Kingston A2000 M.2 NVMe SSD Review: Security, Endurance, and Low Pricing

Kingston's A2000 may not be the fastest, but it offsets that with enhanced security and low pricing.

Reviews
By
published
(Image: © Tom's Hardware)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

The A2000's AES 256-bit hardware encryption helps keep your data secure and safe from prying eyes. Not only is the drive secure, but it is also impressively fast. 

Opting for Silicon Motion’s SM2263EN and pairing it with Micron’s 96L TLC proved to be a wise decision for Kingston. Time and time again, the A2000 delivered speeds that were significantly better than an HDD, and some of its SSD competitors, too. 

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Compared to the WD Black HDD, the A2000 scored an average bandwidth that was 47 times greater in PCMark 8, 13 times higher in SPECworkstation 3, and was five to seven times faster during file transfers. If you aren’t been convinced yet, these scores should provide enough reason to upgrade to an A2000 or similar if you haven’t done so already.

Best of all, the A2000 ranked as the fastest SSD in the group when loading Final Fantasy's game scenes, making it a great value for gamers. But if you care about aesthetics, it may stick out like a sore thumb if you don’t place it under a heatsink. That is not to say it needs one, however. During our tests, the A2000's temperatures were well-managed. Even when running multiple 50-100GB transfers simultaneously, temps stayed below 60C with little airflow in our 25C environment.   

Kingston’s A2000 is a well-rounded NVMe SSD overall. Whether you are a business class user, prosumer, or just someone looking to outfit their new build with some speedy storage, the A2000 is a great choice. With competitive pricing, high endurance and five-year warranty to match, the drive ranks among the top value picks.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Sean Webster
Sean Webster
Storage Reviewer

Sean is a Contributing Editor at Tom’s Hardware US, covering storage hardware.

10 Comments Comment from the forums
  • nofanneeded
    Sorry but 600TBW for 1TB is not respectable endurance.

    1-Corsar MP510 960GB , TBW : 1700
    2-PNY XLR8 CS3030 , 1TB , TBW : 1665
    3-Gigabyte NVME SSD , 1TB , TBW : 1600
    4-Patriot Viper VPN100 , 1TB , TBW : 1670

    600 TBW for 1TB SSD is nothing by today standards.
    Reply
  • tomspown
    The ssd is not that great Atto results are all over the place, my sansung 850 evo is faster in scanning with antivirus and malwarebytes than a2000, this was a bad buy but my return window is gone so stuck with it. Cant post screanshot this site doesnt seem to allow.
    Reply
  • seanwebster
    nofanneeded said:
    Sorry but 600TBW for 1TB is not respectable endurance.

    1-Corsar MP510 960GB , TBW : 1700
    2-PNY XLR8 CS3030 , 1TB , TBW : 1665
    3-Gigabyte NVME SSD , 1TB , TBW : 1600
    4-Patriot Viper VPN100 , 1TB , TBW : 1670

    600 TBW for 1TB SSD is nothing by today standards.
    The thing is, these are warranted endurance ratings. They don't necessarily correspond to actual product endurance. And, they match high-end drives like the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and WD Black SN750.

    As well, how much endurance actually matters? What is your workload? Do you know how much PC users write to their drives on average? It's 5-10TB a year, at most 20TB, usually with write amplification from what I've gathered.

    Considering 600TB is 6x more than a high-average (100TB) of writes over 5-years, I'd say its respectable. That gives it about a 30-year life span when it comes to writing endurance alone if the real-world endurance result actually matches the rating.

    tomspown said:
    The ssd is not that great Atto results are all over the place, my sansung 850 evo is faster in scanning with antivirus and malwarebytes than a2000, this was a bad buy but my return window is gone so stuck with it. Cant post screanshot this site doesnt seem to allow.
    Hmm, could have some configuration issues. Does Crystal Disk Info report full link speed? Got enough free space? Did you just clone or migrate all your data to the drive? if so, you may just need to envoke Windows Optimize/Trim and let it have some idle time, maybe leave it on overnight, to recover.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    nofanneeded said:
    Sorry but 600TBW for 1TB is not respectable endurance.

    1-Corsar MP510 960GB , TBW : 1700
    2-PNY XLR8 CS3030 , 1TB , TBW : 1665
    3-Gigabyte NVME SSD , 1TB , TBW : 1600
    4-Patriot Viper VPN100 , 1TB , TBW : 1670

    600 TBW for 1TB SSD is nothing by today standards.
    In your experience, what is the most TBW you've personally put on a consumer level drive?
    Reply
  • nofanneeded
    USAFRet said:
    In your experience, what is the most TBW you've personally put on a consumer level drive?

    My use is not "delete" intensive , so I never had an SSD die from TBW limit.

    I get your point , but when the market already has 1600+ TBW on cheap NVME drive , for the sake of choosing the better , the Pro cant be "respectable" for a 600TBW , this is not fair for other products at the same price and size.
    Reply
  • nofanneeded
    seanwebster said:
    The thing is, these are warranted endurance ratings. They don't necessarily correspond to actual product endurance. And, they match high-end drives like the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and WD Black SN750.

    As well, how much endurance actually matters? What is your workload? Do you know how much PC users write to their drives on average? It's 5-10TB a year, at most 20TB, usually with write amplification from what I've gathered.

    Considering 600TB is 6x more than a high-average (100TB) of writes over 5-years, I'd say its respectable. That gives it about a 30-year life span when it comes to writing endurance alone if the real-world endurance result actually matches the rating.

    Hmm, could have some configuration issues. Does Crystal Disk Info report full link speed? Got enough free space? Did you just clone or migrate all your data to the drive? if so, you may just need to envoke Windows Optimize/Trim and let it have some idle time, maybe leave it on overnight, to recover.


    it is not about me , it is about the review itself , the NVME SSD I put there are at the same price range and it is not fair for them that you put on inferior TBW product a Pro .. that pro is not right. if this 600TBW is respectable then what will you call 1600TBW and the same price and speed ? it is almost 3X ...

    Not fair for ther product and not fair for the other products.

    as for some mnufacturer cheat in the TBW numbers , well this can be said for the Reviewd 600TBW SSD as well .. because you never tested any TBW to be sure who is lying and who is not.
    Reply
  • seanwebster
    nofanneeded said:
    it is not about me , it is about the review itself , the NVME SSD I put there are at the same price range and it is not fair for them that you put on inferior TBW product a Pro .. that pro is not right. if this 600TBW is respectable then what will you call 1600TBW and the same price and speed ? it is almost 3X ...

    Not fair for ther product and not fair for the other products.
    Sure, Phison E12 and E16 based SSDs have 3x the rated endurance, of this, but who knows, will they all actually last as long as stated? Will they last longer? Matching the Samsung 970 EVO and WD Black SN750's endurance values as an entry-level NVMe SSD at a fraction of the price, I'd say that's a Pro for the drive. It's not class-leading, but it's respectable none the less.

    Unless it is going to be used in a professional workflow, I fail to see where 600 TB of write endurance is less than adequate for most consumers. Much higher than the QLC SSDs hitting the market too. If one is planning on bombarding their drives with writes, then, of course, one would turn to purchase a product of higher endurance. But, for the average user, it's much more than enough.
    Reply
  • nofanneeded
    seanwebster said:
    Sure, Phison E12 and E16 based SSDs have 3x the rated endurance, of this, but who knows, will they all actually last as long as stated? Will they last longer? Matching the Samsung 970 EVO and WD Black SN750's endurance values as an entry-level NVMe SSD at a fraction of the price, I'd say that's a Pro for the drive. It's not class-leading, but it's respectable none the less.

    Unless it is going to be used in a professional workflow, I fail to see where 600 TB of write endurance is less than adequate for most consumers. Much higher than the QLC SSDs hitting the market too. If one is planning on bombarding their drives with writes, then, of course, one would turn to purchase a product of higher endurance. But, for the average user, it's much more than enough.

    What you said about the Phison mite not last 1600 TBW as the say CAN BE ALSO SAID ABOUT the Kingston a2000 , who knows that it will even last 600TBS ??? you can only say that when you test the TBW (which is almost impossible at Tomshardware)

    Matching Samsung has nothing to do with it , Samsung are not known for good endurance. you ae mixing potatoes with apples here ..

    Yes Samsung is super fast , but one of Samsung cons is low TBW .. so you cant give a "pro" comapred to a "con" just because Samsung is faster.

    and again , I dont care anout averag use of TBW , when the technology reaches 3X the TBW , you cant give a pro for 1X ...

    and again this is not fair fr readers who dont know about the 3X TBW drives and trust your review .. personally I would never get the A2000 , because here is no gain over similar products , the speed is not that super to sacrifice the TBW for it
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    nofanneeded said:
    Matching Samsung has nothing to do with it , Samsung are not known for good endurance. you ae mixing potatoes with apples here ..
    Even as far back as the 840 EVO, TBW on Samsung's was not an issue.
    (and this is on small drives of 120-250GB. Larger drives scale linearly)

    https://techreport.com/review/26058/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-data-retention-after-600tb/"By far the most telling takeaway thus far is the fact that all the drives have endured 600TB of writes without dying. That’s an awful lot of data—well over 300GB per day for five years—and far more than typical PC users are ever likely to write to their drives. "
    "At this rate, even the 840 Series may reach a petabyte of writes before burning out. "

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/samsung-ssd-840-evo-review-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/3"Endurance isn't a concern for client systems using the 840 EVO. "
    Reply
  • seanwebster
    nofanneeded said:
    What you said about the Phison mite not last 1600 TBW as the say CAN BE ALSO SAID ABOUT the Kingston a2000 , who knows that it will even last 600TBS ??? you can only say that when you test the TBW (which is almost impossible at Tomshardware)

    Matching Samsung has nothing to do with it , Samsung are not known for good endurance. you ae mixing potatoes with apples here ..

    Yes Samsung is super fast , but one of Samsung cons is low TBW .. so you cant give a "pro" comapred to a "con" just because Samsung is faster.

    and again , I dont care anout averag use of TBW , when the technology reaches 3X the TBW , you cant give a pro for 1X ...

    and again this is not fair fr readers who dont know about the 3X TBW drives and trust your review .. personally I would never get the A2000 , because here is no gain over similar products , the speed is not that super to sacrifice the TBW for it
    Of course the A2000 could fail before, but then again, does that matter? Again, this is just warranted endurance we’re talking about. Something we can’t necessarily test within the week of getting a drive to review. But, impossible to test? No.

    Having Samsung endurance as an entry level drive, for half the price, it’s a pro. The Samsung is twice the price per GB... Both are NVMe SSDs, completely apples to apples.
    Reply