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
Mixed Random Read/Write Performance
The mixed random I/O benchmark starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. The queue depth is 3 for the entire test and each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. As with the pure random write test, this test is restricted to a 16GB span of the drive, which is empty save for the 16GB test file.
Like the SanDisk X400, the WD Blue performs better on the mixed random I/O test than competing planar TLC drives and about the same as the slowest MLC drives.
The WD Blue once again slightly raises the efficiency standards for planar TLC, but is still nowhere near as efficient as 3D TLC or MLC.
 |
|||||||||
The WD Blue starts the mixed random I/O test with a pretty good random read speed, but performance declines as writes are added to the mix until near the end of the test, where the jump in the last segment of the test is not as large as what most drives experience.
Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance
The mixed sequential access test covers the entire span of the drive and uses a queue depth of one. It starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. Each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The drive is filled before the test starts.
The WD Blue performs above average for a planar TLC SSD on the mixed sequential I/O test, but is not competitive with MLC or 3D TLC.
In absolute terms the WD Blue has pretty low power draw on this test, but the efficiency is not close to setting a record.
 |
|||||||||
The WD Blue's U-shaped performance curve across this test is fairly typical, but the dropoff at the beginning is relatively steep and the minimum is a bit on the low side.
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 :(