The Western Digital Blue (1TB) SSD Review: WD Returns to SSDs
by Billy Tallis on October 11, 2016 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- SSDs
- Storage
- Western Digital
- SanDisk
Sequential Read Performance
The sequential read test requests 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
While the SanDisk X400 tied the best MLC SSDs for sequential read speed, the WD Blue is merely average overall.
The WD Blue draws slightly less power than the X400, but given the size of the performance regression the WD Blue is actually less efficient for once.
 |
|||||||||
The WD Blue seems to hit a performance plateau that is a bit shy of saturating the SATA link, and then it slows down at the highest queue depths.
Sequential Write Performance
The sequential write test writes 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
The WD Blue has a faster sequential write speed than the X400, but doesn't quite catch up to the OCZ Trion 150. Most MLC and 3D TLC drives are significantly faster than the planar TLC drives.
The WD Blue draws more power than the SanDisk X400 during the sequential write test, but it is justified by the improved performance. Efficiency is still only good by planar TLC standards.
 |
|||||||||
The WD Blue's sequential read speed is constant across all queue depths, without even an increase from QD1 to QD2.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
75 Comments
View All Comments
HollyDOL - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link
Indeed, all those companies had hiccups, but out of those two long term RMAing rate at friend's computer shop for Seagate is almost double of WD's (like... it was 9% of sold WD and 18% of sold Seagates, numbers being example, not actual ones).Then againt, it's 7 weeks since I had WD Red failure & RMAing.
so... backup, backup, backup and then again backup...
mapesdhs - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link
Never ceases to amaze me the number of business users I come across that have no backup of any of their systems or data at all.jamyryals - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link
Wow, I didn't realize the 1TB prices had come down so much. Pretty awesomeImpulses - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link
Prices haven't budged much in over a year, I paid $300-ish (ea.) for 2x 1TB EVOs back around the Skylake launch, well over a year ago... The X400 was already cheaper at the time, but I was fine with the slight premium for the faster EVO. WD is basically launching an average to sub average drive at nearly the price point that an EVO has held for 12+ months...mapesdhs - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link
In some cases they've gone way up. The 850 EVO was pretty cheap in Jan/16, since when it's skyrocketed.Jad77 - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link
Lets hope the Black drives, when they make an appearance, are NVMe - in U.2 and M.2 form factors.plopke - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link
I would say my experience with WD is about 3/5 and sandisk 4/5 and I mean the complete picture product quality,product description,price,support,drivers,firmware,....Curious how this take over will go , how they will use sandisk brand name and knowledge. I fear it will become a typical , safe cost because of the purchase , dropped support for products , confused technical support people ,.... but I can always hope.
cknobman - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link
I think you have a typo in your charts, the 1TB drive is showing $299.Other outlets are listing it as $199.
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link
I just double-checked with WD and it's definitely $299. If anyone has it listed at $199, then that would seem to be in error.cknobman - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link
Yep you are correct. Thanks!Now I'm sad, deep down I knew $199 was too good to be true :(