AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The WD Blue is tied with the OCZ Trion 150 for average data rate on the Heavy test, where the SanDisk X400 had a substantial advantage that put it close to MLC drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

As with The Destroyer, the WD Blue only has slightly higher average latency than the X400 and is not as slow as the Trion 150. Additionally, the average latency on a full drive beats competitors like the OCZ VX500 and Crucial MX300 that suffer disproportionately when their SLC caches are exhausted.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The number of high-latency outliers makes it obvious that the WD Blue is a TLC drive, but also makes it clear that the drive degrades gracefully under a heavier load rather than falling apart.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The WD Blue is slightly more power efficient on the Heavy test than the X400, and both drives have better than average power consumption.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
POST A COMMENT

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    At this age, anyone should put their browser cache in a virtual ramdrive. Reply
  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Unless you edit videos, no one noticies the 2GB/s+ speeds unless for e-pen1s rights. Reply
  • Magichands8 - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    That's funny you should say that since I've been noticing it for years. Every single time I move around large files to reorganize or back them up, in fact. But I'm sure that I'm the only non-video editing person on the planet who doesn't use his computer exclusively for reading and writing tiny text files and browsing the internet. I'm also sure that I'm the only who would have a problem paying a premium for very low capacity devices just so I could experience their limitations. Reply
  • npz - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Except the NAND and controllers used here WONT give you any better performance on pcie interface. Reply
  • Magichands8 - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    Of course. That being a part of my whole point. No matter how you look at these products they're a massive fail. Reply
  • Michael Bay - Thursday, October 13, 2016 - link

    Oy vey, nobody in the market cares for my special snowflake wants, it`s anudda shoah! Reply
  • mapesdhs - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link

    You need more explosions in your posts. ;D Reply
  • beginner99 - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    It's cheap but not really excitingly cheap. Doesn't really beat the aged MX200 which also comes with MLC NAND which I deem superior to this TLC low-end crap. Only advantage this has over MX200 is price. Good for a cheapo game-drive maybe but would avoid as OS drive. Reply
  • Arnulf - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    Ewww, 15nm planar TLC along with WD branding. Reply
  • JimmiG - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    I remember the time when the 850 Evo was considered a "budget" SSD. Now it's almost a high-end SSD. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now