wesgern digital has an ssd i just thought you guys should kn

>>57041645
wew so these are rebrandeded Sandisk drives?

and Sandisk drives were just Toshiba rebrands

>>57041687
what's wrong with SanDisk anyway?

>>57041739

Nothing. They make good drives.

The question is why would you buy a WD blue 1TB for $300 when you could buy a Sandisk Ultra II 1TB for $230~

It's essentially the same drive.

I had a WD green HD once. It stopped working after like three months

>>57041645

They've had them for several years.

Why haven't you heard of them before now ..?

The question is the answer, anon. The question is the answer.

>>57042048

Didn't your mommy ever teach you not to install your OS on a 5200 rpm eco drive?

>>57041645
>Samsung dies
>WD becomes the lead SSD brand
>Buys out all other SSD manufacturers
>"floods" destroy stock jacking up prices forever

Noooooooooooo not again

>>57042048
And I have several WD Green HDDs that have been running constantly for years.

I also had a Seagate drive that died within a few months and one of those super reliable Samsung F3 1TB that was DoA and the replacement went bad after a couple of years.

>Green SSD

I don't get it

File: 1325701366422.png (104KB, 665x598px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 665x598px

>Green SSD

>>57042179
>>57042204
It probably runs at lower voltages and slightly slower speeds.

And when I looked at the specs that was exactly what it was.

Also, they only have three year warranties. Samsung is giving five to 10 years.

>WD Green features sequential read and write times of up to 540MB/s and 405MB/s and endurance up to 80 TBW.
>up to 80 TBW.
WTF?

>>57042683
> on /g/
> can't google an acronym

Leave.

>>57042048
I have a green and a blue one. Green one is still working after 8 years as my daily drive.

>>57042710
That 80TBW sound very low amount of data, even low end Kingston SSDs are rated for 128TBW.

>>57041645
Samsung is better
Their Green RAM was the shit a few years back.
Still got 16GB of that shit.
Any device with Samsung memory >>>>> anything else.
See >>GTX1070 Micron v Samsung

>>57042785
BTFO

>>57042710
>Can't understand technical specification range is low, gives advice to google acronym

Google Dunning–Kruger effect then kill yourself.

>>57042079
I was using it to store anime

>>57041739
>what's wrong with SanDisk anyway?
>>57042018
>Nothing. They make good drives.

early sandisk ssds/controllers were among the worst and are partly responsible for the whole reliability nonsense

this reputation was supposedly only for their early ssds/controllers but I had 2 identical sandisk ssds from around 2013-2014 used in different machines and had both fail just before/after the warranty period expired, never again

>>57042235
>Also, they only have three year warranties. Samsung is giving five to 10 years.

the wd black series have 5 year warranties

if I had to guess, wd blue uses mlc or shittier tier flash, green will undervolt, wd black might use tlc flash

>>57042748

it's very likely just what they guarantee it for, much like how the early samsung 840 pro series covered up to 40tb written in warranty and even the 950 pro only covers up to 80tb written, despite both of them reaching in excess of 800tb written before failure

>>57041645
how the fuck do you plug those in?

>>57042847
>if I had to guess, wd blue uses mlc or shittier tier flash, green will undervolt, wd black might use tlc flash

I got that the wrong way around, derp

wd blue might use mlc (or tlc), I suspect wd green uses tlc, wd black probably will use mlc

>>57042832

So that is why it killed itself.

>>57042865
its m.2, not sata.

>>57042683
>>57042748
Its rated for 80TBW, doesnt mean it will stop working at 80TB.

See 850 EVO, its rated at 75TBW.

>>57043974
Seems like it's just TLC nand that sucks.

>>57044019
Pretty much.
>WD Green 120GB is rated for 40TBW.
80TBW is for the 240GB version.

Meanwhile WD Blue is rated for 100TBW and 200TBW for the 500GB version and 400 for the 1TB.

File: Screenshot_2016-10-12-08-56-28.png (185KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1280x720px

WD green looks really slow for a SSD, probably will be a sub $37 TLC SSD.

But who cares meanwhile they are reliable.

>>57042018
>It's essentially the same drive.

It isn't. It uses different silicon and a different controller.

Source: sat in on a presentation from WD about two weeks ago where we were demonstrated their new SSD line.

We also got to see a scalable rackmount solutions that they offer at up to 526PB.

File: Screenshot_2016-10-12-09-01-22.png (234KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1280x720px

>>57044117
WD Blue looks really good on the other hand.

And $79 for this doesn't look bad, looks better than the 850 EVO and cheaper.

The problem now is reliability, doubt it will me MLC for the price so will WD use a 3D NAND like solution?

WD Black probably will be a PCIe M2 MLC SSD.

>>57042683
Absolutely shit tier longevity. Do not buy. With ratings like that, you won't ever get one replaced under warranty

>>57044261
There are other SSDs with worse ratings that work good enough.

WD green IOPS are shit anyway, too slow unless its really cheap its not worth it.
As in under $30.

>>57042683
>>57042748
>80 TBW is low

I've had my Samsung SSD for almost 3 years now (11000 power on hours by SMART data) and the total amount of writes is 7.5 TB.

>>57044512
And the tbw is 128/150/300 for the 256/500/1tb+ on the 850

>>57044257
I think they have a supply agreement with Toshiba for 3D BiCS NAND, I don't see a black in the pipeline so this must be it

>see mushkin selling 512gb SSD
>$129

alright whats the downside? it's gonna explode in a month?

>>57044165
>toshiba rebranded SanDisks rabranded into WD
ye naw SandDisk is shit so will be the rebranded shit from WD.
Samsung SSDs are still king which I will buy.

>>57048107
cheap shit always will fail fast, sure you could get super lucky and get one that willl last a while but its lottery, if you buy Samsung you have to be really unlucky to get one that will fail you.
I ratter pay a small permium on something that will last me long and has good specs than buy something cheap that i have to rebuy soon.

>>57048324
>samsung
>good
>that whole trainwreck of drivers with the bug that decayed speed
>their phones literally exploding
ok

>>57048345
>le exploding phone meme
ye naw samsung still produces the the best gddr5x ram and the absolute best 2.5 SSDs, driver problems are long gone

>>57048345
>samsung fixing problems
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887255/samsung-promises-yet-another-fix-for-slowed-840-evo-ssds.html

>green line

fuck that shit i will stab anyone i see usig a green drive saving the environment is dumb and over paid fuck the Illuminati jaggalo 4 lyfe wigga

>>57048324
sorry i dont want a bomb in my computer

>>57048324
Mushkin are reliable, and pretty much any TLC SSD that comes from a good company are reliable.

Just dont buy a TLC SSD and expect it to last you more than 3 years as a main OS SSD on a desktop.

>wd Blue ssd is blue pcb
>wd green ssd is blue pcb

YOU

HAD

ONE

FUCKING

JOB

File: 1469419271390.png (135KB, 288x415px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 288x415px

>>57048819
>yfw Black ssd is green pcb

>>57048819
Its supposed to be cheapest as it gets, spending money on paint would cost money.

>>57048916
But you nigger, the green PCB is a symbol of cheap. It used to be more expensive to make them blue

So is it TLC or 3D TLC?

>The WD Blue SSD series lacks support for AES 256-bit hardware encryption
Not sure how it will affect me if i dont encrypt my SSD.

File: endurance-wd-blue.jpg (228KB, 988x601px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 988x601px

>>57049538
Apparently looks like standard TLC.

>>57049563
>Trusting hardware encryption
Not even once

>>57042832
>degenerate

>>57041645
WD shills from /v/ again...

>>57049684
;^ ]

File: systained-write.jpg (143KB, 1041x968px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1041x968px

>>57049805
WD shill reporting it, their HDDs are great, deal with it.
But this SSD has some problems, pic related.

Is literally a cheap low end TLC sold as a mid end SSD.

Also the 240GB version is rated for 3-4 years on mid-heavy use, And since WD Green is rated for 40% of then its rated for 1.6 year of heavy use.

>>57049912
Also 240 and 500GB version have lower cache and the slowdown will kick in faster.

>>57049912
Just for comparison ADATA SU800 is way better than the WD Blue, specially because the fact it uses 3D NAND and the WD Blue doesn't.