require Linux for full utility. I’ve posted on Reddit about using FIO and also making a dedicated Linux benchmarking USB drive, I haven’t posted about getting these tools working on Windows – it [I]is[/I] possible, I have it working in Visual Studio (direct) or Cygwin (indirect), but it’s fairly limited and a pain to work with in contrast to nvme-cli for example.

  4. I should add that I’ve seen reviews of it like TPU’s showing MLC and in fact I had someone with one show me one with MLC – 48L from Samsung, to be specific. And TPU also had 64L TLC from Samsung I believe. That type of older/inferior flash is often found in the L5 Lite 3D and other budget drives as I mentioned above – my theory is that the early Vulcans came basically as L5 Lite 3Ds. It’s my understanding that currently they do have Micron flash though. Just wanted to correct that as people don’t understand that second-tier Samsung can actually be inferior, even the MLC, although TPU’s results were still good performance-wise. (also as I mentioned, firmware revision can hint at flash – the early Samsung variants match the L5 Lite 3D’s firmware)

Leave a comment