Comparison
The Intel 660p Series 1TB and Kingston A400 120GB target different upgrade paths: a high-capacity M.2 NVMe drive versus a compact 2.5-inch SATA replacement drive. Kingston leads the supplied overall score, but Intel is the stronger fit for buyers who need far more space and have a compatible NVMe slot.
#1 Overall Winner
Contender
Choose the Intel 660p 1TB for a compatible M.2 NVMe system that needs large, read-heavy storage for games, applications, or files. Choose the Kingston A400 120GB for a straightforward SATA hard-drive replacement or a modest operating-system drive in an older PC. Do not choose based on scores alone: capacity and interface compatibility are decisive here.
Overall winner
Depends on your needs
| Feature | Intel 660p Series 1TB NVMe SSD | Kingston A400 120GB SATA SSD | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall score |
78 |
85 |
Kingston A400 120GB SATA SSD |
Capacity |
1TB |
120GB |
Intel 660p Series 1TB NVMe SSD |
Form factor |
M.2 2280 |
2.5-inch |
Depends |
Interface |
PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 |
SATA 6Gb/s |
Depends |
Rated sequential read |
Up to 1,800MB/s |
Up to 500MB/s |
Intel 660p Series 1TB NVMe SSD |
Rated sequential write |
Up to 1,800MB/s |
Up to 450MB/s |
Intel 660p Series 1TB NVMe SSD |
Performance score |
78 |
86 |
Kingston A400 120GB SATA SSD |
Feature score |
72 |
67 |
Intel 660p Series 1TB NVMe SSD |
Usability and setup |
82 usability; 86 setup |
92 usability; 93 setup |
Kingston A400 120GB SATA SSD |
Reliability score |
69 |
72 |
Kingston A400 120GB SATA SSD |
Value score |
87 |
90 |
Kingston A400 120GB SATA SSD |
Customer satisfaction |
4.8/5 from 2,737 reviews |
4.7/5 from 28,572 reviews |
Depends |
The supplied performance score favours the Kingston A400, and reviews consistently describe a substantial real-world upgrade from a hard drive. On the stated sequential specifications, however, the Intel 660p is faster: it is rated up to 1,800MB/s for both reads and writes, compared with the Kingston's up to 500MB/s reads and 450MB/s writes. Intel's advantage is conditional on a proper PCIe NVMe connection and appropriate workload. Its QLC design can slow significantly on large, sustained writes after the SLC cache is exhausted.
Kingston has the higher supplied speed score, reflecting strong feedback for boot and load-time improvement in systems upgraded from hard drives. For sequential transfer specifications, Intel is clearly ahead at up to 1,800MB/s read and write versus Kingston's up to 500MB/s read and 450MB/s write. Intel's speed is not uniform under every condition: reviews specifically caution that large or frequent writes can exceed its SLC cache and become much slower.
The Kingston A400 has a modest advantage in the supplied reliability score. Its review summary includes many reports of normal operation and quick installation, though some customers report failure in under six months. Intel feedback is also largely positive for everyday and read-heavy use, but QLC endurance concerns and mixed long-term reliability reports reduce confidence for heavy-write use. Neither drive is an unqualified reliability choice based on the available information.
Kingston leads the supplied usability score. Its familiar 2.5-inch SATA format is particularly practical for replacing a hard drive, and reviews describe straightforward migration and installation. Intel installation is also commonly reported as easy, involving fitting the M.2 card and initialising or formatting it in the operating system. Intel requires more careful slot checking because an M.2 slot must support PCIe/NVMe rather than only another M.2 storage standard.
The Intel 660p uses the slim M.2 2280 card format, which mounts directly on a compatible motherboard or laptop slot and eliminates SATA cabling. The Kingston A400 is a 2.5-inch drive that fits conventional SATA storage locations and needs SATA data and power connections. Intel has the slightly higher supplied design score, but neither design is universally better: choose according to the computer's supported storage layout.
Intel has a small lead in the supplied build-quality score. Both are solid-state drives without moving mechanical parts. The supplied evidence does not provide enough detail to make a material or construction claim beyond their form factors. Intel review feedback includes mixed heat reports, with some users adding a heatsink, while Kingston's review summary focuses more on successful installation and system responsiveness.
Kingston leads the supplied durability score. Its flash-based, no-moving-parts design is described as more resistant to shock and vibration than a mechanical hard drive. Intel's QLC NAND is the principal durability caveat: supplied reviews describe lower write-endurance expectations than other NAND types and advise against regular large write workloads. Actual longevity depends heavily on how intensively each drive is written to.
The Kingston has the supplied portability score, while no portability score is provided for Intel. Both products are very light internal drives, but their portable use depends more on the enclosure or host system than on the bare SSD. Intel's M.2 card is physically compact, whereas Kingston's 2.5-inch format is convenient for systems built around standard SATA drive bays.
The Intel has the higher supplied feature score and offers an NVMe M.2 2280 design with QLC 3D NAND. The Kingston is simpler: a 2.5-inch SATA SSD focused on replacing an existing hard drive. Neither product has smart or app-led features in the supplied data. The meaningful feature distinction is therefore platform fit: Intel suits M.2 PCIe storage, while Kingston suits standard SATA drive bays.
Kingston leads the supplied setup score. Reviewers describe installing the drive, migrating or installing Windows, and seeing an immediate improvement in responsiveness. Intel also receives favourable installation feedback, with users describing a simple fit-and-format process. Intel setup can involve more compatibility checks and, in some cases mentioned by reviewers, adapters or heatsinks. Kingston requires the usual SATA cables or existing drive connections.
Kingston has a slight advantage in the supplied compatibility score and is compatible with SATA-equipped desktops and laptops. Intel is compatible with a wide range of notebooks, desktops, mobile devices, servers, and arrays that accept M.2 2280 PCIe drives, but it requires the right M-key M.2 PCIe/NVMe support. A physical M.2 slot alone is not enough to assume compatibility. Check the device manual before purchase.
Intel leads the supplied connectivity score because it uses PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4, with much higher stated bandwidth and sequential transfer ratings. Kingston's SATA 6Gb/s interface is slower but broadly useful for legacy drive replacement and is backwards compatible with SATA Rev. 2.0 according to the product description. The Intel is only compatible where an M.2 2280 PCIe/NVMe connection is available; the Kingston needs standard SATA connections.
Kingston has the higher supplied power-efficiency score. Its product description also notes cooler and quieter operation than a mechanical hard drive. Intel's supplied score remains solid, but review feedback includes reports that it can run hot, particularly under heavier operation. The available data does not provide directly comparable power-consumption measurements, so this is a limited comparison.
Kingston has the higher supplied value score and offers a practical, well-reviewed route to make an older SATA system more responsive. That does not automatically make it the better purchase for every buyer: 120GB is a limited capacity. Intel also scores strongly for value and provides 1TB, NVMe connectivity, and higher rated sequential speeds. Intel represents better functional value for buyers who need that capacity and have an appropriate slot; Kingston represents better fit for a modest SATA boot-drive upgrade.
Kingston has a narrow lead in the supplied brand-trust score. Both brands have strong customer-review totals and established component-market presence in the supplied listings. The product-specific evidence is more useful than a broad brand judgment: Intel feedback is positive but raises QLC endurance concerns, while Kingston has broad approval alongside some early-failure reports. Warranty and support detail is not sufficiently provided to draw a stronger conclusion.
Kingston has the higher supplied customer-satisfaction score and a much larger review count, with 28,572 reviews and a 4.7/5 rating. Intel has a slightly higher listed star rating at 4.8/5 from 2,737 reviews. Intel buyers frequently praise value, capacity, and ease of installation, while Kingston buyers frequently praise quick boots and renewed performance in old PCs. Both listings also include some reliability-related complaints.
Warranty-support scores are low and close in the supplied data, with Kingston holding a small advantage. The product details do not provide comparable warranty duration, return terms, or after-sales policies. Buyers should verify the current seller, warranty coverage, and return process before ordering, especially because both sets of reviews include some reports of drive failure.
The Kingston A400 120GB is the best overall option according to the supplied scores, particularly for buyers who want an uncomplicated SATA upgrade that makes an older HDD-based PC feel more responsive. Its strong usability, setup, value, and customer-satisfaction results support that role. However, it should not be treated as the universal winner because its 120GB capacity and SATA interface place clear limits on what it can replace.
For a compatible M.2 PCIe/NVMe computer, the Intel 660p is often the more useful purchase. It provides 1TB of capacity and much higher listed sequential read and write speeds, making it better suited to games, applications, and general storage. Its QLC design is the key compromise: choose it for read-heavy, everyday use rather than frequent sustained large writes. Interface compatibility and storage needs should decide this comparison first.
Overall winner
Depends on your needs
The Kingston A400 has the higher supplied overall score, driven by particularly strong usability, speed, value, and customer-satisfaction scores. However, it is not a like-for-like capacity choice. The Intel 660p provides 1TB and much higher rated sequential transfer speeds, so it is the more suitable option when storage space and an NVMe-capable M.2 slot matter most.
By the listed specifications, the Intel 660p is faster for sequential transfers, with rated reads and writes up to 1,800MB/s versus the Kingston A400's up to 500MB/s reads and 450MB/s writes. The Kingston nevertheless has the higher supplied speed score and is widely praised in reviews for making older HDD-based systems feel much quicker.
The Intel 660p is generally the more practical gaming-storage choice because it has 1TB of capacity and review feedback specifically supports game-library use. Its QLC design is better aligned with read-heavy storage than sustained heavy writing. The 120GB Kingston A400 can improve loading in a SATA system, but its capacity will fill quickly with modern games.
The Kingston A400 has the higher supplied setup and usability scores and is repeatedly described as easy to install in SATA-equipped computers. The Intel 660p is also often described as simple to fit and initialise, but it requires a compatible M.2 2280 PCIe/NVMe slot. Check the slot type and available mounting hardware before choosing either drive.
Yes. The Kingston A400 uses the 2.5-inch SATA form factor and is specifically presented as a hard-drive replacement for compatible desktops and laptops. Reviews often describe noticeable gains in boot and loading times after replacing a mechanical drive. Confirm that the computer has SATA data and power connections and that 120GB is enough for the intended operating system and files.
It can be used as a boot drive, and the supplied review summary includes reports of very quick Windows 10 booting. However, review feedback also notes that the QLC design and SLC cache behaviour make it less ideal for frequent large writes or demanding sustained-write workloads. It is particularly well suited to general use, applications, and read-heavy game storage.
The Intel 660p has 1TB of capacity, compared with 120GB for this Kingston A400 model. That difference is central to the decision: Intel has room for a larger operating-system installation, applications, games, and files, while the Kingston is more appropriate for a lean system installation and essential programs unless separate storage is available.
The supplied reliability score is slightly higher for the Kingston A400. Both products have strong positive customer feedback alongside some concerns. Intel reviews raise QLC endurance, heat, and long-term reliability questions, while some Kingston customers report early failures. Neither supplied dataset supports treating either drive as the clear reliability winner for every workload.
Check our rankings and expert guides to find the best electronics products for your goals.
