“Lenovo” 2TB

  • Obtained from: AliExpress
  • Advertised capacity: 2TB
  • Logical capacity: 2,147,483,648,000 bytes
  • Fake/skimpy flash: Fake flash
  • Protected area: 0 bytes
  • Speed class markings: None
Sample #123Average
Manufacturer ID0x000x050x05N/A
OEM ID0x00000x000c0x000cN/A
Product name0x00000000000x6173646667 (ASCII: asdfg)0x6173646667 (ASCII: asdfg)N/A
Product revision0x000x220x22
Price paid$4.27$3.33$3.33$3.64
Physical capacity8,032,673,792 bytes8,296,857,600 bytes8,370,257,920 bytes8,233,263,104 bytes
Manufacture dateAug 2023Jan 2024Jan 2024N/A
Serial number0x000040a40x000006540x00014546N/A
Sequential read speed (MB/sec)21.0523.1323.1122.43
Sequential write speed (MB/sec)12.9119.6519.5217.36
Random read speed (IOPS/sec)1,289.841,863.151,775.141,642.71
Random write speed (IOPS/sec)0.91268.18296.00188.36
Read/write cycles to first error5,601Not yet determinedNot yet determined5,601
Read/write cycles to complete failure11,633Not yet determinedNot yet determined11,633
Total days to complete failure162Not yet determinedNot yet determined162
Card reader usedSanDisk MobileMateNot yet determinedNot yet determinedN/A
Package frontN/A
Package backN/A
Card frontN/A
Card backN/A


As with the 128GB above, I wanted to get a card that was obviously fake flash and one that could have been ambiguous to see if only one would be fake, or if they would both be fake. It turns out they were both fake. (I later purchased two additional samples after deciding that I should try to have at least three samples of each model that I’m testing.)

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 continues the fake flash trend of terrible performance. While it did better on the sequential write and random write tests than its 128GB sibling, it did about the same on the sequential read and random read tests. With the exception of the random read scores for samples #2 and #3, all results were below average — and even those two barely made it above average. Sequential read scores for all three samples were more than one standard deviation below average, with the worst score of the three putting it in the 14th percentile. As with the 128GB card, the seller only put the UHS-I mark on this card — there are no speed class marks to evaluate for.

On the endurance front, sample #1 endured far better than its 128GB sibling: it completed 5,601 read/write cycles before showing any errors. Curiously, when data mismatch errors occurred, they were mostly happening as a single group of 64 contiguous sectors — with the data read not at all seeming to resemble the data written — which are then separated by a number of read/write cycles where no data mismatch errors occur. The number of rounds between data mismatch errors seemed to be random, ranging from as few as 5 to as many as 625. This implies to me that the card was employing some sort of wear leveling (probably dynamic wear leveling), the bad sectors weren’t being detected by the card, and the card was simply recycling the bad sectors as part of its wear leveling algorithm.

During round 11,626, it started experiencing a number of missing data errors; however, the number of sectors affected during this round — as well as the next 5 rounds — represented only a fraction of a percent of the total sectors on the device. However, this escalated during round 11,632 — during this round, the total number of bad sectors on the device went from 0.126% to 3.52%. By the end of round 11,633, that number shot up 43.089%. Sometime during round 11,634, the card stopped responding to commands altogether, and the endurance test was considered complete at that point.

Samples #2 and #3 are still going through endurance testing. Neither has hit the 2,000 read/write cycle mark. Sample #2 is expected to get there sometime in July 2024, while sample #3 is expected to get there sometime in June 2024.

June 13, 2024

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *