This is a model I found while browsing randomly through AliExpress, and one I heavily suspected would be fake flash when I ordered it. I was curious to see whether lower and higher capacity models would both be fake flash, or if these sellers would limit their fake flash to just higher capacity models — so at first, I bought a single 128GB card (which was the lowest capacity they offered) and a single 2TB card. Later, after I made the decision to test at least three samples of each brand/model/capacity, I went back and ordered two more. Spoiler: they’re all fake flash.
Disclaimer: I don’t believe Lenovo had anything to do with this card. I think this is an unlicensed knock-off — hence why “Lenovo” is in quotes.
This card bears a number of hallmarks of fake flash: (a) they bear the name of a well-known electronics manufacturer, even though that manufacturer is not known for selling flash memory (in this case it’s Lenovo, but I’ve seen Sony and Xiaomi caught up in the crossfire here as well); (b) one sample had the manufacturer ID and OEM ID zeroed out from the CID register in an attempt to mask their true origin; and (c) performance across the board was pretty abysmal. This particular seller also attempted to be sneaky by not including any of the standard speed class marks. Instead, they opted to include the Nintendo Switch icon — which, last I checked, wasn’t an indicator of speed. (They did include the UHS-I mark, but this mark by itself also doesn’t make any assertions as to the card’s read or write speeds.)
On the endurance front:
- Sample #1 completed 5,601 read/write cycles before showing any errors. During round 11,626, it started experiencing a number of missing data errors. The number of affected sectors started to accelerate quickly starting with round 11,632; during round 11,634, the card stopped responding to commands altogether. Since this card made it so close to the 50% failure threshold, I’ll go ahead and post a chart showing its progression:
Sample #2’s first error was a series of bit flips, affecting two contiguous sectors, during round 10,583. It survived until round 17,276, when the number of bad sectors passed the 50% threshold. Here’s the chart of this card’s progression:
Sample #3’s first error was a series of bit flips, affecting two contiguous sectors, during round 8,311. It managed to survive a total of 11,757 read/write cycles before it crossed the 50% failure threshold. Here’s the graph of this card’s progression:
Overall? Two of the three samples did much better than any of the other fake Lenovo cards I tested; however, they’re still fake flash, and they still did terrible in terms of I/O performance. Don’t buy these; they’re trash.
June 10, 2025