Performance Comparisons – Client QD Weighted
These results attempt to simplify things by focusing on what really matters – the Queue Depths that folks actually see when using these products. A dimension is eliminated from the previous charts by applying a weighted average to those results. The weights were derived from trace recordings of moderate to heavy workloads, which still ended up running closer to QD=1-2 even on a slower SATA SSD. The intent here is to distill the results into something for those wanting 'just the facts' to grab and go when making their purchasing decisions. Don't be alarmed by the low figures. Remember, these are low queue depths – the place where these SSDs actually operate when in use by those not just running benchmarks all day!
Since client workloads lean heavily towards reads, keep a focus on the blue bars for a moment. The new WD and SanDisk parts turn in figures in the 19k range, which beat all other comps except for the Samsung 960 EVO at 20k and the PRO at 25k. For a caching SSD, these two new products come extremely close to Samsung's caching part.
Now let's shift to random writes (orange bars) for a moment. First, the new WD parts beat *all* comps here. We normally don't include Optane memory parts like the Intel SSD 800P or even the 900P because they walk all over NAND SSDs, but take a look at those results really quick and then come back here. The 800P turns in figures in the ~75-78k range, while the 900P pushes to the low 98k's. The WD Black is OVER 101k in this same test! That is the top score we have ever measured for this metric. Ever. …and it's beating an HHHL Optane SSD!
Samsung still owns the field for sequential reads, but once again the WD and SanDisk are cleaning house on writes, and yes, those are once again the highest recorded scores across all SSDs we've ever tested (scroll down), including Optane parts. It's really too bad that client workloads are typically heavier on reads than writes.
This % read sweep chart shows the random QD weighted results between full reads and full writes. We look for a smooth curve here and all SSDs behave as expected with no surprises.
Im about to build a new
Im about to build a new system and all these new NVMe drives coming out which is starting to make the Samsung 960 EVO look antiquated. What to do?
Given the random read (low
Given the random read (low QD) performance falls slightly behind the 960 EVO, I'd consider both products roughly equal and go for the lower cost/GB unless you wanted the more proven (Samsung) part. Josh found 960 EVOs on sale at Newegg for $0.40/GB last night, so in that moment I'd go with the EVO.
Second chart on “Performance
Second chart on “Performance Focus – Western Digital WD Black NVMe 1TB SSD” page is shown as Throughput, but should be IOPs (unless these drives are magically pushing over 300GBps 🙂 ).
Ooh, good catch. That chart
Ooh, good catch. That chart has been wrong for a *long* time apparently…
Great review and very solid
Great review and very solid drive.
But pardon of my ignorance, how is those thermals(Do you have FLIR)? Any thermal throttle?
This drive runs cool enough
This drive runs cool enough that WD didn't even need to use a copper-layered label as some other SSDs do, so I wouldn't consider it a concern. The controller has the capability to throttle if it needs to, but you'd have to be unrealistically hard on it to get to that point. This is the case with most M.2 SSDs – folks run a continuous storage test on them for minutes at a time and then complain about throttling, but nothing other than benchmarks hits the SSD that hard.
Maybe I am missing something,
Maybe I am missing something, but why does the Mixed Burst section have a screenshot of an OCZ drive when the article is about WD/Sandisk drives?
It’s a pic comparing a drive
It's a pic comparing a drive that has a harder time with the workload (left) to a faster drive that executes more quickly and consistently over time (right).
Hmm, I dunno. I feel like
Hmm, I dunno. I feel like 760p has higher random and sequential read while costing less, although there is no 1TB option still.
You’re right there – the 760P
You're right there – the 760P does run closer to the Samsung parts in read performance, and also is competitive on cost, but not available in 1TB. I was trying to stick with a sampling of various SSDs at or above the 1TB capacity point but some models we have only tested 512GB (the previous WD Black), and the charts get too cluttered if we go higher than 10.
Why are they taking so long
Why are they taking so long for 1tb? 🙁 I might even want 2tb in the future… Or a 4tb MX500. Is it the controller?
I suspect that the issue is
I suspect that the issue is limited space for the dies which are required to support larger capacities.
I suspect that to be the case
I suspect that to be the case for the Intel since it’s m.2, but for MX500? I think there’s more room in there.
My X79 mobo was before m.2 so
My X79 mobo was before m.2 so I used an Intel 750. With no NVMe boot options, Windows and those calls come from an SATA SSD while programs and the Swap File are on the 750. I know this ‘parallel’ fetching isn’t meaningful, and the whole system is very fast (4930K – I only buy if I have to).
I remember an early m.2 mobo (Asus) that stood the drive up in the path of the front cooling fan, but heat doesn’t seem to be much of an issue with the ones lying down.
I have looked at all SSD
I have looked at all SSD reviews out there and the only 2 that stand out are PC Perspective and Anandtech. Reason being you actually devise tests to suit the underlying architecture and not run of the mill benchmark suites.
Would it be possible to specify under System Setup if the drive is plugged on the motherboard’s M.2 slot or is on a PCIe add-in card?
Also it would be nice if for the top 10 drives you could show the difference in latency based on whether the drive is used via M.2 PCIe AIC adapter vs M.2 through the PCH linked to CPU via DMI3.
I second Jabbadap’s request for thermal data. I agree that in real-world systems you cant heat up a drive but I am more interested in systems used in harsh environments. The idea being that a drive that generates less of its own heat is likely to perform better in hotter ambient temperatures. I know one can always stick a M.2 cooler on but since you are pushing the drives during testing, it is simply a matter of fixing a thermal camera aimed at the drive under test.
Once again, I really appreciate your testing methodology.