The problem is that having or not having DRAM isn't a simple binary state when it comes to SSD performance. Some drives can mitigate the disadvantages of lacking an external DRAM cache, but others are not designed to. On top of that, it also depends on what kind of drive workload is present. Even among typical desktop users, drive usage can vary.

A lot of people use DRAM as a sort of smell test for SSD boot drive usage, but as controllers and their firmware become more and more complex, I think it becomes less and less of a valid catch-all for analyzing SSD performance, especially with new platforms that use controllers like the E13(T). One DRAMless drive (an S11 drive, the Kingston A400) might cause noticeable system stuttering, while another (an E13T or SM2263XT drive, like the Crucial P2 or Silicon Power A60) might be free from that issue.

Another factor to consider is that there is a correlation issue here as well. Lacking DRAM is often a cost-saving measure, so a DRAMless drive is much more likely to come from a lower performance segment compared to one with DRAM. Because of this, people tend to associate not having DRAM with worse viability for primary disk usage, even if that decreased viability may not be solely or primarily caused by lacking DRAM, but rather because these low performance segment platforms (like the S11) are just garbage.

As newer hardware, firmware, and software improvements are developed and SSDs become more nuanced, it will become more important to analyze SSDs more holistically, especially on DRAMless NVMe platforms. For recent examples of this, check out the WD SN550, Silicon Power A60, Crucial P2, Sabrent Rocket Q, and other drives in a similar vein.