120GB Kingston UV400 vs. 120GB Kingston A400 [WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?!]

[ukLz]

Hi. I'm deciding between those two. Both have the same memory size, both have even the same look, but price is the only difference. How do I conclude which one is better and which one is more worth buying? A400 or UV400 ?

As far as I could see, the difference is in age. UV is made in 2016, and A400 in 2017, last year. Other than that, I couldn't really notice any bigger difference. But which one is truly better? How long shall both work properly? Is there any speed difference at both? And ofc, is there any difference at performance itself?


Cheers!

 

[Barty1884]

IIRC, the primary difference is the controller used. Ultimately, as a step up from a mechanical HDD, both would be an improvement and "feel" a lot faster.

FWIW, a 120GB SSD fills up really fast though (and requires a decent amount of storage management) so, if at all possible, try to aim for a minimum ~250GB SSD.


*EDIT* They're fairly comparable. The UV400 is generally "faster" in most categories, but unless you were looking at the drive for (predominantly) sequential writes only, I wouldn't expect them to feel a whole lot different.
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Kingston-SSDNow-UV400-120GB-vs-Kingston-A400-120GB/m137022vsm229920

 

[ukLz]

IIRC, the primary difference is the controller used. Ultimately, as a step up from a mechanical HDD, both would be an improvement and "feel" a lot faster.

FWIW, a 120GB SSD fills up really fast though (and requires a decent amount of storage management) so, if at all possible, try to aim for a minimum ~250GB SSD.


*EDIT* They're fairly comparable. The UV400 is generally "faster" in most categories, but unless you were looking at the drive for (predominantly) sequential writes only, I wouldn't expect them to feel a whole lot different.
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Kingston-SSDNow-UV400-120GB-vs-Kingston-A400-120GB/m137022vsm229920

Okay. By the way, a friend of mine who is more into SSD stuff, he told me to watch out of "4K performance" of the actual SSD. I asked him "Why so?" He said that 4K allegedly shows the performance of SSD on daily basis, like transfering video/audio/images around, from a drive to the another drive.. Yeah and, I think I unfortunately can not afford an SSD with size of 240GB yet, so yes as you said, jumping from normal HDD to SSD will give me fantastic boost in use, and that's pretty much what I am looking for these days, especially after prices of these SSDs drastically dropped. Nevertheless, for the following 2 years of my estimated use, which one of those two would be the best bet for me?

 

[Barty1884]

4K performance is definitely a metric worth considering, as are sequential reads/writes, depending on your workload.
Definitions can be found following the "?" in the link I posted.

Either/or would be viable options when stepping up from a traditional HDD - and neither is inherently much "better" or "worse" than the other IMO.

Are they the same price? Since you're on a budget, if the A400 is 10% or more cheaper than the UV400, then I'd opt for it. If the same/negligible price differences, I'd opt for the UV400.

 

[ukLz]

4K performance is definitely a metric worth considering, as are sequential reads/writes, depending on your workload.
Definitions can be found following the "?" in the link I posted.

Either/or would be viable options when stepping up from a traditional HDD - and neither is inherently much "better" or "worse" than the other IMO.

Are they the same price? Since you're on a budget, if the A400 is 10% or more cheaper than the UV400, then I'd opt for it. If the same/negligible price differences, I'd opt for the UV400.

Alright. According to website I planed to purchase one of them, A400 price is 3700 RSD = 48 CAD , while UV400 costs around 4200 RSD = 54 CAD

I would say that UV400 would be better. It's not problem for me to add few dollars more, especially seeing that UV400 gives slightly higher performance, seems like it's worth it, though it's only few dollars more expensive. Agree?

 

[Barty1884]

Serbia? Ouch, you do get hit with some pretty high prices.

I do see a 240GB for ~6000 RSD - if the budget can stretch that far, it would be a solid investment.
http://www.eponuda.com/ssd-diskovi/kingston-sata-iii-sa400s37-240g-a400-series-ssd-hard-disk-cena-410211

Otherwise,~13% if right on the cusp of viable. Personally, I'd opt for the cheaper of the two...... but given the pretty fairly small difference, you could go either way.

 

[ukLz]

Serbia? Ouch, you do get hit with some pretty high prices.

I do see a 240GB for ~6000 RSD - if the budget can stretch that far, it would be a solid investment.
http://www.eponuda.com/ssd-diskovi/kingston-sata-iii-sa400s37-240g-a400-series-ssd-hard-disk-cena-410211

Otherwise,~13% if right on the cusp of viable. Personally, I'd opt for the cheaper of the two...... but given the pretty fairly small difference, you could go either way.

Yeah, that's right, prices are pretty high over here. Which doesn't make any sense considering that wages here are really really lower compared to the western countries. But it is how it is. Also, if I consider getting an SSD from ebay or amazon, it would be absolutely unprofitable due to high tax payments.

However, I will try to save up just a little bit more of cash and grab 240GB one. I get literally twice bigger storage, which is definitely to go.

 

[Barty1884]

Unfortunately, prices in a given market are not always proportionate to income.
A component is manufactured at X cost... typically in Asia. Between R&D, manufacturing & shipping - there's a base cost.

For arguments sake, if that cost is $100, then there needs to be the profit margin on top. Say $20.
In theory it could be sold for $150 in the US or wherever, and $70 to make it more affordable to the masses (and that could actually be more profitable for companies as there would be a larger catchment area of people buying in the $150 range vs the lower price)........

The problem(s) come from:
1. The additional shipping costs. Lower volume going to X country, so prices go up for shipping (or take longer going with a more economical route)
2. Competition. Competitor comes in, charges $120 everywhere. Company 1 is stuck only making sales at $70 unless they drop their western prices to $120, rivaling the competitor. In the meantime, company 2 picks up market share.


Anyway, not overly relevant :lol:

Yeah, if you can get a 240-250GB SSD, that's a much better plan. Of course, if you can't, the 120GB can work - just takes a little more planning about what is stored where etc.

 

[ukLz]

Unfortunately, prices in a given market are not always proportionate to income.
A component is manufactured at X cost... typically in Asia. Between R&D, manufacturing & shipping - there's a base cost.

For arguments sake, if that cost is $100, then there needs to be the profit margin on top. Say $20.
In theory it could be sold for $150 in the US or wherever, and $70 to make it more affordable to the masses (and that could actually be more profitable for companies as there would be a larger catchment area of people buying in the $150 range vs the lower price)........

The problem(s) come from:
1. The additional shipping costs. Lower volume going to X country, so prices go up for shipping (or take longer going with a more economical route)
2. Competition. Competitor comes in, charges $120 everywhere. Company 1 is stuck only making sales at $70 unless they drop their western prices to $120, rivaling the competitor. In the meantime, company 2 picks up market share.


Anyway, not overly relevant :lol:

Yeah, if you can get a 240-250GB SSD, that's a much better plan. Of course, if you can't, the 120GB can work - just takes a little more planning about what is stored where etc.

Alright, got ya

Thanks a lot!