The Western Digital WD Black 3D NAND SSD Review: EVO Meets Its Matchby Ganesh T S & Billy Tallis on April 5, 2018 9:45 AM EST
- Posted in
- Western Digital
- Extreme Pro
- WD Black
AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The average data rate from the new WD Black on The Destroyer is almost as fast as Samsung's TLC-based 960 EVO and their newer PM981 OEM drive. Where the original WD Black NVMe SSD was clearly a low-end NVMe drive and no faster than SATA SSDs on this test, the new WD Black is competitive at the high end.
The average latencies from the WD Black are competitive with Samsung's TLC drives, and the 99th percentile latencies are the fastest we've seen from any flash-based SSD for this capacity class.
The average read latencies from the WD Black on The Destroyer are as good as any flash-based SSD we've tested. Average write latencies are great but Samsung's top drives are still clearly faster.
The WD Black has the best 99th percentile read latency scores aside from Intel's Optane SSD 900P, but the 99th percentile write latency scores are only in the second tier of drives.
The load power consumption of the new WD Black is a huge improvement over the previous SSD to bear this name. The new model uses less than half as much energy over the course of The Destroyer, putting it in first place slightly ahead of the Toshiba XG5.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
boeush - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - linkSee 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 - linkA 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 - linkany TCG OPAL encryption in WD or Sandisk?
tommo1982 - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - linkIt'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 - linkController 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 - linkPlus still waiting on x4 PCIe laned M.2 Optanes.
CheapSushi - Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - linkIsn'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 - linkI dont get it, how they claim its competition when WD's performance is absolutely abysmal compared to the EVOs.
tamalero - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - linkDisregard 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 - linkWe 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.