WD Blue SN580 1 TB

[W1zzard]

Western Digital's new WD Blue SN580 is the best budget M.2 SSD drive out there. Despite its impressive price point of $45 it comes with fantastic performance that easily matches most high-end drives. Compared to the SN570, the interface has been upgraded to PCIe 4.0, and the SLC cache is now more than 25x as big.

Show full review

 

[hsew]

Are we SURE those temps aren’t worth worrying about?

 

[dgianstefani]

Temperature Impacts on Endurance and Read Disturbs in Charge-Trap 3D NAND Flash Memories

Temperature effects should be well considered when designing flash-based memory systems, because they are a fundamental factor that affect both the performance and the reliability of NAND flash memories. In this work, aiming to comprehensively understanding ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sub Zero temps are worse for SSD's than ~100 C

Are we SURE those temps aren’t worth worrying about?

"On the one hand, it can be concluded that thermal experiences (up to 70 °C) have negligible impacts on RBER degradation; on the other hand, the 3D NAND is suitable for high-temperature operations because the RBER is lower and the effects of P/E cycling caused damage will not be accelerated at higher temperatures. It should be noted that no matter what the operation mode we adopted, operations at higher temperatures did cause larger degradations to memory cells such as enhanced interface trap generation. Fortunately, these damages do not cause worse error bits degradation using the same criteria (Stage-3) as shown in Figure 4."

Basically there's a bit more wear on the cells at very high temps, but no errors.

Very low temps there's errors and wear.

Since the drive only touches those temps for short periods of time under heavy synthetic load, I personally don't think there's an issue.

 

[Wirko]

The non-existence of a 4 TB version (although it may be introduced later) is a very big minus. I see here in forums that the Kingston NV2 and Crucial MX500 are quite popular due to capacity and price. Even WD has a fresh 4 TB SATA Blue model!

@W1zzard I'd go as far as suggest that you start boycotting SSDs which don't exist in 4 TB version come 2024.

 

[sLowEnd]

Wow, the Steam unpack/decrypt result for the SN570 is horrible

What's changed between the original SN570 review and now?

WD Blue SN570 NVMe 1 TB Review - A Gem Hidden in Plain Sight

The WD Blue SN570 is priced extremely competitively at only $90 for the 1 TB version. While pricing suggests "entry-level," the drive is actually the second-fastest PCIe 3.0 SSD we ever tested, faster than the Kingston KC2500, ADATA SX8200 Pro, and HP EX950.

www.techpowerup.com

WD Blue SN580 1 TB Review - Incredible Price/Performance

Western Digital's new WD Blue SN580 is the best budget M.2 SSD drive out there. Despite its impressive price point of $45 it comes with fantastic performance that easily matches most high-end drives. Compared to the SN570, the interface has been upgraded to PCIe 4.0, and the SLC cache is now...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Trompochi]

Typo in page 6:

"Filling the 1 TB capacity of the SN580 completed at 596 GB/s"

That should be MB/s.

 

[W1zzard]

Wow, the Steam unpack/decrypt result for the SN570 is horrible

What's changed between the original SN570 review and now?

WD Blue SN570 NVMe 1 TB Review - A Gem Hidden in Plain Sight

The WD Blue SN570 is priced extremely competitively at only $90 for the 1 TB version. While pricing suggests "entry-level," the drive is actually the second-fastest PCIe 3.0 SSD we ever tested, faster than the Kingston KC2500, ADATA SX8200 Pro, and HP EX950.

www.techpowerup.com

WD Blue SN580 1 TB Review - Incredible Price/Performance

Western Digital's new WD Blue SN580 is the best budget M.2 SSD drive out there. Despite its impressive price point of $45 it comes with fantastic performance that easily matches most high-end drives. Compared to the SN570, the interface has been upgraded to PCIe 4.0, and the SLC cache is now...

www.techpowerup.com

Different platform (with much faster CPU), different Steam client, Windows 11, drivers, VBS. But I think it's worth retesting SN570 in Steam just to confirm the result

Typo in page 6:

"Filling the 1 TB capacity of the SN580 completed at 596 GB/s"

That should be MB/s.

fixed, thanks

 

[mechtech]

A shame there is not a 4TB one for ~ $165 and an 8TB one for ~$325

 

[Wirko]

A shame there is not a 4TB one for ~ $165 and an 8TB one for ~$325

4 will probably happen in a few months if SSD prices keep on dropping, 8 not.

 

[EatingDirt]

The non-existence of a 4 TB version (although it may be introduced later) is a very big minus. I see here in forums that the Kingston NV2 and Crucial MX500 are quite popular due to capacity and price. Even WD has a fresh 4 TB SATA Blue model!

@W1zzard I'd go as far as suggest that you start boycotting SSDs which don't exist in 4 TB version come 2024.

No 4TB is disappointing but I disagree in Wizard boycotting SSD's that don't come with a 4TB version by next year. Almost all motherboards have at least 2 NVME slots, many have 3, and 6TB is a lot of data. Often times the value of 'value' drives typically aren't very value oriented when they get to 4TB, and the 'value' drives at 4TB are almost always QLC drives(Kingston NV2), QLC that often end up just as slow or slower than an MX500.

I don't think we'll see this with a 4TB version of this, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an update to the WD Black SN770(maybe a SN780) with a 4TB version.

If you need actual budget storage for pictures, movies, etc., HDD's are still the way to go at half the price per GB when you get into the ~4TB+ range. For example, you can get ~10TB 7200RPM HDD for the cost of a 4TB NVME QLC SSD, both at around $200.

A shame there is not a 4TB one for ~ $165 and an 8TB one for ~$325

Don't know why you'd think an increase in capacity would be negative price scaling. If we assume neutral price scaling, a 4TB version of this would be $180, but neutral price scaling isn't typically realistic, even the cheapest NVME SSD's on amazon don't scale neutrally from 2TB to 4TB. I'd expect a 4TB version of this to be at least around ~$200-220, which is ~10-20% additional price per added TB.

 

[mechtech]

Don't know why you'd think an increase in capacity would be negative price scaling. If we assume neutral price scaling, a 4TB version of this would be $180, but neutral price scaling isn't typically realistic, even the cheapest NVME SSD's on amazon don't scale neutrally from 2TB to 4TB. I'd expect a 4TB version of this to be at least around ~$200-220, which is ~10-20% additional price per added TB.

Because if you buy four 1TB drives, you get 4 boxes, 4 PCBs, 4 controllers, and 4 NAND chips.

One 4TB drive would be 1 box, 1 controller, 1 PCB and 4 NAND chips.

That's why it should be slightly negative price scaling...............but in $$ MSRP they don't.....................unfortunately.

 

[Mr. Perfect]

Just out of curiosity, when the SSDs go into the test bench, are they also the OS Boot drive or are they a secondary drive? Probably doesn't make a big difference, but it didn't specifically say on the Test Bed page and I'm curious.

 

[W1zzard]

Just out of curiosity, when the SSDs go into the test bench, are they also the OS Boot drive or are they a secondary drive? Probably doesn't make a big difference, but it didn't specifically say on the Test Bed page and I'm curious.

They are the boot drive for all real-life tests and a secondary drive for all remaining tests

 

[Denver]

It is not recommended for laptops with this power draw at idle... In contrast to how low power consumption Samsung SSDs get

 

[THU31]

Man how I'd love to see a game with proper DirectStorage support and GPU-accelerated decompression to see if there's any difference between all these drives.

 

[W1zzard]

It is not recommended for laptops with this power draw at idle... In contrast to how low power consumption Samsung SSDs get

View attachment 303887

I'm not sure if these numbers are correct for WD. I can't believe that their drives use that much power in laptops. But I'm not sure what to change in my test setup, because it's apparently working fine for all other drives

 

[Chrispy_]

Looks like I'm going to be buying SN580 drives from now on.
I buy SN570, SN770 depending on whether the SN770 is on sale. The SN570 is never on sale, but it doesn't need to be as it's been the highest performing budget drive for years now.
I've yet to see pricing for the SN580 but as long as it's cheaper than the SN770 I'll be buying it.
I'm no WD fanboy, but in the UK they're just undisputably the performance/£/TB champions. You can get cheaper (shit) drives and you can get faster (crazy-expensive) drives but between the SN570 and SN770 on sale, I've bought WD almost exclusively for at least a year now.

Are we SURE those temps aren’t worth worrying about?

Yes, because the synthetic worst-case storage stress-testing that reached these temperatures is so far removed from real usage that you actually have to be intending to torture the drive to death with reapeated torture-testing before the drive is affected. In the real world, you'll need burst performance for 0.1% of the time, and never for more than a few seconds at a time.

 

[Sunlight91]

Wow, the Steam unpack/decrypt result for the SN570 is horrible

What's changed between the original SN570 review and now?

The SN570 has a bug with the write cache on Windows/Steam. When downloading a game the download suddenly drops to zero...stops for a while and resume until it happens again. If you disable the Windows write-cache then it works normal (or at least faster than any Internet connection today)

I use the SN570 on Linux/ Steam and never had this issue.

 

[Lew Zealand]

It is not recommended for laptops with this power draw at idle... In contrast to how low power consumption Samsung SSDs get

View attachment 303887

I love me some WD SSDs and have over a dozen in the house (yah, too many computers) but none in laptops because of this. And in the past I've gotten my SSD reviews elsewhere so I don't think it's just W1zz. I dunno if it actually makes a noticeable difference in battery life as it's only 1W but when you can get 1/10th idle power draw from your choice of other SSDs, I look to those.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Now make this into 4 and 8 TB so we can all dump the spinning rust into the garbage bin of the history where it belongs.

 

[xSneak]

Sustained write speeds are still junk. I went with a crucial p5 plus for my portable enclosure recently.

 

[Ferrum Master]

I'm not sure if these numbers are correct for WD. I can't believe that their drives use that much power in laptops. But I'm not sure what to change in my test setup, because it's apparently working fine for all other drives

Can you boot Linux and do lspci -vvv? Compare them with that external Quark Quatsch Quarch ? device and native nvme slot. In the LnkCtl yhou should see APSM status or any other. That's my only idea to find the culprit.

75:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Toshiba Corporation XG6 NVMe SSD Controller (prog-if 02 [NVM Express])
Subsystem: Toshiba Corporation Device 0001
Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx+
Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes
Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 16
NUMA node: 0
Region 0: Memory at 50300000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
Capabilities: [40] Express (v2) Endpoint, MSI 00
DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s unlimited, L1 unlimited
ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE+ FLReset+ SlotPowerLimit 25.000W
DevCtl: CorrErr+ NonFatalErr+ FatalErr+ UnsupReq+
RlxdOrd- ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop- FLReset-
MaxPayload 256 bytes, MaxReadReq 512 bytes
DevSta: CorrErr- NonFatalErr- FatalErr- UnsupReq- AuxPwr- TransPend-
LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 8GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L1, Exit Latency L1 2us
ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- ASPMOptComp+
LnkCtl: ASPM L1 Enabled; RCB 64 bytes, Disabled- CommClk+
ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
LnkSta: Speed 8GT/s (ok), Width x4 (ok)
TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt-
DevCap2: Completion Timeout: Range AB, TimeoutDis+ NROPrPrP- LTR+
10BitTagComp- 10BitTagReq- OBFF Not Supported, ExtFmt+ EETLPPrefix-
EmergencyPowerReduction Not Supported, EmergencyPowerReductionInit-
FRS- TPHComp- ExtTPHComp-
AtomicOpsCap: 32bit- 64bit- 128bitCAS-
DevCtl2: Completion Timeout: 50us to 50ms, TimeoutDis- LTR+ OBFF Disabled,
AtomicOpsCtl: ReqEn-
LnkCap2: Supported Link Speeds: 2.5-8GT/s, Crosslink- Retimer- 2Retimers- DRS-
LnkCtl2: Target Link Speed: 8GT/s, EnterCompliance- SpeedDis-
Transmit Margin: Normal Operating Range, EnterModifiedCompliance- ComplianceSOS-
Compliance De-emphasis: -6dB
LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -6dB, EqualizationComplete+ EqualizationPhase1+
EqualizationPhase2+ EqualizationPhase3+ LinkEqualizationRequest-
Retimer- 2Retimers- CrosslinkRes: unsupported
Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 3
Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)
Status: D0 NoSoftRst+ PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
Capabilities: [90] MSI: Enable- Count=1/32 Maskable+ 64bit+
Address: 0000000000000000 Data: 0000
Masking: 00000000 Pending: 00000000
Capabilities: [b0] MSI-X: Enable+ Count=33 Masked-
Vector table: BAR=0 offset=00002000
PBA: BAR=0 offset=00003000
Capabilities: [100 v2] Advanced Error Reporting
UESta: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
UEMsk: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
UESvrt: DLP+ SDES- TLP- FCP+ CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF+ MalfTLP+ ECRC- UnsupReq- ACSViol-
CESta: RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout- AdvNonFatalErr-
CEMsk: RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout- AdvNonFatalErr+
AERCap: First Error Pointer: 00, ECRCGenCap- ECRCGenEn- ECRCChkCap- ECRCChkEn-
MultHdrRecCap- MultHdrRecEn- TLPPfxPres- HdrLogCap-
HeaderLog: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
Capabilities: [260 v1] Latency Tolerance Reporting
Max snoop latency: 3145728ns
Max no snoop latency: 3145728ns
Capabilities: [300 v1] Secondary PCI Express
LnkCtl3: LnkEquIntrruptEn- PerformEqu-
LaneErrStat: 0
Capabilities: [400 v1] L1 PM Substates
L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1- ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1- L1_PM_Substates+
PortCommonModeRestoreTime=60us PortTPowerOnTime=100us
L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1- ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1-
T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=166912ns
L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=100us
Kernel driver in use: nvme
Kernel modules: nvme

 

[BSim500]

I'm not sure if these numbers are correct for WD. I can't believe that their drives use that much power in laptops. But I'm not sure what to change in my test setup, because it's apparently working fine for all other drives

Anandtech show similar high idle figures for WD drives for desktop, yet their laptop figures are a lot lower:-
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16504/the-samsung-ssd-980-500gb-1tb-review/5

The notes say - "We report three idle power measurements. Active idle is representative of a typical desktop, where none of the advanced PCIe link or NVMe power saving features are enabled and the drive is immediately ready to process new commands. Our Desktop Idle number represents what can usually be expected from a desktop system that is configured to enable SATA link power management, PCIe ASPM and NVMe APST, but where the lowest PCIe L1.2 link power states are not available. The Laptop Idle number represents the maximum power savings possible with all the NVMe and PCIe power management features in use - usually the default for a battery-powered system but rarely achievable on a desktop even after changing BIOS and OS settings."

^ So even going back to older SN550 drives, there's obvious some setting there (Windows or BIOS) that's making up the difference between 412mw vs 3mw idle.

 

[Yashyyyk]

Can you test efficiency for the XS70 and other "popular" 4TB drives?

 

[Wirko]

Anandtech show similar high idle figures for WD drives for desktop, yet their laptop figures are a lot lower:-
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16504/the-samsung-ssd-980-500gb-1tb-review/5

The notes say - "We report three idle power measurements. Active idle is representative of a typical desktop, where none of the advanced PCIe link or NVMe power saving features are enabled and the drive is immediately ready to process new commands. Our Desktop Idle number represents what can usually be expected from a desktop system that is configured to enable SATA link power management, PCIe ASPM and NVMe APST, but where the lowest PCIe L1.2 link power states are not available. The Laptop Idle number represents the maximum power savings possible with all the NVMe and PCIe power management features in use - usually the default for a battery-powered system but rarely achievable on a desktop even after changing BIOS and OS settings."

^ So even going back to older SN550 drives, there's obvious some setting there (Windows or BIOS) that's making up the difference between 412mw vs 3mw idle.

It's also possible that the SSD enters a lower power state after a very long idle period, which might not be under control of the OS.