TeamGroup T-Force Cardea A440 Pro Gen4 SSD Review – Top Speeds Great Value

REPORT ANALYSIS AND FINAL THOUGHTS

We started noticing during our testing of the TeamGroup T-Force Cardea A440 Pro that much of its performance was very similar to that of the Kingston KC3000, which only makes sense as both SSDs have virtually identical components.  We might suggest somewhat of a firmware difference, however, as the A440 Pro seemed to consistently run just a bit behind that of the KC3000.  Performance for the A440 Pro is still out of this world with over 7GB/s data transfer speeds and over 1 million IOPS.

It was the Game Loading results that impressed most, however, with the time of 7.94 sec ONLY being bettered by the Kingston KC3000 and by a very small margin.  Pricing… Well we might like to see prices come down a bit but one has to remember that this pricing runs right there with top tier SSDs.

If we are running a comparison of either the 1 or 2TB A440Pros to that of the Kingston KC3000, however, the clear winner is the A440 Pro with as much as a $160 difference between the two at Amazon.  Right now the sample we have in hand is priced at $369.99 while that Kingston is priced at $530.67.   Top Value!

CHECK OUT THE TEAMGROUP A440 PRO PRICING AT AMAZON

 

TeamGroup T-Force Cardea A440 Pro Ratings

Product Build
Performance
5-Year Warranty
Pricing and Availability

Value!

The Cardea A440 Pro reachjed performance of 7GB/s and 1 million IOPS, has a 5-year warranty and amazing pricing for an upper tier SSD.

Check Amazon
User Rating: Be the first one !

3 comments

  1. Page 2
    “ATTO performance hits highs of 6.64GB/s read and 6.28GB/s write which are **up** great speeds for this ATTO benchmark.”

    I don’t understand this grammar (see asterisked text).

  2. Thanks for test. Was quite for some time here.

    Here is my suggestion I once mailed, but got no response 🙂
    Could you testers please start to do more real life testing of programs, data transfers etc.?
    There is zero benefit of all those benchmark programms, which do basically do the same.
    Crystal Disk, Atto Disk, AS SSD, Anvil storage, Aja etc. are all redundant. You guys can keep 1 – 2 and it is enough.

    All these benchmarks are like fillers – remove them and the test becomes 1 page only 😉
    You guys have to make a decision between easy doable test but with little value and more complex and time consuming test but with more value and actual meaning for yourself and the readers.
    The companies sending the samples do want sugarcoated benchmark-test only, showing optimised sequential tests only?

    Especially a big and fast 2TB ssd like this, would benefit from some actual file tests of videos, data, slc-cache, fill rate, multiple write intensive programs simultaneously, and other details.
    Thanks!

Leave a Reply