Comparison of SATA 240GB SSDs – Kingston, Sandisk, Crucial, Adata, Teamgroup, HyperX, Gigabyte, WD

Hey guys! With SSDs getting cheaper and more popular on PCs, notebooks and even arriving on consoles, the following question arises. With so many brands and models available, which one to choose? In this article I will bring the test of 8 SSDs from the most popular brands on the market, obviously I will not bring all possible models, but I believe you can have a good idea. At the end of this article I will choose the option that I found most interesting.

I am only using 240GB or 256GB versions because the 120GB version is not worth so much nowadays because of the very low price difference. Let’s go to the comparative.

Kingston A400 240GB

Kingston A400 240GB

The first SSD is the Kingston A400 240GB which is among the best sellers in Brazil because it is usually the cheapest, and can be found in the range of R $ 170.00. Its labeled speed is 500 MB / s sequential read and 350 MB / s sequential write, with NANDs like TLC and with the estimated durability for recording up to 80TB. 3 year warranty.

It is worth explaining this point. The SSD theoretically has no limit on the amount of data that can be read on it, but recording, yes, because there is a wear on the cells with each bit recorded. And this is reported by the manufacturer by TBW, total amount of bytes that can be written before reaching this limit, which is not the absolute maximum limit, but a safe limit that the manufacturer has established, and can go above that.

Sandisk Plus 240GB

Sandisk Plus 240GB

Another popular SSD on the market is the Sandisk Plus 240GB, which can be found in a price range similar to the others at around R $ 170. It stands out for having a sequential read at 530 MB / s and sequential write up to 440 MB / s, but unfortunately Sandisk has a bad habit of hiding or not revealing what kind of NAND not used, nor its durability, which indicates that there may be lots with NANDs or different controllers, so different performances over different revisions. This already turns on the warning signal for this SSD. It receives a 3 year warranty as well.

Another interesting point that is worth mentioning is that most of these low cost SSDs are low cost for some reasons. Durability, just explained now and the fact that they are “DRAM-LESS”, that is, without internal RAM memory, causing the performance especially in random tests to be impaired in the face of a more expensive SSD with RAM.

Crucial BX500

Crucial BX500 - 240GB

Among the low cost SSDs this is one of the most talked about models. Using NANDs 3D TLC Micron and also found for less than R $ 200, the BX500 240GB reaches up to 540 MB / s read and 500 MB / s write, with TBW 80 TB and 3 year warranty. Because it is low cost, does not bring cache DRAM, only the MX500 versions bring them.

Teamgroup L3 EVO

Team Group L3 EVO 240GB

Teamgroup that is focused on RAM and SSD has also presented its models in Brazil. I have the L3 EVO 240GB that delivers up to 530 MB / s sequential read and 470 MB / s sequential write. THE NAND used here is TLC and TBW durability is not reported, turning on the warning signal for it too. 3 year warranty according to the manufacturer and can also be found for less than R $ 200.

HyperX Savage

HyperX Savage 240GB

Kingston’s high-performance division called HyperX brings the Savage which is one of the best SSDs in this comparison, but which is not found on the market anymore and will serve as a benchmark for a memory SSD DRAM. This 240GB version offers up to 560 MB / s sequential read and 530 MB / s sequential write, uses MLC type NANDs that are more durable and this reflects directly on their durability, 306TBW, the largest of all SSDs tested here. Standard 3-year warranty.

Gigabyte UD PRO

Gigabyte UD PRO 256GB

The Gigabyte, which is relatively new in this area of ​​SSDs, comes with the UD PRO 256GB, which is one of the most expensive SATA SSDs in this comparison, you think for about R $ 300. This is because it has internal RAM and a longer durability than SSDs cheap, 100 TBW with 3 year warranty. He uses NANDs 3D TLC type and reaches speeds of 530 MB / s sequential read, 500 MB / s sequential write.

WD Green

WD Green 240GB

Western Digital, well known for its hard drives, has also bet on the SSD market. I’m here with the basic WD Green 240GB version that can also be found below R $ 200, it offers up to 545 MB / s sequential read and 465 MB / s sequential write, NANDs TLC type, with TBW of 80 TB and 3 year warranty.

XPG Gammix S5

XPG Gammix S5 256GB

And for comparison, I’m going to put an SSD NVMe M.2 in this video, the XPG Gammix S5 256GB which is found at around R $ 330. It reaches up to 2100 MB / s sequential reading and 1200 MB / s sequential writing, with 3D TLC NANDs TBT 150TB durability and stands out for its 5 year warranty and included heat sink.

HD Seagate Barracuda

Seagate Barracuda 1TB

Also for the sake of comparison I will put a common 7200 RPM SATA 3 HD from Seagate, as many who will buy an SSD today want to do this to replace an HD.


Finally, let’s get to the practical tests.


In AS SSD measuring the sequential speed, we see that the SSD M.2 NVME it fires in the front and it’s not even the fastest there is. This will be repeated for all tests. Among the SATA SSDs, Savage presented the absolute best result followed closely by Crucial. Sandisk Plus had the worst recording and as a reference, the HD is at the bottom.

Comparison of SSD - 01 - AS SSD (Sequential)

In the random test the XPG difference drops dramatically, Crucial following closely in writing while in reading the L3 EVO did better. Sandisk Plus again was the worst SSD, and the HD… well, now you understand why an HD is so slow when used for the operating system, an SSD is up to 100 times faster.

Comparison of SSD - 02 - AS SSD (Random)

In the access time tests, the HD being mechanical is difficult, and the absolute best result is in the UD PRO that has a DRAM cache, followed by Crucial and again the Sandisk Plus is well below and takes proportionally much longer to respond than the other SSDs.

Comparison of SSD - 03 - AS SSD (Latency)

ATTO DiskBenchmark

In ATTO DiskBenchmark we see the progress of each device, where again the S5 fires and most SSDs deliver very similar results, only the Sandisk Plus which is slightly below and the HD obviously too. Beside the legend you can check the average speed of each SSD.

Comparison of SSD - ATTO (Read)

Comparison of SSD - ATTO (Writing)

Adobe and Microsoft Office Package Trial

Leaving now for the real world. The PCMark 8 software suite brings several storage tests, we will see here that in the overwhelming majority of tests, there will be a technical tie between the SSDs, even the best of them does not process the software and its files much faster than the slowest. The graph legend shows the number of bytes read and written.

Comparison of SSD - PCMark 8 - Adobe After Effects

Comparison of SSD - PCMark 8 - Adobe Illustrator

Comparison of SSD - PCMark 8 - Adobe Indesign

Comparison of SSD - PCMark 8 - Adobe Photoshop Heavy

Comparison of SSD - PCMark 8 - Adobe Photoshop Light

Comparison of SSD - PCMark 8 - Microsoft Excel

Comparison of SSD - PCMark 8 - Microsoft Powerpoint

Comparison of SSD - PCMark 8 - Microsoft Word

Loading speed

It is no different with game loading, for example GTA 5 took 30 seconds on all SATA SSDs, being 2 seconds faster on NVMe and 20 seconds slower on HD 7200 RPM. In Windows loading, the difference between HD and SSD is more emphasized. 45 seconds on HD, 15 seconds on the slowest SSD, Sandisk Plus, 10 seconds on the fastest SSD.

Comparison of SSD - Load (GTA5)

Comparison of SSD - Load (Windows 10)

Test of data transfers

When transferring files using a RAMDISK to the SSD or HD, we can see a scenario without a bottleneck to find out which is the fastest SSD for daily use. Sending a single file of 6.30 GB we see that the XPG S5 ends in an incredible 5 seconds, Savage and BX delivering the best results among SATAs, Sandisk and Teamgroup delivering almost the same as an HD… and, well, unbelievably, A400 took longer than an HD to record. And no, the test is not wrong. The A400’s recording performance does not remain high for a long time and it ends up happening. Transferring 16,945 files of different sizes from RAMDISK to SSDs, we see a scenario similar to the previous one, just taking more time. The slowest SSD was the L3 EVO and the HD took more than a minute to finish.

Comparison of SSD - Transfer (ISO)

Comparison of SSD - Transfer (Multiple)


Based on the various tests, among the low cost SATA SSDs, the SSD that showed greater consistency in the tests at the best possible price was the Crucial BX500 240GB and therefore it is my choice in this comparison, even without cache DRAM. It can be found for less than R $ 200. In the absence of it, WD Green did not do badly and it would be my second alternative. As a third alternative I would choose the A400, but as long as the price was its main differential. And I would avoid Sandisk Plus.

And if you are focusing on high performance SSDs, the XPG S5 NVMe presented the absolute best result of all, both in synthetic and practical tests, it has a 5 year warranty, but it costs over R $ 300, so you will have to pay one little more. I actually suggest another version which is S11 Pro 256GBbecause it is faster, more durable and has a cache DRAM.

Now, in this range of R $ 350 it is possible to get SSDs slower but already with 480GB. It is a choice that everyone will have to make.

Regarding the warranty, you saw that the minimum that the brands are offering is 3 years, but it is worth mentioning that they inform that the TBW, total number of bytes written is also a type of guarantee. That is, if you record beyond the TBW the SSD, the warranty also ends.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Show More

Related Articles

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Back to top button
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x