The Western Digital Black PCIe SSD (512GB) Review
by Billy Tallis on March 8, 2017 8:30 AM ESTAnandTech 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.
As with The Destroyer, the WD Black's average data rate on the Heavy test is not beyond the reach of the very best SATA SSDs, but it is faster than most SATA SSDs, including the WD Blue. The WD Black also handles the pressure of a full drive better than many TLC SSDs and suffers relatively less performance drop than even some MLC-based PCIe SSDs like the Patriot Hellfire.
The average service time delivered by the WD Black scores in the low end of the range for PCIe SSDs but it is clearly better any SATA SSD. Once again the impact of running the test on a completely full drive is minimal.
The WD Black suffers from more high-latency operations over the course of the Heavy test than several SATA SSDs, but it ranks better than most budget TLC SSDs.
The WD Black's power efficiency during the Heavy test is only slightly better than the Intel SSD 600p. All of its MLC-based competition is at least a little bit more efficient, and Samsung's PCIe SSDs are much more efficient.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
I hope they're not foolish enough to think that producing bottom feeder SSDs will slow the decline of their hard drive business. They're certainly aware of the fact that there are other companies that will land sales that shrink their hard drive business even if they never produce their own solid state storage solutions. It's genuinely perplexing why WD isn't pushing SanDisk to develop a more competitive product line. Maybe they are and this is just a stopgap measure, but I do wonder what's happening.timbotim - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
I simply don't get this SSD for desktops. If you're going to be in the slow SSD market don't you just need to be the cheapest? If you're not, what's the point? Do you hope there's sufficient clueless/confused users out there who will buy on availability?I'm pretty sure real user-facing usability is all about QD1 sequential R & W performance (and I'd guess R >> W), and then it's about price. So that's the 960 Pro on performance and the MX300 on price. Everything in between is the best QD1 sequential for the buck (probably why the best sellers are the 850EVOs and SSD PLUSs).
For laptops, replace MX300 with 600p I guess.
Jedi2155 - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
It would be nice if you could delineate the NVMe interfaced SSDs versus the SATA models. That way its easier to tell the performance between the two.Qostaarg - Saturday, March 11, 2017 - link
No samsung no party. performance like a potato.Gonemad - Tuesday, March 14, 2017 - link
For me it looks like a great alternative to my ageing rusty spinners for a boot drive on my 8 year old clunker.I won't even have to provision SATA or power cables for it, improving a little bit the cable clutter on my planned upgrade. Faster drives are on the too expensive side, cheaper drives are on the too slow side of the scale, so it becomes a good budget compromise by accident.
This guy has a weird place on the market, and I have a weird upgrade case to do from mechanical clatters, er, platters, so it fits.
Of course I will keep researching into options until the last minute.
jonathan1683 - Wednesday, March 15, 2017 - link
I feel bad when companies make bad decisions like this. I often wonder who made these decisions or if they tried as hard as they could and just fell short. I really like WD as a company, but I see their future may be grim. Hopefully they get it together.