Friday, July 28th 2017

Western Digital, SanDisk Shipping 3D NAND Blue and Ultra SSDs

by
Raevenlord
 Discuss (22 Comments)
Western Digital and SanDisk have updated their Blue and Ultra line of consumer SSDs with the latest 3D BiCS FLASH NAND technology. Capacities will range from 250 GB capacities through 500 GB and up to 1TB at launch, with a 2 TB SanDisk Ultra 3D SSD "coming soon." The hardware powering each drive is exactly the same, save for the difference in available storage: the controller used is a Marvell 88SS1074, protocol is SATA 6Gbps / AHCI, and even warranty stays the same through all WD and SanDisk models, at three-years (limited.)

The WD Blue line of SSDs will be available in both 2.5" and M.2 2280 single-sided models. Sequential read speed starts at 550 MB/s for both WD Blue 250 GB and SanDisk Ultra 3D, with sequential write speeds at a rated 525 MB/s and read/write IOPS being set at 95,000/81,000 respectively. All other (higher) capacities deliver slightly more performance: 560 MB/s sequential read speeds, 530 MB/s sequential writes, 95,000 random read IOPS, and 84,000 random write IOPS. Pricing is as follows: WD Blue 3D 250 GB ($89); Blue 3D 500 GB ($149.99), Blue 3D 1 TB ($279.99); SanDisk Ultra 3D 250 GB ($99.99), Ultra 3D 500 GB ($164.99), Ultra 3D 1TB ($279.99) and Ultra 3D 2TB ($549.99, currently unavailable.)
Source: Tom's Hardware

Related News

Add your own comment

22 Comments on Western Digital, SanDisk Shipping 3D NAND Blue and Ultra SSDs

#1
RejZoR
Jesus, one would expect better adoption of 2TB SSD's. People are so stingy they keep on using dumb tiny SSD boot drives with HDD's. Just slam a single SSD in the system and call it a day. You'll thank me later. It's so funny how people don't mind buying $500 graphic cards almost every year because they become obsolete so quickly, but SSD's which only become too small eventually is something they aren't willing to pay $500 or even slightly more. Why? I've gone with super expensive Samsung 850 Pro 2TB for this very reason. Graphic card that I've bough 2 years ago for 650€ is nearly worthless now. The 2TB SSD drive on the other hand, it has also been almost 2 years and I see absolutely no need to replace it. And projecting my data demands, that will most likely not change for the next 5 years minimum.
Posted on Reply
#2
wolar
RejZoRJesus, one would expect better adoption of 2TB SSD's. People are so stingy they keep on using dumb tiny SSD boot drives with HDD's. Just slam a single SSD in the system and call it a day. You'll thank me later. It's so funny how people don't mind buying $500 graphic cards almost every year because they become obsolete so quickly, but SSD's which only become too small eventually is something they aren't willing to pay $500 or even slightly more. Why? I've gone with super expensive Samsung 850 Pro 2TB for this very reason. Graphic card that I've bough 2 years ago for 650€ is nearly worthless now. The 2TB SSD drive on the other hand, it has also been almost 2 years and I see absolutely no need to replace it. And projecting my data demands, that will most likely not change for the next 5 years minimum.
Because there is no reason for most people. I only need the SSD for OS and games/programs. I can watch movies and series and anything else on my HDD the same way as i would if it was a SSD. Why pay so much more for 0 performance gain ?
Posted on Reply
#3
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Isn't $150 for 500GB pretty good these days?
Posted on Reply
#4
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
wolarBecause there is no reason for most people. I only need the SSD for OS and games/programs. I can watch movies and series and anything else on my HDD the same way as i would if it was a SSD. Why pay so much more for 0 performance gain ?
I'm with you. My movies all stream perfectly from HDD for a lot less money, and I'm not so impatient with life that I can't let a game take 15 extra seconds to load. It's not a big deal for me. So all I need is the OS SSD.
Posted on Reply
#5
OSdevr
FrickIsn't $150 for 500GB pretty good these days?
VERY
Posted on Reply
#6
bug
FrickIsn't $150 for 500GB pretty good these days?
Hell, at those prices even the 1TB is starting to look good.
Still, I need ~3TB to rid myself completely of mechanical drives. Funny thing is I don't even hoard movies, but I've got so much stuff piled up over the years, I don't even know what's in there any more.
Posted on Reply
#7
Assimilator
Finally, M.2 drives that are priced the same as for 2.5"!
RejZoRJesus, one would expect better adoption of 2TB SSD's. People are so stingy they keep on using dumb tiny SSD boot drives with HDD's. Just slam a single SSD in the system and call it a day. You'll thank me later. It's so funny how people don't mind buying $500 graphic cards almost every year because they become obsolete so quickly, but SSD's which only become too small eventually is something they aren't willing to pay $500 or even slightly more. Why? I've gone with super expensive Samsung 850 Pro 2TB for this very reason. Graphic card that I've bough 2 years ago for 650€ is nearly worthless now. The 2TB SSD drive on the other hand, it has also been almost 2 years and I see absolutely no need to replace it. And projecting my data demands, that will most likely not change for the next 5 years minimum.
I think there's still some skepticism around the longevity and reliability of SSDs; don't forget that the OCZ debacle was a few years ago, and some people are still dealing with dying 840 Evos even today. Not to mention that we have no idea what the industry standard form factor will be in half a decade; M.2 might have killed 2.5" SATA and you need an expensive addin card, or something better might come along, or...

Then there's the as-yet-unresolved issues with M.2 drives and heat dissipation...
Posted on Reply
#8
R00kie
AssimilatorFinally, M.2 drives that are priced the same as for 2.5"!
It's a Sata drive, that's probably why.
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
AssimilatorThen there's the as-yet-unresolved issues with M.2 drives and heat dissipation...
This drive shouldn't have those problems because it isn't running at the fast NVMe speeds. Limiting the drive to SATA speeds keeps the temps under control. And most people won't notice the difference.
Posted on Reply
#10
Assimilator
Hmmm, I also wonder if these 2.5" drives still have different PCBs (specially designed for the form factor), or if they're literally just M.2 devices slapped into a 2.5" casing? I would've thought that the latter option would be much cheaper, but seemingly companies aren't doing it.
newtekie1This drive shouldn't have those problems because it isn't running at the fast NVMe speeds. Limiting the drive to SATA speeds keeps the temps under control. And most people won't notice the difference.
That's true, but the advantage of 2.5" drives is that the "shell" around them could theoretically be used as a heatsink. Sadly it seems that the U.2 form factor, which would've allowed 2.5" NVMe SSDs, is stillborn on the desktop (Intel's SSD 750 is more than 2 years old and still the only 2.5" SSD that uses U.2).
Posted on Reply
#11
Parn
AssimilatorSadly it seems that the U.2 form factor, which would've allowed 2.5" NVMe SSDs, is stillborn on the desktop (Intel's SSD 750 is more than 2 years old and still the only 2.5" SSD that uses U.2).
I wish they would give U.2 another chance. M.2 is nice for keeping everything small and compact, but when dealing with desktops where there are plenty rooms in the case, I'd personally prefer to keep major components separate for better cooling.
Posted on Reply
#12
Assimilator
ParnI wish they would give U.2 another chance. M.2 is nice for keeping everything small and compact, but when dealing with desktops where there are plenty rooms in the case, I'd personally prefer to keep major components separate for better cooling.
Problem with U.2, just like SATA Express, is that the cabling is bulky and expensive, which means neither motherboard nor SSD manufacturers are willing to bundle it with their products. On the other hand, Thunderbolt 3 cables are much smaller and cheaper, can provide the same bandwidth as U.2, and perhaps un-coincidentally, Intel recently made Thunderbolt royalty-free, so we'll probably be seeing quite a lot of it in the Z370 motherboards that launch with Coffee Lake.

The other alternative, of course, is USB 3.2 which supports up to 20Gbps, which is only half of Thunderbolt but still more than 3 times faster than SATA3, and of course USB is everywhere. Problem is the fact that USB's maximum speeds are very much theoretical peaks, whereas Thunderbolt can actually hit near its claimed speeds.

Then there's the fact that you also now get Thunderbolt over USB... it's very confusing to be in the PC space nowadays.
Posted on Reply
#13
Parn
AssimilatorProblem with U.2, just like SATA Express, is that the cabling is bulky and expensive, which means neither motherboard nor SSD manufacturers are willing to bundle it with their products. On the other hand, Thunderbolt 3 cables are much smaller and cheaper, can provide the same bandwidth as U.2, and perhaps un-coincidentally, Intel recently made Thunderbolt royalty-free, so we'll probably be seeing quite a lot of it in the Z370 motherboards that launch with Coffee Lake.

The other alternative, of course, is USB 3.2 which supports up to 20Gbps, which is only half of Thunderbolt but still more than 3 times faster than SATA3, and of course USB is everywhere. Problem is the fact that USB's maximum speeds are very much theoretical peaks, whereas Thunderbolt can actually hit near its claimed speeds.

Then there's the fact that you also now get Thunderbolt over USB... it's very confusing to be in the PC space nowadays.
U.2 on a motherboard is just a standard SFF8087 port wired to 4x PCIe lanes. The issue is with the other end on the actual drives. Maybe they could re-design the physical interface on the drives.

But yeah, it does seem to me that Thunderbolt 40Gbps is the way to go. It will physically replace those U.2, SATAe and SATA3 ports. It just baffles me why mobo manufacturers even bother putting SATAe on the latest batch of Z270/X370 boards knowing it's already dead (I don't recall any modern SSDs made in this form factor, so it's even worse than U.2).

USB 3.2 would be nice for external SSDs or high speed flash drives, but its overhead is just too much for high speed/low latency internal storages.
Posted on Reply
#14
trparky
I have a feeling that SATA SSDs will be around for a long time to come. Sure, there are applications for M.2 SSDs like video editing and those people who want really fast boot up times but other than that there's really no need for an M.2 SSD when a SATA SSD will serve you just as well at a cheaper price.
Posted on Reply
#15
Assimilator
trparkyI have a feeling that SATA SSDs will be around for a long time to come. Sure, there are applications for M.2 SSDs like video editing and those people who want really fast boot up times but other than that there's really no need for an M.2 SSD when a SATA SSD will serve you just as well at a cheaper price.
Now I'm having visions of SATA becoming the new legacy connection, like IDE... the very thing it was created to replace. :(
Posted on Reply
#16
TheGuruStud
AssimilatorNow I'm having visions of SATA becoming the new legacy connection, like IDE... the very thing it was created to replace. :(
I've been using it since 2004. It's time to let go. Lol
Posted on Reply
#17
Prima.Vera
Why the 100Gb Ethernet is not becoming a standard too? Is more than twice the speed of overly expensive ThunderBolt.
Posted on Reply
#18
trparky
SATA still works just fine for the majority of users, it'll be here to stay for quite awhile. When SATA still delivers decent speeds it's not very cost effective to go m.2.
Posted on Reply
#19
Chaitanya
Is this still TLC Nand or the newly announced QLC Nand? Also I dont see those drives at those prices, B&H has listed these new drives at prices higher than those estimated prices mentioned in article. Pretty sure at those prices listed(atleast on B&H) older Samsung 850 Evo is more attractive option since it comes with 5 year warranty.
Posted on Reply
#20
trparky
I believe that they're TLC NAND. I figure that it'll be at least a year until QLC NAND comes onto the market and even then I figure it'll be reserved for the super-cheap drives that none of us here at TechPowerUp would touch even with someone else's ten foot pole.
Posted on Reply
#21
Fx
RejZoRJesus, one would expect better adoption of 2TB SSD's. People are so stingy they keep on using dumb tiny SSD boot drives with HDD's. Just slam a single SSD in the system and call it a day. You'll thank me later. It's so funny how people don't mind buying $500 graphic cards almost every year because they become obsolete so quickly, but SSD's which only become too small eventually is something they aren't willing to pay $500 or even slightly more. Why? I've gone with super expensive Samsung 850 Pro 2TB for this very reason. Graphic card that I've bough 2 years ago for 650€ is nearly worthless now. The 2TB SSD drive on the other hand, it has also been almost 2 years and I see absolutely no need to replace it. And projecting my data demands, that will most likely not change for the next 5 years minimum.
Not everyone wants their OS and data on the same drive. We want them on different partitions AND (wait for it) different drives!
Posted on Reply
#22
RejZoR
FxNot everyone wants their OS and data on the same drive. We want them on different partitions AND (wait for it) different drives!
And what do you think you benefit from separate drives? Nothing. You actually make things slower when OS has to shuffle data between 2 drives via SATA instead of doing it internally in its own ultra fast cache. Separate partitions, yes. I have one for system and one for the rest. Makes system clean installs easier and faster.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 20th, 2024 00:47 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts