The Western Digital Black PCIe SSD (512GB) Review
by Billy Tallis on March 8, 2017 8:30 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
The random read test requests 4kB 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, which is filled before the test starts. 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 Black just barely manages to deliver better random read performance than any SATA SSD, and among PCIe SSDs it also slightly beats the OCZ RD400 in addition to outperforming the Intel 600p as usual.
The WD Black's power consumption is the lowest among the non-Samsung PCIe SSDs, but its efficiency is still below average when SATA SSDs are considered, and it's only half as efficient as the Samsung 850 EVO.
 |
|||||||||
The WD Black has only a narrow random read performance advantage over SATA SSDs at low queue depths, but by QD16 it has scaled beyond the performance limits of the SATA interface. Power consumption starts out high but does not increase particularly steeply as the test progresses.
Random Write Performance
The random write test writes 4kB 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 is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. 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 random write performance of the WD Black is nothing special: it's much faster than the SATA-based WD Blue, but still not as fast as the SATA drives using 3D NAND.
The power consumption of the WD Black is the second highest we've measured for this test and is close to 4W even at low queue depths. The efficiency is half that of the Samsung 850 EVO and barely a third that of the Crucial MX300.
 |
|||||||||
The WD Black is probably thermally limited in the second half of the test as power consumption drops back below 4W and performance ceases to increase with queue depth.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
jjj - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
At least it beats the Intel lolSuch a pity that SSD makers are messing around with slow options.
As NAND prices rise, the controller becomes a smaller % of the costs so offering great perf per $ is easy, as long as you have the perf and they don't.
I do have a bit of an objection to the way you talk about the 960 EVO in your conclusions.
You haven't tested the 500GB version or at least it's not in the graphs or bench and it's hard to be accurate in estimating its perf due to the SLC cache. A review for it would be nice and maybe the very popular MyDigitalSSD.
Gothmoth - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
slow options are not bad if they would give me 2 TB for 200$... :)but this is just crappy stuff.
jjj - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
Slow options with PCIe x4 drives so these things that offer too little over SATA.They make sense for OEMs in laptop and SFF, lower mechanical volume but the opportunity to make a buck is bigger with faster drives right now.
ImSpartacus - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
Yeah, pcie drives busy doubt make sense for the budget market at the moment.It's just an unnecessary cost for a use case that doesn't need the extra benefit. 2.5" sata drives can get too cheap and are too versatile.
theuglyman0war - Sunday, March 12, 2017 - link
Whats everyone complaining about? It's a.... OOPs! Read the that 800MB/s as if that was 800GB size for $199..LOL! nevermind...
Samus - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
I'd as clueless as everyone else as to why non-3D TLC is even a thing, especially in a product not limited by SATA.Bruce427 - Monday, March 13, 2017 - link
** A review for it would be nice [on] the very popular MyDigitalSSD. **I agree. I have one of their 480GB BPX models ($187.32) in one of my PCs and I cannot tell much difference between it and the Samsung 512GB 950 Pro.
The MyDigitals are probably the best performing lower priced NVMe drives. They also have a 5 year warranty and huge endurance (TBW) ratings.
ATB - Sunday, April 1, 2018 - link
huge endurance? Looking at 256GB size (80TBW for the WD Black) in the same price range: Intel's 600P is at 144, Kingston's KC1000 is at 300 ant Plextor's M8Pe is at... 384!!! Which means that the life-span of the black is less than 1/4 of the M8Pe's :(Mathieu Bourgie - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
Reading the introduction: 'In the SATA space SanDisk has made very effective use of their planar TLC and the SanDisk X400 and WD Blue are the best in their class. 'Sure, the Sandisk X400 is a leading TLC drive, but how is the WD Blue the best in its class (and what class is that?).
From your own review of the WD Blue SSD: 'Unfortunately, the WD Blue is slower than the X400 on most other tests' and it has a 3 years warranty instead of 5 years for the Sandisk X400.
highlnder69 - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
Not sure who would want to Pre-Order such a horrible performing SSD.