# Brand new 120gb WD Green SSD slow asf!



## Lionheart (Nov 7, 2018)

Hey guys, alright I'm going to get straight to the point, bought a new 120gb WD Green ssd & it's performing like garbage. 99% disk usage half the time under task manager & some apps take a while to install.

I ran an SSD benchmark to see what you guys think. 

Btw I have around 73gb left out of 111gb on the ssd.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 7, 2018)

Man those write speeds are ass

What’s the exact drive model


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 7, 2018)

I am super sorry to see you with performance issues, but I am still sitting here baffled because I just learned that WD makes a green SSD.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 7, 2018)

BIOS settings all good? AHCI mode? What OS? Trim enabled?



Solaris17 said:


> I am super sorry to see you with performance issues, but I am still sitting here baffled because I just learned that WD makes a green SSD.



In this case green stands for "slow as shit" instead of energy efficient


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 7, 2018)

Mussels said:


> In this case green stands for "slow as shit" instead of energy efficient


Or it stands for economy/DRAMless..


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 7, 2018)

Durvelle27 said:


> Man those write speeds are ass
> 
> What’s the exact drive model



Model String: WDC WDS120G2G0A-00JH30
Serial Number: 183119459812
Maximum LBA: 234455039
WWN: 5001B444A9DBA7B6

Hope that helps. 



Solaris17 said:


> I am super sorry to see you with performance issues, but I am still sitting here baffled because I just learned that WD makes a green SSD.



LMFAO this made me laugh more than I thought it would 



Mussels said:


> BIOS settings all good? AHCI mode? What OS? Trim enabled?
> 
> 
> 
> In this case green stands for "slow as shit" instead of energy efficient



Yeah BIOS settings all good, its in AHCI mode, OS is Windows 10 Home 64bit & Trim is enabled.  

Slow as shit! Lmao you got that right.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 7, 2018)

Lionheart said:


> Slow as shit! Lmao you got that right.


Either it's got a defect or something is holding that drive back. It should be performing much better than you showed.


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 7, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> Either it's got a defect or something is holding that drive back. It should be performing much better than you showed.



Yeah I've tried different SATA ports & cables, same result, I figured it's just a defective shitty drive but wanted TPU's 2cents before taking it back, cheers.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 7, 2018)

Lionheart said:


> Yeah I've tried different SATA ports & cables, same result, I figured it's just a defective shitty drive but wanted TPU's 2cents before taking it back, cheers.


Do yourself a favor and spend the extra $10 for the WD Blue version of that drive. Trust me, it's worth it.


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 7, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> Do yourself a favor and spend the extra $10 for the WD Blue version of that drive. Trust me, it's worth it.



No worries will do, cheers


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 7, 2018)

Update the firmware using the Western Digital SSD Dashboard: https://community.wd.com/t/wd-green-writing-speed-problem/217536/32

However you won't get much joy out of that drive regardless - not only is that a DRAM-less controller but the small capacity means the SLC buffer gets filled very quickly. 120GB drives just don't have enough physical NAND dies present to allow the parallelism that makes SSDs fast, which is why 240GB is kinda the minimum size I'd recommend.

That said, as per @lexluthermiester the Blue version of this drive will give you a lot more joy if 120GB is the capacity you need.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 7, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> Update the firmware using the Western Digital SSD Dashboard: https://community.wd.com/t/wd-green-writing-speed-problem/217536/32
> 
> However you won't get much joy out of that drive regardless - not only is that a DRAM-less controller but the small capacity means the SLC buffer gets filled very quickly. 120GB drives just don't have enough physical NAND dies present to allow the parallelism that makes SSDs fast, which is why 240GB is kinda the minimum size I'd recommend.
> 
> That said, as per @lexluthermiester the Blue version of this drive will give you a lot more joy if 120GB is the capacity you need.



Meh, my Intel 80GB SATA2 does a hell load better than that, maybe the combination of the 2, sure they tend to be a little slower but dam.


----------



## natr0n (Nov 7, 2018)

You have to optimize the drive a few times.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 7, 2018)

AsRock said:


> Meh, my Intel 80GB SATA2 does a hell load better than that, maybe the combination of the 2, sure they tend to be a little slower but dam.



More NAND dies in your much older drive, plus they are SLC or MLC which are inherently faster than TLC, plus it has a DRAM mapping table.


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 8, 2018)

Cheers guys, appreciate the input. Firmware is up to date via the WD dashboard software. Yeah I'm just going to take it back & grab a WD blue one instead.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 8, 2018)

Get a bigger drive, small(er) ones will hardly be an upgrade over this WD green. At least 240~256GB is what I'd recommend.


----------



## Glaring_Mistake (Nov 9, 2018)

Lionheart said:


> Hey guys, alright I'm going to get straight to the point, bought a new 120gb WD Green ssd & it's performing like garbage. 99% disk usage half the time under task manager & some apps take a while to install.
> 
> I ran an SSD benchmark to see what you guys think.
> 
> ...



Think that's a tad worse than I've seen this model perform but it's in the same ballpark.
You see; WD first came out with a WD Green which used 15nm 2D TLC NAND combined with a DRAMless controller from Silicon Motion (SM2258XT) and...well it is not a very impressive drive.
However WD updated the WD Green to use 3D TLC NAND with what looks to be a rebranded controller from Phison usually used in USB flash drives with only a change in model number to indicate a change (new version is G2, old version G1) and its performance is even lower than the first revision.
Your drive is the second revision which explains the poor performance.


----------



## Vario (Nov 9, 2018)

The HDD Green models are trash so I am not surprised the SSD are too.


Glaring_Mistake said:


> Think that's a tad worse than I've seen this model perform but it's in the same ballpark.
> You see; WD first came out with a WD Green which used 15nm 2D TLC NAND combined with a DRAMless controller from Silicon Motion (SM2258XT) and...well it is not a very impressive drive.
> However WD updated the WD Green to use 3D TLC NAND with what looks to be a rebranded controller from Phison usually used in USB flash drives with only a change in model number to indicate a change (new version is G2, old version G1) and its performance is even lower than the first revision.
> Your drive is the second revision which explains the poor performance.



A few years ago WD did a switcheroo with their HDD, they renamed the super slow 5400 Green series to be Blue EZRZ, they like to trick consumers into buying their green junk.  The previous Blue (EZEX) was faster than the Black.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 10, 2018)

Solaris17 said:


> I am super sorry to see you with performance issues, but I am still sitting here baffled because I just learned that WD makes a green SSD.


About 6 months ago they added it to the blue line.  It hasn’t been widely available though.



Vario said:


> The HDD Green models are trash so I am not surprised the SSD are too.


Actually in an external drive just used for storage, the Green HDD’s are great, especially if you got a later model after the idle timer issue.  

I use one for server OS backup, and another as main rig storage in an HDD enclosure.  Neither has any sign of dying after 3 Years of continuous on, and SMART looks good.  Whether they are trash or not really depends on if you use them in the proper role.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 10, 2018)

Greens are for power savings, slow trash.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 10, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Greens are for power savings, slow trash.


Again, when used in their proper role they are fine. Too many people did not understand that and tried to use them as normal drives.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 10, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually in an external drive just used for storage, the Green HDD’s are great, especially if you got a later model after the idle timer issue.


Have to agree with this. The WD Greens are great when *NOT* used as a boot drive.


rtwjunkie said:


> Again, when used in their proper role they are fine. Too many people did not understand that *and tried to use them as normal drives.*


Which is why they have such an undeserved reputation. While they can be used in such a way, they're not intended for use a system's main platform.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 10, 2018)

It's not you, it's the drive. WD has gone and change things around and the WD Green should be avoided at all cost from now on, if this review is anything to go by - https://www.nordichardware.se/test/test-wd-green-med-3d-nand-samre-an-forut.html?/inledning (apologies for it being in Swedish, but some Google translate and looking at the graphs should help).
It's technically a USB 3.0 drive with a SATA interface. It's one of the slowest SSDs they've ever tested, which speaks volume for how good it is. The summary calls the performance "lousy".


----------



## ShurikN (Nov 10, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> 120GB drives just don't have enough physical NAND dies present to allow the parallelism that makes SSDs fast, which is why 240GB is kinda the minimum size I'd recommend.


Both true and not. 
Example:
I bought my dad a Patriot Blaze 60GB drive a couple of years ago. That drive is running on a SATA2 controller and pushes numbers better than this PoS (sorry Lionhart).
The capacity does matter, but if the controller and nand are crap... not even 1TB will help.


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 10, 2018)

TheLostSwede said:


> It's not you, it's the drive. WD has gone and change things around and the WD Green should be avoided at all cost from now on, if this review is anything to go by - https://www.nordichardware.se/test/test-wd-green-med-3d-nand-samre-an-forut.html?/inledning (apologies for it being in Swedish, but some Google translate and looking at the graphs should help).
> It's technically a USB 3.0 drive with a SATA interface. It's one of the slowest SSDs they've ever tested, which speaks volume for how good it is. The summary calls the performance "lousy".



Jesus christ that bad aye. Yeah I think I've learnt my lesson, get a blue WD or stick with the quality samsung evo/pro drives 



ShurikN said:


> Both true and not.
> Example:
> I bought my dad a Patriot Blaze 60GB drive a couple of years ago. That drive is running on a SATA2 controller and pushes numbers better than this PoS (sorry Lionhart).
> The capacity does matter, but if the controller and nand are crap... not even 1TB will help.



lol it's all good. Yeah I need to actually read up reviews next time when purchasing an SSD, instead of assuming they're all naturally fast.


----------



## puma99dk| (Nov 10, 2018)

@Lionheart

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread but your ASRock 990FX got 2 SATA controller 6 of them from the AMD SB950 chipset and 2 of them from a Marvell SE9120 have you tried to update the drivers to the latest for Windows 10?

If so is it possible to test this out with another controller that's not AMD or Marvell?

AMD Released a new chipset driver 9/4/2018 Link: https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-9-series-chipsets/990fx
DL: https://www2.ati.com/drivers/amd-chipset-drivers_18.10_0830.exe


The driver for the Marvell controller is a bit old but the newest I can find.

Marvel SE9120 Dec 26th, 2016: https://drivers.softpedia.com/get/M...roller-Driver-1-2-0-1049-for-Windows-10.shtml


Try it, it's free could also just be controller in the WD Green that doesn't like the AMD SB950 and Marvel SE9120 controllers.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 10, 2018)

This looks a classic case of bait & switch, simple as that.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 10, 2018)

I'd suggest ADATA 128GB SU800 if you're looking for a budget drive...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 10, 2018)

TheLostSwede said:


> It's not you, it's the drive. WD has gone and change things around and the WD Green should be avoided at all cost from now on, if this review is anything to go by - https://www.nordichardware.se/test/test-wd-green-med-3d-nand-samre-an-forut.html?/inledning (apologies for it being in Swedish, but some Google translate and looking at the graphs should help).
> It's technically a USB 3.0 drive with a SATA interface. It's one of the slowest SSDs they've ever tested, which speaks volume for how good it is. The summary calls the performance "lousy".


Totally agree.  In the SSD era there is no reason to settle for something this slow.  If it’s power savings, that’s ridiculous.  There are a lot of really decent drives that use hardly any power.  And if it’s cost, there are cheaper drives that outperform it.

Just get a WD Blue 3D.  They are great and very affordable. I use one as my Server OS drive.


----------



## Splinterdog (Nov 10, 2018)

Spotted somewhere else:
"I’m currently dealing with a simple RMA of a failed WD Red drive.. I would not wish this for my worst enemy. Satan is heading WD’s customer service. "


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Nov 10, 2018)

Looking at the sequential write it not right. Can't be that slow. The 4k random io speed is pretty pathetic in this era of ssd drive. Even ssd from 2013 and before is faster, even my samsung 256GB 
ssd in my macbook 2011 is faster than that wd green! Got to be one of the crappiest ssd I have ever seen.

I do agree SSD controller and type of Nand play a huge impact on speed, bigger capacity may not compensate well. I miss my Crucial MX100 although I am currently running on an Sandisk plus 480GB ssd it is still slower than my Crucial Mx100 in responsiveness.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 10, 2018)

MIRTAZAPINE said:


> Sandisk plus


There is another very decent affordable line.  Of course owned by WD now, and is basically what their Blue drives are.


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 10, 2018)

puma99dk| said:


> @Lionheart
> 
> Sorry I haven't read the whole thread but your ASRock 990FX got 2 SATA controller 6 of them from the AMD SB950 chipset and 2 of them from a Marvell SE9120 have you tried to update the drivers to the latest for Windows 10?
> 
> ...



Thanks dude, appreciate it, will give it a shot.


----------



## puma99dk| (Nov 10, 2018)

Lionheart said:


> Thanks dude, appreciate it, will give it a shot.



I want to try to help. Make a restore point in Windows 10 before updating the chipset driver and Marvell sata driver.

I hope myself it will help and not a weird quirk with the WD Green SSD and the old AMD/Marvel SATA Controller.


----------



## Vario (Nov 10, 2018)

Lionheart said:


> Jesus christ that bad aye. Yeah I think I've learnt my lesson, get a blue WD or stick with the quality samsung evo/pro drives
> 
> 
> 
> lol it's all good. Yeah I need to actually read up reviews next time when purchasing an SSD, instead of assuming they're all naturally fast.


Always research the specific model number, in case they bait and switch by renaming the Green SSD to be "Blue" like they did the HDD.


----------



## suraswami (Nov 10, 2018)

My Samsung SSD on my server has similar issue, I have to go and enable write-caching every time I have to reboot the server.  Some kind of Driver issue, still haven't figured it out.  It is only my home server OS drive on a AM1 platform, so didn't care about it, I will have to rebuild it as some point.


----------

