Which SSD should I choose?

[askolds11]

I've been thinking of getting an SSD since some games don't run very well on a HDD(World of Tanks, Fortnite(since 5.3)), and it turns out they're not that expensive anymore, but there are many choices.
I've decided to go with a 480GB one and most of them are ~70-80EUR, also my motherboard doesn't support M.2 from what I've read(ASRock Z97 Anniversary) .

Kingston A400 - 160TBW
Crucial BX500 - 120TBW
SanDisk Plus - can't find TBW
A-Data Ultimate SU650 - can't find TBW
Silicon Power Slim S55 - can't find TBW
GOODRAM CX300 - can't find TBW

Not sure how much the performance differs but I'm pretty sure it's 500 +- 50 MB/s for both read and write.
I've got a 120GB Kingston SSD, which I've had for a few years now, but obviously it's not enough for games. Also I've heard Kingston did something bad with their SSD(s?) but I haven't really gone into it, the only brands I've heard of from this list are the top 3 ones and Kingston seems to be the best one in my opinion, but I'm not sure so any help would be appreciated!
Thanks!

 

[feelinfroggy777]

Those are all going to be similar in performance. I if I had to pick, I would go with the Kingston. Not sure where you are located, but the Crucial MX500 is a really good drive and should not be much more than the other drives on your list.

 

[Endre555]

Go for the Kingston or the Crucial.

 

[geofelt]

The performance of all sata ssd devices is remarkably similar.
One spec which I would ignore is the endurance numbers(TBW)
Even with the heaviest daily update workloads, your ssd will be obsolete before it runs out of updates. Think 10-15 years.
Larger devices like 500gb have more nand blocks to handle updates.

Missing from your list is Samsung EVO or Intel.
They would be my first choice.
They make their own nand chips and controllers.
They can do a better job of quality control and integration.
They stand to be a bit more reliable and perform marginally better.
They keep the best chips for themselves and sell the rest to integrators.

I have standardized on Samsung because of their free ssd migration app.
I think intel has something similar.
It is a trivially easy way to move a windows C drive to one of their devices.
That includes the m.2 pcie devices if such is on your future upgrade list.
I use the app to create a known good bootable copy as a backup in case of a disaster.

If neither Samsung nor intel is possible, then I would guess that Kingston or crucial would be next.
Avoid the integrators who buy generic chips and assemble them.

 

[askolds11]

Those are all going to be similar in performance. I if I had to pick, I would go with the Kingston. Not sure where you are located, but the Crucial MX500 is a really good drive and should not be much more than the other drives on your list.

The performance of all sata ssd devices is remarkably similar.
One spec which I would ignore is the endurance numbers(TBW)
Even with the heaviest daily update workloads, your ssd will be obsolete before it runs out of updates. Think 10-15 years.
Larger devices like 500gb have more nand blocks to handle updates.

Missing from your list is Samsung EVO or Intel.
They would be my first choice.
They make their own nand chips and controllers.
They can do a better job of quality control and integration.
They stand to be a bit more reliable and perform marginally better.
They keep the best chips for themselves and sell the rest to integrators.

I have standardized on Samsung because of their free ssd migration app.
I think intel has something similar.
It is a trivially easy way to move a windows C drive to one of their devices.
That includes the m.2 pcie devices if such is on your future upgrade list.
I use the app to create a known good bootable copy as a backup in case of a disaster.

If neither Samsung nor intel is possible, then I would guess that Kingston or crucial would be next.
Avoid the integrators who buy generic chips and assemble them.

The Crucial MX500 is around 85 EUR which is fine, but the Samsung is 110+ Eur and the Intel is 150+ Eur, which is too much.
So should I go with the Crucial MX500?

 

[Endre555]

Those are all going to be similar in performance. I if I had to pick, I would go with the Kingston. Not sure where you are located, but the Crucial MX500 is a really good drive and should not be much more than the other drives on your list.

The performance of all sata ssd devices is remarkably similar.
One spec which I would ignore is the endurance numbers(TBW)
Even with the heaviest daily update workloads, your ssd will be obsolete before it runs out of updates. Think 10-15 years.
Larger devices like 500gb have more nand blocks to handle updates.

Missing from your list is Samsung EVO or Intel.
They would be my first choice.
They make their own nand chips and controllers.
They can do a better job of quality control and integration.
They stand to be a bit more reliable and perform marginally better.
They keep the best chips for themselves and sell the rest to integrators.

I have standardized on Samsung because of their free ssd migration app.
I think intel has something similar.
It is a trivially easy way to move a windows C drive to one of their devices.
That includes the m.2 pcie devices if such is on your future upgrade list.
I use the app to create a known good bootable copy as a backup in case of a disaster.

If neither Samsung nor intel is possible, then I would guess that Kingston or crucial would be next.
Avoid the integrators who buy generic chips and assemble them.

The Crucial MX500 is around 85 EUR which is fine, but the Samsung is 110+ Eur and the Intel is 150+ Eur, which is too much.
So should I go with the Crucial MX500?

I would choose the Kingston but the Crucial is also pretty good.
So, yeah go with the Crucial.