Actually not bad for one that does not have any large external buffer. That and this is the 250gb model so the 500 should perform a little better as well.
970 Evo Plus quite stands out for NVME based drives at ~$35 more for same size (just did a price check, amazon, 500gb for this vs 970 evo plus) so while "on paper" this appears great price, is still in very tough ground with ample contendors such as crucial with their p3 ( I believe it was called) countless samsung entries and the like.
for an extra ~$30-$40 seems like "normally" is just not worth it when can do for ones self (such as clock up the slower product, tweaking voltages and the like) when it comes to a "paper" difference and more or less proven real world data this is not all that good a price.
IMO is we take even a high performance HDD as a regular car speed, sata ssd (even highest performance) still is like an expensive supercar speed difference, the next jump would be the nvme based ones which are like top fuel dragsters (at best) but few tracks let them breathe proper and have to deal with engine problems (throttling etc) that normal drive do not have to deal with AND more $$$$$$..
top fuel costs $$$$, do you ALWAYS see this speed, nope, but when you do, is wonderful, when you do not, it becomes a "so why did I pay that much more for little gain and loss in capacity as well as specific motherboards to tap the advantage" etc etc.
kudos to WD, but alas, the margins are so very narrow and expected performance so high is near a non starter for all companies.
I feel the "new standard" for storage should be @500gb for performance and capacity reasons with 1tb prefered (even a 250nvme + whatever size SSD flash in a raid internal no driver required fashion .. I always liked concept of hybrid drives, why not use hybrid memory styles to leverage as well, instead of saddling fast memory with spinning rust, use high speed low endurance flash with lower speed high endurance other flash.
they do pci-e basd, nvme based, sata based etc etc, all have own benefit and detriment. I personally love sata based, leave the motherboard real estate for other things, they should do a further rendition of sata for the hole outs (like me and others whom have a variety of reasons) if they can patch pci-e to nvme, why not use sta 6 (like current) but tap x2 or x4 pci-e lanes to it as well, let us call it SATA-X, backwarrds compatible with Sta 6g to sata 1 ofc, this would allow some sata or whatever drives up their speed but use a familiar/durable/more widespread form factor.
if all nvme based drives would work in all board or they would not interfere with mobo, not have throttle issues because of dog meta cooling designs (motherboard AND drive maker often enough) it would not be as much an issue, I like sata drive for such reasons, mainly can look "nicer" tend to be much more durable, that much less costly etc etc.
anyways, if WD could do 500 for the price of the 250, that would be most excellent, but as the pricing is, mehhh, overall nice rounded performance with no real shortcomings compared to many others even some of the much more $ drives are not as "rounded" for this they at least did very well at, that much should be said.
like Crucial with MX100, MX500, Samsung with the 800 through 970s (sata and nvme ofc) there are levels that are nice to hit, this SN500 is very much on that edge, up the performance a tough more, reduce price a touch (keep say $40 or better gap between this and the 970 evo plus) then this is that new "leg"
crucial 100/mx500 are more "budget" compared to the "sometimes" faster sammy 8xx/9xx drives, sammy ofc got the speed and endurance markers out there, this "could be" that leg of "rounded performance" just like the mx500 or sammy 8xx/9xx evo ^.^
The MX500 is on par with the 860 EVO. SSDs with Micron 64-layer 3D TLC NAND and the SM2262 controller (HP EX920 and ADATA SX8200) absolutely destroy Samsung 9 series NVMe SSDs in certain metrics.
The initial price of any product is always high. The SN500 will drop in price. In fact, its not even selling at its suggested retail price from most retailers.
And by the way, comparing SSDs to motor vehicles is ridiculous. Please stop.
I don’t see how such puny capacities can be mainstream, specially when most motherboards or laptops have a limited number of M.2 slots. My minimum would be a 1TB or 2TB Intel 660P.
A lot of people don't need much space. I just upgraded my wife from a 128gb SSD to a 256gb SSD. The 128GB SSD was getting a little full because of pictures of our son and I was occasionally having to free up space for Windows update etc. We could have stuck with the 128gb and migrated her entire picture collection to the NAS or kept freeing up space when needed but a 256 SATA SSD is so cheap I figured why not upgrade. Her old 128gb got stuck in my in-law's computer to replace the old slow 500gb hd they had in the system. They are using less than half the space on that SSD so should be fine for a long time and if really needed I can always setup the 500gb hd as a secondary storage drive for them. The old days of 32/64gb SSD being barely adequate are passed. Windows + a decent selection of apps is fine on a 128gb SSD and 256gb gives even more head room.
Been running my work laptop on a 64GB SSD for several years now. Some of us don't need to keep masses of data on a device that goes out and about. Sometimes carrying masses of data is a liability.
In a laptop you might have a point but in a desktop? Put the OS on it and the most used apps like browser. If you don't game you are already set. For games you can use a hdd or a large cheap sata ssd as it doesn't really matter much what you use.
If you have a lot of games you'll want both large capacity and fast access.
But other than capacity, this "low end" NVMe drive looks great. It's clearly possible for them to do 1TB+ versions in the future too, in one way or another.
fazalmajid you may not see it.. but others do.. for me.. i usually use a small drive for my C drive, aka windows drive, before it was 120, now.. as 120 gig drives have next to vanished, im using 250 gig drives, with other bigger drives for other things.. so when it come times for format, and install fresh.. instead of having to move and then redo a big drive.. all i have to deal with, is a small drive with little to no " i want to keep this so i need to move it to another drive " swapping...
I found Windows wants to put "User" data and "Program Files" on the same primary drive, so it can grow in size and even end up containing data I want to keep, even if I try to separate the two.
I'd still be interested in seeing a T2 SSD (Apple) put through these paces. Usually they did great in sequential tests but not so much in 4k randoms, so I wonder how it would do on, say, Destroyer.
This drive did exceed my expectations for a x2 pci-e lanes with no Dram and no HBM but the pricing is going to be key. The SM2262 drives have gotten pretty inexpensive and don't leave a lot of room for a drive like this even as good as it may be for what it is. I just recently picked up the ADATA version of the HP EX920 @ $73 for the 480gb drive. That a x4 drive with dram on it and should beat this drive pretty consistently. Personally this drive would need to be down around $60 before I'd consider the price difference meaningful enough to consider this drive.
You got the EX920 512GB on sale. That's not the typical retail price, and the SN500 is already sitting at $65 retail.
You understand the price of this drive will go down? As they always do after initial release? And when the prices of NAND skyrocket again, the SN500 will have a major advantage?
For the majority of consumers, the SN500 is a viable option.
This is WD clearing out their inventory while making way for the higher capacity/performance versions coming out shortly. Don't expect to see this product anymore by the end of 2019.
Wait, so it's not QLC nand? That's great. It states 300TB write endurance, compared to the 100TB of the 500gb Crucial P1, for the same price. Goodbye, QLC! For now..
For consumers, the endurance rating matters none. You'll never chew through 100TB of endurance, especially under consumer workloads. The massive SLC cache buffers utilized in the P1 and 660p in addition to smart caching algorithms increase endurance substantially. Also, the DRAM buffer in addition to smart controller firmware effectively mitigate write amplification by several factors. You'll never chew through the endurance of the P1 or the 660p, period.
Endurance ratings are meaningless under consumer workloads. SSDs far outlast their given endurance ratings.
Well, hopefully. Because just to download install one game (hitman 2) requires about 240GB of writes. If I do that 3 times, that's 1% of my drive's life gone.
By the way, this is evidenced by the ADATA SU800. It has a massive dynamic SLC cache buffer and older Micron 32-layer 384-Gbit NAND and still carries the highest endurance rating on the market.
I'm surprised there isn't a significant difference in idle power consumption or drive-side efficiency for a DRAMless NVMe drive. This is a pretty nice piece of hardware, regardless of price.
Thanks for the review, Billy! I really appreciate your work; you always do an excellent job and I appreciate you taking time out of your life to throw these reviews up.
Without the DRAM buffer, how do you think write amplification is affected? Obviously endurance is actually quite high (in SU800 territory) and performance is quite high. This is especially interesting considering how small the SLC cache buffer is.
Do you think WD has effectively mitigated negative endurance impact through firmware?
There really is no market segment for this drive unless the WD name is enough to sway a lot of customers. Pretty much every week there's an EX920 or Adata 8200 500GB drive for between $70-$80 and they are superior to this drive in every way. You could nitpick on brand reliability, etc, but both those drives have an incredible track record in the last couple years.
For a primary OS/Apps drive, I would get the faster HP/Adata for a few bucks more, and for a games/storage drive I would get the cheapest SATA I could find (usually an Adata 1TB for $90). Can't think of any scenario I would get a budget NVME over one of these options. This WD drive would have to drop to $60 to be a real contender.
The SN500 will drop in price drastically. It also will stand out when prices increase, as they always do. Just as QLC dropped in price, just as 3D NAND dropped in price.
Why you people have to drop negative comments about a product that was just released, I'll never understand. It always drops in price. First world problems, my son.
By the way, spending "a few bucks more" for an overkill drive makes no sense. The SN500 is more than capable as an OS drive.
Realistically, WD releasing the SN500 provides more competition and that will lower prices. I really don't understand what your issue is.
for now, I suppose. so long as TLC is fabricated on 40-50nm, perhaps so. capitalist greed will, in due time, impel vendors to drop down to contemporary nodes in search of capacity. what then? or, is it, now?
Except that 64-layer 3D NAND (and up) from Samsung and Micron/ Intel is at 20nm and Toshiba/ Western Digital is at 19nm. You understand planar TLC basically ceased at 14-15nm?
Back in 2016, with the advent of smart SLC caching techniques in addition to intelligent controller firmware, SSDs utilizing 3D NAND effectively outpaced 2D "planar" MLC. In fact, the 660p (utilizing 3D QLC) can perform on par (in certain metrics) with SSDs utilizing MLC because of Intel's intelligent pSLC caching strategies.
In the end, it doesn't matter. You'll never chew through the endurance of a modern SSD when subjecting it to consumer workloads, period. The controller can effectively mitigate write amplification in most circumstances.
Abysmal endurance? Far from it. The SN500 carries an endurance rating far above the Samsung 850 EVO and is in SU800 territory; its endurance rating is actually quite high, comparatively.
You do understand that just about any SSD utilizing 3D NAND has endurance ratings far beyond what 2D planar MLC SSDs had?
Most importantly, remember this: endurance doesn't matter for consumer drives. SSDs last far beyond their warranted endurance life.It's been tested.
Why is this? Because modern controllers can effectively mitigate write amplification by several factors. The majority of consumer workloads will NEVER burn through rated endurance, period. Honestly, including a TBW rating is unnecessary.
Under consumer workloads (OS and gaming) no, you cannot. It has been tested. Also, SSDs regularly outlast their given TBW rating by multiple times. If you check the S.M.A.R.T. attributes and software of older planar SSDs you'll see that even heavily utilized SSDs are healthy.
This review is glowing about this hard drive. Contrast that with StorageReview.com, which basically says "stay away". I don't understand how these 2 reviews could be so different.
Did you even read the full article from the review you posted?
Conclusion:
"In the end, for users looking to upgrade an older SATA SSD or HDD the WD Blue SN500 may be an ideal candidate where price is the leading decision factor and performance comes secondary. Considering a sub-$55 entry price, the overall package is impressive."
Performance is always secondary in the consumer workspace. Even high end consumer NVMe SSDs don't touch enterprise SSDs.
I know, I know, consumers should just be given i9-9900Ks and 970 PROs for free and everyone holds hands and dances and gets along. But that's not the way it works, and even SATA SSDs are more than capable of handling consumer workloads. With as small as margins are in the SSD game, we're lucky we don't pay more for less.
Why don't you go work for Micron or Toshiba/ SanDisk and then go work for Silicon Motion or Phison and develop "The People's" SSD? Hmm?
I read the review you linked and it actually recommended the SN500. Nowhere does the review state or even hint that consumers should stay away from it.
"the drive placed last in every performance test we put it through, though the WD drives is of a smaller capacity than its comparables". Of course it would score lower. Apples to oranges.
How is the latency on these drives? A system drive hardly ever does large File Transfers but ususually does a lot of random file access. Perhaps for a system drive its a good way to save some money without a significant performance penalty.
I know the Samsung EVO / PRO drives are the gold standard and for good reason. However if the diminishing returns are small enough perhaps its a good cost/performance tradeoff.
Samsung hasn't been the "gold standard" for several years now. SSDs utilizing Micron/ Intel NAND and Silicon Motion controllers have been on par or even outperformed Samsung SSDs. Even Intel's 660p can keep up (and even outperform) the 970 EVO in certain metrics, but SSDs utilizing Micron 64-layer and SM2262 are really what shine against Samsung (EX920 and SX8200).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
50 Comments
Back to Article
Marlin1975 - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
Actually not bad for one that does not have any large external buffer. That and this is the 250gb model so the 500 should perform a little better as well.Dragonstongue - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
970 Evo Plus quite stands out for NVME based drives at ~$35 more for same size (just did a price check, amazon, 500gb for this vs 970 evo plus)so while "on paper" this appears great price, is still in very tough ground with ample contendors such as crucial with their p3 ( I believe it was called) countless samsung entries and the like.
for an extra ~$30-$40 seems like "normally" is just not worth it when can do for ones self (such as clock up the slower product, tweaking voltages and the like) when it comes to a "paper" difference and more or less proven real world data this is not all that good a price.
IMO is we take even a high performance HDD as a regular car speed, sata ssd (even highest performance) still is like an expensive supercar speed difference, the next jump would be the nvme based ones which are like top fuel dragsters (at best) but few tracks let them breathe proper and have to deal with engine problems (throttling etc) that normal drive do not have to deal with AND more $$$$$$..
top fuel costs $$$$, do you ALWAYS see this speed, nope, but when you do, is wonderful, when you do not, it becomes a "so why did I pay that much more for little gain and loss in capacity as well as specific motherboards to tap the advantage" etc etc.
kudos to WD, but alas, the margins are so very narrow and expected performance so high is near a non starter for all companies.
I feel the "new standard" for storage should be @500gb for performance and capacity reasons with 1tb prefered (even a 250nvme + whatever size SSD flash in a raid internal no driver required fashion .. I always liked concept of hybrid drives, why not use hybrid memory styles to leverage as well, instead of saddling fast memory with spinning rust, use high speed low endurance flash with lower speed high endurance other flash.
they do pci-e basd, nvme based, sata based etc etc, all have own benefit and detriment. I personally love sata based, leave the motherboard real estate for other things, they should do a further rendition of sata for the hole outs (like me and others whom have a variety of reasons)
if they can patch pci-e to nvme, why not use sta 6 (like current) but tap x2 or x4 pci-e lanes to it as well, let us call it SATA-X, backwarrds compatible with Sta 6g to sata 1 ofc, this would allow some sata or whatever drives up their speed but use a familiar/durable/more widespread form factor.
if all nvme based drives would work in all board or they would not interfere with mobo, not have throttle issues because of dog meta cooling designs (motherboard AND drive maker often enough) it would not be as much an issue, I like sata drive for such reasons, mainly can look "nicer" tend to be much more durable, that much less costly etc etc.
anyways, if WD could do 500 for the price of the 250, that would be most excellent, but as the pricing is, mehhh, overall nice rounded performance with no real shortcomings compared to many others even some of the much more $ drives are not as "rounded" for this they at least did very well at, that much should be said.
like Crucial with MX100, MX500, Samsung with the 800 through 970s (sata and nvme ofc) there are levels that are nice to hit, this SN500 is very much on that edge, up the performance a tough more, reduce price a touch (keep say $40 or better gap between this and the 970 evo plus) then this is that new "leg"
crucial 100/mx500 are more "budget" compared to the "sometimes" faster sammy 8xx/9xx drives, sammy ofc got the speed and endurance markers out there, this "could be" that leg of "rounded performance" just like the mx500 or sammy 8xx/9xx evo ^.^
sonny73n - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
Is this a comment or an essay?Hul8 - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
"Stream of consciousness" is a style, but usually only applied to fiction.LMonty - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
Haha! He just needed to get it out of his system :)Thud2 - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
Can you elaborate?Jorgp2 - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
Pretty sure this is targeted mostly at OEMsDyneCorp - Wednesday, April 24, 2019 - link
The MX500 is on par with the 860 EVO. SSDs with Micron 64-layer 3D TLC NAND and the SM2262 controller (HP EX920 and ADATA SX8200) absolutely destroy Samsung 9 series NVMe SSDs in certain metrics.The initial price of any product is always high. The SN500 will drop in price. In fact, its not even selling at its suggested retail price from most retailers.
And by the way, comparing SSDs to motor vehicles is ridiculous. Please stop.
jabber - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
It will do fine for a Steam drive.fazalmajid - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
I don’t see how such puny capacities can be mainstream, specially when most motherboards or laptops have a limited number of M.2 slots. My minimum would be a 1TB or 2TB Intel 660P.kpb321 - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
A lot of people don't need much space. I just upgraded my wife from a 128gb SSD to a 256gb SSD. The 128GB SSD was getting a little full because of pictures of our son and I was occasionally having to free up space for Windows update etc. We could have stuck with the 128gb and migrated her entire picture collection to the NAS or kept freeing up space when needed but a 256 SATA SSD is so cheap I figured why not upgrade. Her old 128gb got stuck in my in-law's computer to replace the old slow 500gb hd they had in the system. They are using less than half the space on that SSD so should be fine for a long time and if really needed I can always setup the 500gb hd as a secondary storage drive for them. The old days of 32/64gb SSD being barely adequate are passed. Windows + a decent selection of apps is fine on a 128gb SSD and 256gb gives even more head room.jabber - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
Been running my work laptop on a 64GB SSD for several years now. Some of us don't need to keep masses of data on a device that goes out and about. Sometimes carrying masses of data is a liability.RealBeast - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
Don't know about mainstream, but no way that I would waste precious M.2 slots on some small slow drive like this one.Sure a .5-2TB, but not really a 660P for me (they should be on SATA ports at my house). I use those ports for fast drives.
beginner99 - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
In a laptop you might have a point but in a desktop? Put the OS on it and the most used apps like browser. If you don't game you are already set. For games you can use a hdd or a large cheap sata ssd as it doesn't really matter much what you use.stephenbrooks - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
If you have a lot of games you'll want both large capacity and fast access.But other than capacity, this "low end" NVMe drive looks great. It's clearly possible for them to do 1TB+ versions in the future too, in one way or another.
Korguz - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
fazalmajid you may not see it.. but others do.. for me.. i usually use a small drive for my C drive, aka windows drive, before it was 120, now.. as 120 gig drives have next to vanished, im using 250 gig drives, with other bigger drives for other things.. so when it come times for format, and install fresh.. instead of having to move and then redo a big drive.. all i have to deal with, is a small drive with little to no " i want to keep this so i need to move it to another drive " swapping...stephenbrooks - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
I found Windows wants to put "User" data and "Program Files" on the same primary drive, so it can grow in size and even end up containing data I want to keep, even if I try to separate the two.Korguz - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
i check those 2 directories as part of the " i want to keep this so i need to move it to another drive " searching, and then moving... :-)tipoo - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
I'd still be interested in seeing a T2 SSD (Apple) put through these paces. Usually they did great in sequential tests but not so much in 4k randoms, so I wonder how it would do on, say, Destroyer.kpb321 - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
This drive did exceed my expectations for a x2 pci-e lanes with no Dram and no HBM but the pricing is going to be key. The SM2262 drives have gotten pretty inexpensive and don't leave a lot of room for a drive like this even as good as it may be for what it is. I just recently picked up the ADATA version of the HP EX920 @ $73 for the 480gb drive. That a x4 drive with dram on it and should beat this drive pretty consistently. Personally this drive would need to be down around $60 before I'd consider the price difference meaningful enough to consider this drive.DyneCorp - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
You got the EX920 512GB on sale. That's not the typical retail price, and the SN500 is already sitting at $65 retail.You understand the price of this drive will go down? As they always do after initial release? And when the prices of NAND skyrocket again, the SN500 will have a major advantage?
For the majority of consumers, the SN500 is a viable option.
airider - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
This is WD clearing out their inventory while making way for the higher capacity/performance versions coming out shortly. Don't expect to see this product anymore by the end of 2019.flyingpants265 - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
Wait, so it's not QLC nand? That's great. It states 300TB write endurance, compared to the 100TB of the 500gb Crucial P1, for the same price. Goodbye, QLC! For now..DyneCorp - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
For consumers, the endurance rating matters none. You'll never chew through 100TB of endurance, especially under consumer workloads. The massive SLC cache buffers utilized in the P1 and 660p in addition to smart caching algorithms increase endurance substantially. Also, the DRAM buffer in addition to smart controller firmware effectively mitigate write amplification by several factors. You'll never chew through the endurance of the P1 or the 660p, period.Endurance ratings are meaningless under consumer workloads. SSDs far outlast their given endurance ratings.
flyingpants265 - Wednesday, April 24, 2019 - link
Well, hopefully. Because just to download install one game (hitman 2) requires about 240GB of writes. If I do that 3 times, that's 1% of my drive's life gone.flyingpants265 - Wednesday, April 24, 2019 - link
Uh, 4 times.DyneCorp - Wednesday, April 24, 2019 - link
This is incorrect. 240GB of writes does not equal 240GB of endurance lost, especially if they are sequential writes because:1.) The controller can reduce write amplification by intelligently shifting data around
2.) Sequential writes to the SLC cache increase endurance significantly
3.) Folding blocks from the pSLC cache to QLC actually increases endurance
DyneCorp - Wednesday, April 24, 2019 - link
By the way, this is evidenced by the ADATA SU800. It has a massive dynamic SLC cache buffer and older Micron 32-layer 384-Gbit NAND and still carries the highest endurance rating on the market.willis936 - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
I'm surprised there isn't a significant difference in idle power consumption or drive-side efficiency for a DRAMless NVMe drive. This is a pretty nice piece of hardware, regardless of price.DyneCorp - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
Thanks for the review, Billy! I really appreciate your work; you always do an excellent job and I appreciate you taking time out of your life to throw these reviews up.Without the DRAM buffer, how do you think write amplification is affected? Obviously endurance is actually quite high (in SU800 territory) and performance is quite high. This is especially interesting considering how small the SLC cache buffer is.
Do you think WD has effectively mitigated negative endurance impact through firmware?
gglaw - Saturday, April 20, 2019 - link
There really is no market segment for this drive unless the WD name is enough to sway a lot of customers. Pretty much every week there's an EX920 or Adata 8200 500GB drive for between $70-$80 and they are superior to this drive in every way. You could nitpick on brand reliability, etc, but both those drives have an incredible track record in the last couple years.For a primary OS/Apps drive, I would get the faster HP/Adata for a few bucks more, and for a games/storage drive I would get the cheapest SATA I could find (usually an Adata 1TB for $90). Can't think of any scenario I would get a budget NVME over one of these options. This WD drive would have to drop to $60 to be a real contender.
DyneCorp - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
There's absolutely a market.The SN500 will drop in price drastically. It also will stand out when prices increase, as they always do. Just as QLC dropped in price, just as 3D NAND dropped in price.
Why you people have to drop negative comments about a product that was just released, I'll never understand. It always drops in price. First world problems, my son.
By the way, spending "a few bucks more" for an overkill drive makes no sense. The SN500 is more than capable as an OS drive.
Realistically, WD releasing the SN500 provides more competition and that will lower prices. I really don't understand what your issue is.
Cisco Guy 318 - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
Abismal endurance! What happened to petabyte endurance? MLC is bad enough but the newer chips have poor endurance!FunBunny2 - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
to paraphrase an ancient consultants' adage: "speed, endurance, capacity; choose two".DyneCorp - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
Except that 64-layer 3D TLC NAND has exceeded planar MLC in every metric?FunBunny2 - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
for now, I suppose. so long as TLC is fabricated on 40-50nm, perhaps so. capitalist greed will, in due time, impel vendors to drop down to contemporary nodes in search of capacity. what then? or, is it, now?Mr Tallis: true of speed and endurance?
DyneCorp - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
Except that 64-layer 3D NAND (and up) from Samsung and Micron/ Intel is at 20nm and Toshiba/ Western Digital is at 19nm. You understand planar TLC basically ceased at 14-15nm?Back in 2016, with the advent of smart SLC caching techniques in addition to intelligent controller firmware, SSDs utilizing 3D NAND effectively outpaced 2D "planar" MLC. In fact, the 660p (utilizing 3D QLC) can perform on par (in certain metrics) with SSDs utilizing MLC because of Intel's intelligent pSLC caching strategies.
In the end, it doesn't matter. You'll never chew through the endurance of a modern SSD when subjecting it to consumer workloads, period. The controller can effectively mitigate write amplification in most circumstances.
DyneCorp - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
Abysmal endurance? Far from it. The SN500 carries an endurance rating far above the Samsung 850 EVO and is in SU800 territory; its endurance rating is actually quite high, comparatively.You do understand that just about any SSD utilizing 3D NAND has endurance ratings far beyond what 2D planar MLC SSDs had?
Most importantly, remember this: endurance doesn't matter for consumer drives. SSDs last far beyond their warranted endurance life.It's been tested.
Why is this? Because modern controllers can effectively mitigate write amplification by several factors. The majority of consumer workloads will NEVER burn through rated endurance, period. Honestly, including a TBW rating is unnecessary.
PeachNCream - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
You can expend the write endurance of a modern SSD. It isn't a difficult prospect and workloads don't have to be heavy ones for that to happen.DyneCorp - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
Under consumer workloads (OS and gaming) no, you cannot. It has been tested. Also, SSDs regularly outlast their given TBW rating by multiple times. If you check the S.M.A.R.T. attributes and software of older planar SSDs you'll see that even heavily utilized SSDs are healthy.rkmcquillen - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
This review is glowing about this hard drive. Contrast that with StorageReview.com, which basically says "stay away". I don't understand how these 2 reviews could be so different.https://www.storagereview.com/wd_blue_sn500_nvme_s...
"the drive placed last in every performance test we put it through"
DyneCorp - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
Did you even read the full article from the review you posted?Conclusion:
"In the end, for users looking to upgrade an older SATA SSD or HDD the WD Blue SN500 may be an ideal candidate where price is the leading decision factor and performance comes secondary. Considering a sub-$55 entry price, the overall package is impressive."
Did you even read the review from Anandtech?
FunBunny2 - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
"and performance comes secondary"So, I guess you're admitting that it really is any two?
DyneCorp - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
Performance is always secondary in the consumer workspace. Even high end consumer NVMe SSDs don't touch enterprise SSDs.I know, I know, consumers should just be given i9-9900Ks and 970 PROs for free and everyone holds hands and dances and gets along. But that's not the way it works, and even SATA SSDs are more than capable of handling consumer workloads. With as small as margins are in the SSD game, we're lucky we don't pay more for less.
Why don't you go work for Micron or Toshiba/ SanDisk and then go work for Silicon Motion or Phison and develop "The People's" SSD? Hmm?
LMonty - Friday, April 26, 2019 - link
I read the review you linked and it actually recommended the SN500. Nowhere does the review state or even hint that consumers should stay away from it."the drive placed last in every performance test we put it through, though the WD drives is of a smaller capacity than its comparables". Of course it would score lower. Apples to oranges.
GruntboyX - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
How is the latency on these drives? A system drive hardly ever does large File Transfers but ususually does a lot of random file access. Perhaps for a system drive its a good way to save some money without a significant performance penalty.I know the Samsung EVO / PRO drives are the gold standard and for good reason. However if the diminishing returns are small enough perhaps its a good cost/performance tradeoff.
....or am I missing something?
DyneCorp - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
Samsung hasn't been the "gold standard" for several years now. SSDs utilizing Micron/ Intel NAND and Silicon Motion controllers have been on par or even outperformed Samsung SSDs. Even Intel's 660p can keep up (and even outperform) the 970 EVO in certain metrics, but SSDs utilizing Micron 64-layer and SM2262 are really what shine against Samsung (EX920 and SX8200).evan.drake - Monday, April 22, 2019 - link
Fueled by 3D NAND: https://www.wd.com/en-us/products/internal-ssd/wd-... #WDCemployeeBarry S - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link
I found the BAPCo SYSmark 2018 Responsiveness test very interesting. It kind of puts things in perspective. Thanks for including it.