I also have SX8200 and SX8200 Pro. There is no noticeable difference in performance, however, there is noticeable difference in degradation. non Pro version seems to degrade much much faster when given many little files to write to it....only to find out that Kingston laser-etched all chips to be unidentifiable, in good spirits of shady Aliexpress counterfeit chip sellers ))))
There are two important quotes from Toms that are missing, which would make things clearer for people who weren't following the issue:
1) Adata has reached to clarify that the Redditor measured performance with the new SSD configuration connected to the PCH and compared performance to the originally-shipping SSD connected to the CPU.
2) Adata has clarified that the endurance rating remains the same.
Pretty sure that with either variant or configuration the actual performance will be within the margin of error(~10% sequential). I did own both SX8200 and I do own an SX8200Pro, and as far as I know, the only noticeable difference is random R/W, and only in benchmarks. Not something you'll even notice in daily use.
You are paying for a product that fits the spec, not for tiny letters on tiny chips.
AFAIK, either an official spec on their website or product datasheet even mentions which 2262 gen it has and who's NAND do they slap on it.
Not every company has means of manufacturing their own NAND and controllers.
sx8200 480GB version, 9,2TB total host writes @ 92% health
sx8200 pro 1TB version, 8,2TB total host writes @ 99% health
both are living similar life in terms of how are they used and what is being done with them, so results are comparable.