Kingston UV400 vs HyperX Fury 120GB

inohome

inohome

inohome

Associate
Joined
2 Mar 2016
Posts
12
Both are selling at the same price right now in my local PC store.

The HyperX Fury basically has better specs than UV400 especially the TBW (354TB vs 50TB), except having lower read speeds in average.

However, the UV400 uses Marvell controller while the Fury uses Sandforce, and I've seen tests that have shown that Marvell has much endurance and the performance degrades slower than Sandforce.

May I know which one should I get? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I'm more concerned about its lifespan which means TBW is important. 354TB and 50TB is a huge difference.

But the thing is what's the point of getting a SSD which its performance will degrade quickly? Just like the Corsair Force GT I've had 5 years ago. It became really slow after a year and can't be fixed by freeing up the space.

In fact, I'm not really sure if Sandforce is really that not good. What I've seen is, Marvell is better though. Sandforce degrades even after only 1 hour of IOMeter test.
 
Thanks, will consider that one.

I've only realised that my Corsair Force GT was a Sandforce controlled too. Guess I need to stay away from it.

Btw, any idea why does it have 354TB of TBW? I'm sure it isn't a typo on the Kingston website as the 240GB version has even more TB.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom