Is it worth getting samsung ssd over kingston?

[genca]

Hi, soon i want to renew my pc with another ssd. I already have kingston a400 120gb, and it is doing fine. I also have 1tb hhd from samsung(i think), that is about 8 years old. I want to replace that hdd with ssd. Larger ssd will be used for games-lol, bf5 and forza horizon 3. What bothers me now is which one i should buy. Everyone is recommending samsung ssd over kingston because of speed, but samsung ssd is way more expensive. I can get a400 480gb for about 70e and evo 860 500gb for about 90e. Is there really big difference in loading time or not? Is it just about 3 4 second faster or more than 10 seconds? I appreciate any help, and sorry for bad english.
R5 1600, rx570,8gb hyperx predator, b350f strix

 

[cpucpu123]

No difference when playing game because the read speeds are very similar.

 

[USAFRet]

Initial speed is near equal.
As time goes on, however....

Here, the Kingston is the eldest drive, at ~6 years old.
The Samsung 840's are 4+ years old. The 850 and 860 are relatively new, 2 yrs and 2 months, respectively.
All except the Kingston are still running at "as new" speeds. The write speed for the Kingston has dropped off significantly.

 

[cpucpu123]

Again, for loading games, it depends on READ speeds, and it's very similar. Only the write speeds are slower, which does not impact gaming. Also, comparing the write speeds of 120GB and other capacity is not fair at ALL, because 120GB SSD are known to have much slower write speeds (even samsung ones)

 

[USAFRet]

Again, for loading games, it depends on READ speeds, and it's very similar. Only the write speeds are slower, which does not impact gaming. Also, comparing the write speeds of 120GB and other capacity is not fair at ALL, because 120GB SSD are known to have much slower write speeds (even samsung ones)

The original write speeds on the Kingston were basically identical to the others.
Yes, the read speeds are still OK. But to 'read', you first have to 'write'.
Yes, the Kingston is smaller, and that does have an impact. That particular drive was never abused or filled to capacity.

I'm just saying...the small $$ you may save with a second rate drive may show up in the not too distant future.
SSD prices are falling through the floor right now. It makes little sense to go too cheap.

 

[genca]

Thank you guys for helping. Guess that i will just wait for discount and grab samsung ssd

 

[cheesetrap]

I'm not sure about your local deals, but I was able to buy some of these same 480GB A400 Kingstons for the equivalent of 55e this week - and the 240GB versions were only equivalent of 29e (AUD$45), so the price difference may have increased.

I would be interested in seeing those same CrystalDiskMark tests run after a cell reset (ATA secure erase) on that same older Kingston drive. That was a HyperX by the way, not an A400. Are they not different models with differing tech? Well, I just took a few minutes to check, and indeed they are.

The Kingston HyperX uses Intel Synchronous Compute, 25nm MLC NAND Flash, rated for 5K P/E.
The Kingston HyperX uses a Sandforce SF-2281 controller.
The Kingston A400 uses Toshiba 2D Planar, 15nm TLC NAND Flash.
The Kingston A400 uses a Phison S11 Controller.

They are not the same product, and the speed tests above can not reasonably be expected to translate across the lifetime of both of them. That's not to say that the A400 definitively WON'T perform similarly if tested after a year of use or whatever, but simply that your tests cannot rationally be taken as evidence to support that idea. It'd be like benchmarking a 2013-released 'Asus' laptop after 1 year of use, and saying that a 2016 'Asus' laptop of a completely different model and spec, will run that same speed in 1 year.

 

[USAFRet]

I'm not sure about your local deals, but I was able to buy some of these same 480GB A400 Kingstons for the equivalent of 55e this week - and the 240GB versions were only equivalent of 29e (AUD$45), so the price difference may have increased.

I would be interested in seeing those same CrystalDiskMark tests run after a cell reset (ATA secure erase) on that same older Kingston drive. That was a HyperX by the way, not an A400. Are they not different models with differing tech? Well, I just took a few minutes to check, and indeed they are.

The Kingston HyperX uses Intel Synchronous Compute, 25nm MLC NAND Flash, rated for 5K P/E.
The Kingston HyperX uses a Sandforce SF-2281 controller.
The Kingston A400 uses Toshiba 2D Planar, 15nm TLC NAND Flash.
The Kingston A400 uses a Phison S11 Controller.

They are not the same product, and the speed tests above can not reasonably be expected to translate across the lifetime of both of them. That's not to say that the A400 definitively WON'T perform similarly if tested after a year of use or whatever, but simply that your tests cannot rationally be taken as evidence to support that idea. It'd be like benchmarking a 2013-released 'Asus' laptop after 1 year of use, and saying that a 2016 'Asus' laptop of a completely different model and spec, will run that same speed in 1 year.

Yes, they are absolutely different models, tech, and ages.
That was simply my personal experience with several SSD's.

However....if a Samsung and Kingston SATA III SSD were the same price for the same size, there is little reason to go with the Kingston.
Given a price difference? That is all up to a persons budget and needs.


And that secure erase reset is in my specific plans for the very near future. Just to see what happens with it.