Conclusion

We knew from tests last year of Western Digital's SATA drives and the Toshiba XG5 that the SanDisk/Toshiba 64-layer 3D TLC was a huge improvement over their planar NAND, and possibly was even the fastest and most power efficient TLC NAND yet. It is now clear that those drives weren't even making the best possible use of that flash. With Western Digital's new in-house controller, the BiCS 3 TLC really shines. The new WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO are unquestionably high-end NVMe SSDs that match the Samsung 960 EVO and sometimes even beat the 960 PRO.

There are very few disappointing results from the WD Black. Even when it isn't tied for first or second place, it performs well above the low-end NVMe drives. The two biggest problems appear to be a poor start to the sequential read test, and another round of NVMe idle power management bugs to puzzle through. Almost all NVMe drives have at least some quirks when it comes to idle power management, in stark contrast to the nearly universal and flawless support among SATA drives for at least the slumber state and usually also DevSleep (which cannot be used on desktops). The power efficiency of the WD Black under load is excellent, so it is clear that the Western Digital NVMe controller isn't inherently a power hog. Whatever incompatibility the WD Black's power management currently has with our testbed won't matter to other desktop users, and hopefully isn't representative of today's notebooks. The bigger surprises from the WD Black are when it performs much better than expected, especially during the mixed sequential I/O test where nothing comes close.

Samsung established an early lead in the NVMe SSD race and has held on to their top spot as many brands have tried and failed to introduce high-end NVMe SSDs with either planar NAND or the lackluster first-generation Intel/Micron 3D NAND. None of those SSDs was a more obvious underachiever than the original WD Black NVMe SSD from last year, which used 15nm planar TLC and could barely outperform a decent SATA drive. The first WD Black SSD didn't deserve Western Digital's high-performance branding. This new WD Black is everything last year's model should have been, and it should be able to stay relevant throughout this year even when Samsung gets around to releasing the successors to the 960 PRO and 960 EVO—which they really need to do soon.

NVMe SSD Price Comparison
  120-128GB 240-256GB 400-512GB 960-1200GB
WD Black (3D NAND)
SanDisk Extreme PRO
  $119.99 (48¢/GB) $226.75 (45¢/GB) $449.99 (45¢/GB)
Intel SSD 760p $88.32 (69¢/GB) $122.25 (48¢/GB) $223.26 (44¢/GB) $471.52 (46¢/GB)
Samsung 960 PRO     $327.99 (64¢/GB) $608.70 (59¢/GB)
Samsung 960 EVO   $119.99 (48¢/GB) $199.99 (40¢/GB) $449.99 (45¢/GB)
WD Black (2D NAND)   $104.28 (41¢/GB) $182.00 (36¢/GB)  
Plextor M9Pe   $119.99 (47¢/GB) $213.43 (42¢/GB) $408.26 (40¢/GB)
MyDigitalSSD SBX $59.99 (47¢/GB) $99.99 (39¢/GB) $159.99 (31¢/GB) $339.99 (33¢/GB)
Toshiba OCZ RD400 $109.99 (86¢/GB) $114.99 (45¢/GB) $309.99 (61¢/GB) $466.45 (46¢/GB)

The MSRPs for the WD Black roughly match current street prices for the Samsung 960 EVO, which is exactly what the WD Black should be competing against. Neither drive has a clear overall performance advantage in the 1TB capacity we've analyzed with this review, though the WD Black has a modest power efficiency advantage (our idle power problems notwithstanding). Since release, the Intel 760p has also climbed up to this price range, and it doesn't belong there.

The Plextor M9Pe is finally available for purchase after a paper launch early this year. It uses Toshiba's 64L TLC and a Marvell controller, so it closely represents what this year's WD Black would have been without Western Digital's new in-house controller. We will have preformance results for the M9Pe soon.

Western Digital's long years working to develop 3D NAND and their new NVMe controller have paid off. They're once again a credible contender in the high end space, and their latest SATA SSDs are doing pretty well, too. This year's SSD market now has serious competition in almost every price bracket.

Power Management
Comments Locked

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • boeush - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link

    See the respective Destroyer, Heavy, and Light ATSB results - and match up your version of "real world" to the respective test scenario...
  • The_Assimilator - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link

    A new SSD controller that doesn't perform like shit is excellent news for a market that's seen Samsung ruling the roost for far too long. Hopefully this will be the beginning of price drops for NVMe drives that don't suck, and the beginning of the end of NVMe drives that are just SATA devices in an M.2 form factor.
  • darckhart - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link

    any TCG OPAL encryption in WD or Sandisk?
  • tommo1982 - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link

    It's interesting how Optane is not so much better in Destroyer/Heavy/Light tests. I expected it to lead in most of them, but found Samsung and WD's drives to match or beat it. With the recent hype around X-Point I was hoping for it to be a considerable improvement over NAND. It seems Intel doesn't deliver. Not for the average user at least.
  • zodiacfml - Friday, April 6, 2018 - link

    Controller and lack of parallelism. The memory chip is insane. Intel needs to improve their volumes so that they can produce higher capacity drives, giving more capacity and performance at the same costs today.
    This is probably the reason why Intel seems aggressive now with Optane, bundling and branding it with the new Coffee Lake chips.
  • CheapSushi - Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - link

    Plus still waiting on x4 PCIe laned M.2 Optanes.
  • CheapSushi - Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - link

    Isn't it because those other drives have a lot more RAM and RAM still beats phase change? Optane is still better is many other regards but choices of course depend on more variables.
  • tamalero - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link

    I dont get it, how they claim its competition when WD's performance is absolutely abysmal compared to the EVOs.
  • tamalero - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link

    Disregard my comment. Turns out I was checking the blue instead of the orange bars.

    What a monstrous difference in performance compared to the prior models!
  • Billy Tallis - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link

    We did warn Western Digital that they weren't doing enough to separate the branding of last year's model and this year's model. I expect a lot of confusion and disappointment over the next few months until the old models are no longer available for purchase.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now