When it comes to upgrading an old laptop or desktop with a solid-state drive (SSD) on a tight budget, two names consistently rise to the top: the Kingston A400 and the Crucial BX500. Both of these drives have earned a reputation as some of the most affordable SATA SSDs on the market, offering a massive performance boost over traditional hard disk drives (HDDs) without breaking the bank. But for a user looking for the absolute best value, which one truly stands out? This post will dive deep into a Kingston A400 vs Crucial BX500 comparison, examining their features, performance, and real-world usability to help you make an informed decision.
Feature-by-Feature Comparison Table
To get a clear picture of what each SSD offers, let’s look at their core specifications side-by-side.
| Feature | Kingston A400 | Crucial BX500 |
| Form Factor | 2.5-inch | 2.5-inch |
| Interface | SATA 6Gb/s | SATA 6Gb/s |
| NAND Type | 3D TLC | 3D TLC (some models may use QLC at higher capacities) |
| DRAM Cache | No (DRAM-less) | No (DRAM-less) |
| Sequential Read (Up to) | 500 MB/s | 540 MB/s |
| Sequential Write (Up to) | 450 MB/s | 500 MB/s |
| Endurance (TBW) | Varies by capacity (e.g., 120TB for 480GB model) | Varies by capacity (e.g., 120TB for 480GB model) |
| Warranty | 3-Year Limited | 3-Year Limited |
Quick Highlights Table
For those who need the key points at a glance, this table summarizes the most important differences and similarities.
| Kingston A400 | Crucial BX500 | |
| Best for | Extreme budget builds, older systems | Slightly better overall performance, mainstream budget users |
| Performance Edge | Read/write speeds are very close, but the BX500 often has a slight edge in benchmarks. | Sequential read and write speeds are technically higher. |
| Key Limitation | DRAM-less design means performance can slow down with heavy, sustained writes. | Also a DRAM-less design, so it shares the same limitations as the A400. |
| User Consensus | Known for being a reliable, no-frills entry-level drive. | Generally seen as a more modern, slightly faster option. |
Key Takeaways
Both the Kingston A400 and the Crucial BX500 are designed for a specific purpose: to provide an affordable SSD upgrade. Here are the most important things to remember.
- DRAM-less Design: Both drives lack a dedicated DRAM cache, which is a key cost-saving measure. This means they rely on a portion of the SSD’s NAND flash for caching, which can lead to a drop in performance on very large file transfers. For everyday use (booting Windows, loading programs), this is rarely noticeable.
- Performance is Similar: While the Crucial BX500 often has a slight technical edge in sequential read and write speeds, in real-world use, the difference is negligible. You would be hard-pressed to notice a difference in boot times or application loading.
- Price is the Decider: Given the minimal performance gap, the best choice often comes down to which one you can find on sale. They are direct competitors, and their prices tend to fluctuate to remain competitive.
Pros & Cons of Kingston A400 and Crucial BX500
Both the Kingston A400 and the Crucial BX500 have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Kingston A400
Pros:
- Extremely Low Price: Often one of the cheapest SSDs available.
- Reputable Brand: Kingston is a well-known name in the memory and storage industry.
- Solid Entry-Level Performance: A massive upgrade from an HDD for everyday tasks.
Cons:
- DRAM-less: Performance can be inconsistent under heavy loads.
- Older Technology: The A400 is an older model compared to the BX500.
Crucial BX500
Pros:
- Slightly Better Performance: Benchmarks often show a small speed advantage over the A400.
- Efficient and Cool: Known for running at lower temperatures.
- Micron’s Expertise: Crucial is a brand of Micron, a major NAND flash manufacturer.
Cons:
- DRAM-less: Also suffers from performance inconsistencies with large file transfers.
- Higher-Capacity Models: Some larger-capacity models may use QLC NAND, which is less durable than TLC.
Buying Recommendations for Kingston A400 or Crucial BX500
For most users, the decision between the Kingston A400 and the Crucial BX500 is simple: buy whichever one is cheaper at the time you are ready to purchase. Both drives serve the same purpose and offer comparable real-world performance for general use, such as a boot drive for your operating system and essential applications.
If you plan on regularly transferring very large files (e.g., video editing, large game installations) or have a bit more room in your budget, consider stepping up to a drive with a DRAM cache, such as the Crucial MX500 or the Western Digital Blue 3D. These drives offer better sustained performance and a longer lifespan, making them a worthwhile investment for more demanding users.
Final Verdict
The Kingston A400 and the Crucial BX500 are the heavyweight champions of the ultra-budget SSD market. They are designed to bring the benefits of solid-state storage to the masses at the lowest possible price point. While the Crucial BX500 often benchmarks slightly better, the real-world difference is negligible for the average user.
For a new system build or a simple PC upgrade, either drive is an excellent choice. However, if you are a power user, gamer, or content creator, you should save up a few extra dollars for a mid-range SSD with a DRAM cache. For everyone else, go with the one that offers the best price-to-capacity ratio.
FAQ of A400 and BX500
Q1: What does “DRAM-less” mean?
Ans: A DRAM-less SSD does not have a dedicated memory chip (DRAM) to map the location of data on the NAND flash. Instead, it uses a portion of the main system memory (HMB or Host Memory Buffer) or a small cache on the NAND itself, which can slow down performance during intense, prolonged read/write tasks.
Q2: Is the Kingston A400 or the Crucial BX500 better for gaming?
Ans: For gaming, both drives will provide a huge improvement over a traditional HDD in terms of game load times. The minimal performance difference between the two is not noticeable, so choose the more affordable option. For a more serious gaming rig, an NVMe SSD is the best choice.
Q3: Will these SSDs work in my old laptop?
Ans: As long as your laptop has a standard 2.5-inch drive bay and a SATA port, yes. These drives are a common and effective upgrade for older systems.
Q4: How do they compare to a premium SSD like the Samsung 870 EVO?
Ans: Premium SSDs like the Samsung 870 EVO include a DRAM cache, offering more consistent and higher sustained performance. They are more durable and come with more advanced features, but also at a significantly higher price.
Q5: What is the lifespan of these SSDs?
Ans: Both drives have a lifespan rated in Terabytes Written (TBW). For a 480GB model, the endurance is typically 120 TBW, meaning you can write 120 terabytes of data before the drive is expected to reach its end of life. For average everyday use, this is more than enough and will last for many years.
Q6: Should I get a larger capacity SSD?
Ans: Yes. It is almost always better to get the largest capacity you can afford. This not only gives you more storage space but also helps the SSD perform better and last longer, as the controller has more free space to manage data and wear leveling.
Q7: Are there any known issues with these drives?
Ans: Both drives have a long track record, but being budget models, they are more susceptible to performance dips under heavy load due to their DRAM-less design. The Crucial BX500 has had some reports of firmware issues in the past, but these are largely resolved.
Conclusion of Kingston A400 vs Crucial BX500
In the battle of the budget SSDs, the Kingston A400 and the Crucial BX500 end in a technical tie. For a simple and effective PC upgrade, both deliver on their promise of speed and value. When it comes time to buy, simply check the price tag—the cheapest one is your champion.
If you have any questions about “Kingston A400 vs Crucial BX500: The Ultimate Budget SSD Showdown,” then feel free to let us know through your comments.
