also i tend to go slightly off topic and cover other things outside SSD M.2 SATA & bang for bucks budget, if only as a comparison. So please keep that in mind, if you want to separate out SSD M.2 SATA budget related info from other stuff mentioned
and just to be clear, your options may not necessarily just be M.2 SATA, because if your QNAP supports QM2 addon card, you could potentially use a M.2 NVME on it (this of course would require the additional purchase of a QM2, and whether or not your QNAP supports this addon card to begin with)
First thing to mention, ideally i rather get a M.2 SSD NVME, but since i need M.2 SSD Sata (for compatibility reasons), so... this guide will be for that (disclaimer: mostly)
These are very useful videos and articles explaining what M.2 SSD you should get (buyers guide)
SATA vs NVMe - $40 Budget SSD Comparison - Which Should You Buy?
M2 SATA vs NVMe Price vs Performance @1:44:50 , @1:58:25
TeamGroup SSD Review - Are Budget SSDs Worth it? (bargain ssds or main branded ssds for budget?)
M.2 NVMe SSD Explained - M.2 vs SSD (i think the title meant NVME vs SATA M.2 SSD's )
The Marketing Is A LIE
SSD 101: How Reliable are SSDs?
Johnny Lucky SSD database
http://www.johnnylucky.org/data-storage ... abase.html
QNAP SSD technology & applications explained
QM2 Expansion Card feat. Qtier: SSD caching & auto-tiering volume to boost NAS performance (QM2 is how you can add M.2 NVME support to your QNAP NAS assuming this addon card is supported by your model)
QM2 Expansion Card add M.2 SSD slots and 10GbE connectivity *they have QM2 models with just the M.2 NVME slots if that is all you want, minus the 10gbe ports
basically for M.2 SSD capacity, he suggests to go for 500gb for best value. the 120gb is not best for endurance or performance, but it's still understandable if you are on a really tight budget. 250gb was looked at and considered much preferable to the 120gb, but still not ideal compared to the recommended 500gb minimum (the budget models are crucial mx500 or a wd 3d blue 500gb; the 860 evo is if you can afford to spend extra for performance and better endurance). just understand what you're getting as consequence whatever you decide.
And yes you guessed it, if possible go NVME. But if your situation is stuck with no option except for the SATA variant well, thats just what you have to get
https://www.pcmag.com/review/358846/wd- ... sd-m-2-1tbSamsung kicked off the whole 3D-NAND-based craze with the 48-layer Samsung SSD 960 Pro and SSD 960 EVO drives last year, and it was quickly followed by all the big names. That includes Micron, with its 32-layer Crucial MX300, and Intel, with its more recent, 64-layer Intel SSD 545s Series. WD, which also owns the consumer-staple storage brand SanDisk, is specifically coming to market with a 64-layer design. The idea of 64-layer in SSDs, in a nutshell, means pretty much what it sounds like: 64 layers of memory stacked in a three-dimensional space, rather than laid out side by side (in what is called a "planar" design).
This 3D approach is a radical departure from the planar method of laying down memory dies. Making the chips ever-smaller to fit in the planar scheme gets increasingly tricky as the size goes down, so 3D NAND development's goal was to keep the chips at a reasonable size, and just stack them vertically.
Besides the spatial problem solved by the nature of 3D NAND, this approach has several other benefits, most noticeably increased endurance (at least, as rated by the SSD makers themselves). In the case of WD (and SanDisk), it places the brands alongside other industry heavyweights in being able to offer the latest technology to its SSD customers. For WD's part, its spokespeople say the move to 64-layer 3D NAND allows it to provide drives with lower power consumption as well as higher performance, endurance, and capacity, which sounds like a recipe for a mainstream SSD.
WD is also releasing this drive under a different name under the SanDisk brand, as the SanDisk Ultra 3D. That drive comes only in the 2.5-inch form factor, while WD is offering the Blue 3D in both the 2.5-inch design and in the M.2 "gumstick" form you see pictured here. If you're more of a SanDisk fan than a WD loyalist, you could buy the SanDisk-flavored one, but according to WD, they are the same SSD underneath the skin/stickers.
Looking at the budget m.2 SSD sata options, i spotted this video for WD ssd m.2 offerings. They have 3 colors, the black is NVME, and the other 2 are sata.
WD GREEN vs WD BLUE vs WD BLACK M.2 SSD
other good budget options are Samsung 860 Evo, and Crucial MX500. there are probably more, but these are the ones that come to mind.
Samsung 860 EVO vs Crucial MX500 - Which Should You Buy? @9:18
I already have the Samsung 850 EVO, they are pretty decent, haven't had an issue with them.
Based on the facts
- mx500 is cheaper
- endurance 100 TBW for the 250 GB MX500 (5 year warranty) vs 150 TBW for the 250 GB 860 Evo (5 year warranty)
https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/S ... 3949vs3951MX500 doesn’t quite match up to the Samsung’s 860 Evo’s performance (effective speed 8% slower), however at current prices it is about 20% cheaper, and on balance offers better value for money.
If you want to pay a bit more for better endurance and a slightly (although honestly doubt you will notice) better performer, then you can opt for the samsung. otherwise save money and get the crucial.
i'm familiar and like samsung magician for desktop usage. i particularly find the cloning capability and firmware update very convenient. I'm not too sure how the Crucicial app manages their ssds
Seems there's a video for that also
SSD Firmware Update & Toolbox Install - Samsung 860 EVO & Crucial MX500
I'm not quite sure where the WD offering fits into this just yet, still researching on it
https://slickdeals.net/f/11924823-wd-bl ... cial-mx500spartacus-
They all perform relatively similar, all have 5y warranty, and are all similarly priced (Samsung 5-10% higher at times).
The biggest difference is the TBW or write endurance, comparing the 500GB drive crucial's is 180TB, WD is 200TB, and Samsung 300TB.
If you don't do that much then the Crucial's lowest cost with solid reliability is likely the way to go, if you do above average writes, then Samsung is the way to go.
Use crystal disk info on your current SSD and see how many Total Host Writes you've used. You can extrapolate that over the time you've had the drive to see if it might be needed.
https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/W ... 3948vs3951
WD blue Endurance (TBW)
250GB = 100
500GB = 200
1TB = 400
so comparing the 256gb, i'd get the crucial mx 500, since tbw is dead even, and it's better performer than the WD blue.