If you move twice the data, what relative power increase do you expect?
Let's compare Teamgroup's latest Gen5 GC Pro power hog to the Kingston KC3000:
Where is twice? They have virtually identical performance. It is so close that you won't be able to tell the difference.
Now let's look at sustained writes:
That's 13%, not twice.
It's pathetic if we consider the advantages Teamgroup has had.
First of all, the Kingston drive is 4 years older.
Then Teamgroup has faster DRAM (DDR4-3200 vs DDR4-2666) and more modern NAND featuring only 4 chips @ 232 layers whereas Kingston still needed 8 chips because it only has 176 layers. Shouldn't modern NAND draw less? Especially if you halve the number of chips required to reach 2TB?
The Innogrit IG5666 controller is still made in 12nm TSMC. Why? Kingston's old Phison E18 already boasted 12nm. But that was 4 years ago.
Then there are areas where the GC Pro power hog loses against the old Gen4 drive:
TBW: Teamgroup only offers 1200 TBW vs Kingston's 1600 TBW.
Usable Space: Teamgroup only gives you 1863GB whereas Kingston gives you 1907GB.
If you combine all the possible advances that have been made during the last four years like fast low-power DRAM, high-density low-power 3D-NAND with way more layers and better manufacturing nodes for the controller - why do Gen5 drives suck that hard?
