Random 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.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read

The WD Blue's random read speed is a bit slower than the X400 but the difference is not big enough to change the rankings and it is still above average.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read (Power)

The WD Blue draws slightly less power than the SanDisk X400, which is enough for it to retain efficiency that is good by the standards of planar TLC SSDs.

The WD Blue's random read performance scales well with increasing queue depth, eventually reaching a maximum that is almost as high as the top SATA drives. The performance at QD16 is also notably better than most budget SSDs.

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.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write

The SanDisk X400 went a long way toward closing the gap in random write performance between TLC and MLC drives, but a substantial gap still remained. The WD Blue comes in just shy of the X400 but is much faster than the OCZ Trion 150.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write (Power)

The WD Blue doesn't set any overall record for power efficiency, but it does slightly improve on the X400's efficiency and raises the bar for planar TLC.

The WD Blue shows minimal random write performance scaling with queue depth, increasing from QD1 to QD2 but remaining constant thereafter.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

75 Comments

View All Comments

  • Arbie - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    I agree with another comment. Why is the Mushkin Reactor 1TB not in the charts for recent SSD reviews? At $230 it's cheaper than many, is MLC, and overall seems like a great buy. You reviewed it but then seem to have forgotten it.
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    I'm a bit puzzled by the performance consistency numbers here. In them the WD Blue 1TB seems to be consistently faster than the Sandisk X400 1TB before reaching steady state and about the same speed once it hits that point; but in almost all the other benches the Sandisk scores higher.
  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    The drive is completely filled once before the random write consistency test, which runs at QD32. Most of the other IOmeter scores are averages of low queue depths, and the random write test on page 6 is limited to a 16GB test file on an otherwise empty drive. Whatever effect caused the WD Blue to have lower peak performance is more significant for the shorter test, while for the consistency test the fact that the WD Blue has more spare area to start with than the X400 is a bigger factor.
  • kmmatney - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    I bought a SanDisk Ultra II 960GB drive about a year ago for around $200, and it's still close to that price ($219 at the moment). It's the one with SLC cache - I use it in my everyday work computer, as my OS drive, and I typically run 1-2 virtual machines as well. So I push it fairly hard for a consumer SSD, and it still runs great - no complaints at all, and I'd recommend it for the price.
  • Michael Bay - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    Same experience here. In a few weeks it will be a year of use for me, and if Sandisk utility is to be trusted, it`s only 1% worn.
  • mapesdhs - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    It's a pity the X300 is not available anymore, it had very good consistency and at one point was cheaper than many budget models.
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    It is amazing that they fit all that on one side of the board without so much as a capacitor on the back...
  • LordConrad - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    Sorry, I refuse to buy a SSD that uses TLC planar NAND.
  • TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    why? these have higher write endurance then some MLC drives.
  • MrCommunistGen - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    That was quick - WD releasing an SSD under their own name. Sure it is a warmed over X400, but as the performance numbers indicate they didn't just slap a sticker on it... which leads to my next comment.

    When I read the opening of the article I was pretty excited. X400 with a bit more overprovisioning. I was expecting to see extra performance (even if only a little) along with the endurance. I guess not. Oh well.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now