As CTO of a Hollywood post production company I can state that there is a real world difference between enterprise class and consumer class SSDs. We had a 300 TB SAN that was the heart of our operation, and could not afford a lot od down time as it affected production, so we paid more for enterprise class drives. Remember, in a RAID a bad drive can be hot swaped out, but the RAID needs to rebuild the data on the new drive.
For office computers, workstations, etc., the Samsung SSDs are excellent. Which you decide to use is up to you. For me the decision is cost vs. reliability, what the drives are being used for, etc. For a SAN that is feeding an entire facility and being used by everyone I choose to go enterprise class. For my laptop, home computer, office servers that are not storing Terabytes of data I used the Samsung SSDs. If the server was mission critical, ex., domaine server, exchange server, etc., we set up 2 drives to act as mirrors so if 1 failed the server would fall over to the other drive. The reason is RAID 5 takes too long to regenerate the data on a new drive and the cost is higher than mirrors. The net net is that any system can be designed to be fault tollerent; you need to know what the system is designed to do (ex., how much total storage, how fast does it need to deliver data to a client, how many clients on the system, how long to recover, etc.) how much you want to spend, and the minimum recovery time, etc.
Bottom line, if you need this type of drive the price is not bad.
For office computers, workstations, etc., the Samsung SSDs are excellent. Which you decide to use is up to you. For me the decision is cost vs. reliability, what the drives are being used for, etc. For a SAN that is feeding an entire facility and being used by everyone I choose to go enterprise class. For my laptop, home computer, office servers that are not storing Terabytes of data I used the Samsung SSDs. If the server was mission critical, ex., domaine server, exchange server, etc., we set up 2 drives to act as mirrors so if 1 failed the server would fall over to the other drive. The reason is RAID 5 takes too long to regenerate the data on a new drive and the cost is higher than mirrors. The net net is that any system can be designed to be fault tollerent; you need to know what the system is designed to do (ex., how much total storage, how fast does it need to deliver data to a client, how many clients on the system, how long to recover, etc.) how much you want to spend, and the minimum recovery time, etc.
Bottom line, if you need this type of drive the price is not bad.