There are multiple ways to make use of the table (
Confirmed Working Models) to pick a SSD most suitable for your need.
For Mac laptops in this thread, personally I would rank SSDs by the "Idle (A)" column. That number indicates idle power consumption of the SSD with ssdpmEnabler installed. Lower the value in this column, the more power efficient the SSD is in general, both at idle and during read/write operations. You don't have to limit choices to the SSDs people have tested on your specific Mac model. The data for other Mac models are equally relevant and applicable in my opinion.
Note that without ssdpmEnabler, the idle power consumption in MacOS will be way higher for all SSD models. Since Windows 10 has much better NVMe compatibility than MacOS, I won't worry much about its incompatibility and other issues like idle power.
The NVMe compatibility and high idle power were historically only the problem in MacOS.
So had I known WD SN550 1TB idling at 0.16A (with ssdpmEnabler installed i.e. power management enabled), would I still have bought it? Most likely not. Because my (or rather my family member's) usage scenario of the Mac laptop is most of the time on the roads. I would have gone with a Phison E12/E12s based SSD as they respond very well to ssdpmEnabler.
With that said, our SN550 1TB has been flawless and accumulated 12TB write (TBW) in the past 10 months. Also it's one (if not THE) of the lowest power consumption during read/write operations. Surprisingly, the 1TB model is also one of the highest performing models after fast cache runs out. At anytime (I meant ANY time) sequential write speed will be always higher than 800MB/s
*.
All in all, I surely didn't regret. But had ssdpmEnabler and findings from its author (_cough_ yours truly) and many helpers from this thread available earlier, I would have made a different & better choice for our usage scenario.
*Recent reports say this is no longer true on refreshed/new SN550. Nevertheless, it isn't noticeable on a daily basis for most users if the number isn't terribly low, say, less than 150MB/s. If you're willing to gamble, I think the refreshed 2TB model should have retained the 800MB/s (or similar speed) after fast cache runs out.
