One Design, Two Products: The SanDisk Ultra 3D (1TB) and WD Blue 3D (1TB) SSD Reviews, with BiCS 3D NANDby Billy Tallis on September 14, 2017 9:00 AM EST
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.
Orange is for the new drives, Blue is for the previous generation models
The new 3D NAND gives a minimal improvement in average data rate on The Destroyer for Western Digital's SSDs. SanDisk's 3D NAND is faster than Micron's first-generation 32L 3D TLC NAND as used in the Crucial MX300, but not quite as fast as the second-generation 64L 3D TLC in the Intel 545s. The Samsung 850 EVO remains the fastest SATA SSD with TLC on this test.
The new WD Blue and SanDisk Ultra 3D show substantial improvements in both average and 99th percentile latency, putting them on par with the Samsung 850 PRO and ahead of any other SATA TLC SSD.
The average read and write latency on The Destroyer have both improved with SanDisk's 3D TLC compared to the planar 15nm TLC, with the more significant improvement being to write latency, where the new Western Digital SSDs are at the top of the chart.
The 99th percentile latencies don't show quite as much improvement as the averages above, but there is still a clear improvement for both reads and writes that put the new WD and SanDisk drives ahead of anything else that uses TLC.
Energy efficiency is much improved with SanDisk's 3D TLC compared to their 15nm planar TLC. The Crucial MX300 uses a bit less energy despite being slower on The Destroyer, and the Intel 545s with its Silicon Motion controller still comes out on top. While Samsung's older 850 PRO and 850 EVO are still quite good in terms of performance, their energy usage now stands out as higher than the modern competition.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
MrSpadge - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - linkThe production cost is pretty much the same, be it SATA or PCIe. So "SATA being tapped" doesn't help price at all, except for the fact that manufacturers can't bill you for extra performance. But that was always the case with the slower SSDs.
nathanddrews - Friday, September 15, 2017 - linkI know it's not realistic, hence "it would just be nice if".
CheapSushi - Sunday, September 17, 2017 - linkV-NAND QLC will make that happen. I think for bulk storage, QLC SATA drives will be perfect for that duty and will decrease price per GB.
Magichands8 - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - linkUnfortunately, it's still about 3 times more expensive than it should be for it to be viable. Still wouldn't buy either as they're both crippled by the SATA interface but hey, at least they got the form factor right by offering them in 2.5".
MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - linkI'm not aware of any SSDs that are 1/3 the price, and there certainly aren't any that are 1/3 the price and have competitive performance. The SATA interface will not be going away for a while, and most people don't need the performance afforded by PCIe
DanNeely - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - linkI assume he's sulking because it's still about 5-6x as expensive as spinning rust. ($50 for the 1TB blue at 5400 RPM on amazon). I haven't seen any more recent projections but as of a a year ago the crossover in price per TB was predicted to occur in the mid 2020's; so we've still got a way to go.
MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - linkFair point, but SSDs are still viable without a price drop, mass-market adoption is what requires the price drop
Magichands8 - Friday, September 15, 2017 - linkOh I don't mind paying a premium for the SSD tech but I do mind the ridiculously inflated prices and performance bottlenecks that we've had to put up with for years and years. From the other posts here it's obvious that there are a lot of people comfortable with that though and willing if not eager to pay very high prices for low capacity and low performance drives even while manufacturers have had years to differentiate their products. Even when said people must know of the supply shortages and the impending lower prices only a matter of months away. Like I've said before, drives like these might be real last ditch options for people in a crunch who absolutely need a replacement drive immediately or perhaps some other niche reason. But otherwise it just doesn't make much sense.
CheapSushi - Sunday, September 17, 2017 - linkAre you saying this because you want to have ONE drive in your system to function as a performance panacea? I can see why someone would advocate for that particular setup if JUST a gamer with a mini-ITX system. But with ATX systems, there's nothing wrong with multiple drives; fom NVMe Optane, to NVMe PCIe to AHCI SATA, each have a place.
Magichands8 - Sunday, September 17, 2017 - linkEVERYONE should advocate for that setup. You're obviously very accustomed to think it natural for someone to have 3 or 4 different kinds of storage to achieve their goal(s). Are you telling me that if I offered you a single drive and interface that satisfied all of those rolls you would reject it? Are you actually advocating that computer users should be FORCED to compromise at every step of the way when they use their system?