But you have the Sandisk equivalence for less money... and for the WD price you have the upper version from Sandisk too (even the software is the same)

Nowhere near "109" in Europe. https://geizhals.eu/western-digital-wd-blue-sn550-nvme-ssd-1tb-wds100t2b0c-a2195074.html One dubious seller with £ 105 ( ~ € 120 ), but the larger retailers sell this at € 135-140. Even with VAT of 21%, it should be only € 120, not 140 !

wavetrex:

Nowhere near "109" in Europe.

NAND prices fluctuate quite a bit at the moment, right now it is 119 USD in the WD store and indeed when you look around a bit, roughly 120~130 EUR at some places.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

...roughly 120~130 EUR at some places.

I don't know where, but not in our country for sure ! https://tweakers.net/pricewatch/1500554/wd-blue-sn550-1tb-wds100t2b0c.html Starts at 141 🙁 I'm actually interested in getting a decently fast NVME drive, as currently I have an old Samsung 850 (SATA), 500 GB, and today's games are eating it up instantly... I can basically keep 4-5 games max on it until I'm completely out of space. Perhaps it will drop a bit soon...

Is it also shingled? 🙂:):)

Very nice. I'm in the market for a new NVMe drive and this looks like a great deal.

Not sure how that is a good deal above 100$, as almost all other 1TB M2 i found interesting (perf/tbw), are only 20-30$ more than something like this right now. e.g my 512gb inland pro (corsair MP510 clone) does same/better numbers than is, incl higher TBW (780), and 1TB is about 140$.

fry178:

Not sure how that is a good deal above 100$, as almost all other 1TB M2 i found interesting (perf/tbw), are only 20-30$ more than something like this right now. e.g my 512gb inland pro (corsair MP510 clone) does same/better numbers than is, incl higher TBW (780), and 1TB is about 140$.

512gb is too small for me. Game sizes are getting bigger and bigger so 1 tb is the minimum I want.

was just mentioning the size so ppl are aware that the 1tb will probably do even better, as the 512 already equals/beats the 1tb wd.

I grabbed 2 of these a while back on a sale for my spare computer as well for my brothers they where the cheapest in terms of capacity/price/performance at the time for me and they work great.

Make for a pretty decent laptop drive.

I'd love to see charting on M.2 drives where 4KQ1T1 : MSRP is tracked. You can make the case for a lot of metrics but this specific one is going to be the most important one for almost all DIY upgrades/builds.

nosirrahx:

I'd love to see charting on M.2 drives where 4KQ1T1

The ongoing 4KQ1T1 discussion makes little sense, thus also to test and compare. You create a bottleneck that is your system IO in such a specific test, not the SSD. Pretty much like connecting a SATA 3 SSD towards a SATA1 connector, it just can't go any faster. I wish people would stop focussing on 4KQ1T1 as 'the standard' for testing performance. This is what you are doing when solely focussing at 4KQ1T1.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

The ongoing 4KQ1T1 discussion makes little sense, thus also to test and compare. You create a bottleneck that is your system IO in such a specific test, not the SSD. Pretty much like connecting a SATA 3 SSD towards a SATA1 connector, it just can't go any faster. I wish people would stop focussing on 4KQ1T1 as 'the standard' for testing performance. This is what you are doing when solely focussing at 4KQ1T1.

As someone that has tested it quite a bit, its literally the only metric that you can feel 95% of the time. The big test I have done is cheap SATA SSD VS cheap SATA SSD + 58GB Optane cache. The 4KQ1T1 speed increases by a factor of 5 and the difference is very tangible. The other point I am making is that paying a premium for massive sequential speed is pointless for more users.

You are misinterpreting me, any bottleneck is just that, a bottleneck. I hate bottlenecks, bottlenecks are not good, bottlenecks are eeuuhw, period. But testing NAND SSDS with the basic outcome of 4KQ1T1 being the decisive performance factor is IMHO not a very valid one. Your system is the bottleneck, not the SSD, performance will not go up dramatically based on the SSD as such tying price/perf to that is just not relevant. When you copy that ISO file ay 3 GB/sec certainly that's not 4KQ1T1 performance. You need a very specific workload there. When caching, whether that is Optane or a RAM buffer, of course, that's where you can get better scores. But you are then testing and feeling the effect of that just that .. that cache, and not FIFO NAND performance. Also, you call the difference tangible, others will disagree. It's not very different from the discussion about 500 MB/sec SATA3 SSD versus NVMe at 3 GB/sec, lots of people just do not notice the difference as to reach such intense workloads, you need to do some extreme stuff on that PC of yours. I am not saying you are not right, but measuring 4KQ1T1 is ... pretty darn relative.

1T is never going to matter on NAND storage unless its an sd card. just about any ssd or m.2 on the market support multithreaded read and writes via NCQ

The 1TB just arrived yesterday. Hooked up to the bottom NVMe M.2 port so only gets two lanes, not four. Not bad performance on an ASUS X470 Gaming-F board. Will upload the CrytalDiskMark results when home. Seq Q32T1 Read: 1853 Write: 1582 4K Q32T1 Read: 621.6 Write: 537.2 Seq Read: 1624 Write: 1523 4K Read: 58.70 Write: 226.5 Nothing stellar but still a lot faster than SATA 6GB/s drives. [SPOILER=CrystalDiskMark] https://i.imgur.com/7IxaZ4E.png [/SPOILER] [SPOILER=Anvil] https://i.imgur.com/AUE0W3f.png [/SPOILER]