WD Green SN350 1TB Performance Testing
We test using both the default smaller test size as well as larger test sets on our benchmarks. This allows us to see the difference between lighter and heavier workloads.
CrystalDiskMark x64
CrystalDiskMark is used as a basic starting point for benchmarks as it is something commonly run by end-users as a sanity check.
Right out the gate the SN350 manages to exceed its rated performance specs. Read speeds of 3500 MB/s are +300 MB/s over the spec sheet, and write speeds at 2627 MB/s are +127 MB/s over the specs. Frankly these sequential results are great for a PCIe 3.0 drive.
Performance does not drop when moving to the larger CrystalDiskMark test, which is encouraging.
ATTO Disk Benchmark
The ATTO Disk Benchmark has been a staple of drive sequential performance testing for years. ATTO was tested at both 256MB and 8GB file sizes.
While slightly slower in ATTO than in CrystalDiskMark, the SN350 still manages to exceed its own rated specs. As a result, this drive manages to stay fairly high on our chart.
Alas, the good times could not hold. While read speeds stay fairly consistent and performant, the larger ATTO test causes a lot of variability in the write speeds. Overall write speeds fall to significantly below their rated 2500 MB/s, and the general instability does not bode well for future testing with random traffic.
Anvil’s Storage Utilities
Anvil’s Storage Utilities is a comprehensive benchmark that gives us a very in-depth look at the performance of drives tested. This benchmark was run with both a 1GB and 8GB test size.
Anvil performance for the WD Green SN350 is fine, especially in the context of QLC drives. Read performance is fairly strong, while write performance is more middle-of-the-pack.
The SN350 falters when it comes to the larger Anvil test. Read performance falls several spots on the graph, while the write score falls precipitously close to Lexar NM620 territory.
AS SSD Benchmark
AS SSD Benchmark is another good benchmark for testing SSDs. We run all three tests for our series. Like other utilities, it was run with both the default 1GB as well as a larger 10GB test set.
AS SSD shows weak performance SN350. Read score falls to very near the bottom of our chart, while write score is much better and hangs out near the middle of the pack.
Thankfully the SN350 does a somewhat decent job at holding the performance line on the larger AS SSD test. Read performance actually improves a bit, while write performance falls a small amount. AS SSD still does not show the SN350 in a good light, but at least it avoided cratering completely.
SPECworkstation, thermals, and our conclusion are up next.
Reviewers and customers should not tolerate this garbage. I in no way mean to disparage the author, but maybe these companies would get a much-needed hit with the clue bat if every review was one-line: “This drive features pathetic endurance and thus automatically fails all of our testing. Zero stars, grade F, buy literally anything else”
There is a problem in the article: Both drives are DRAM-less, and they pair a single DRAM package with a custom WD controller.
I imagine you mean single NAND package, otherwise it wouldn’t be DRAM-less.
Replying to Greg above: WORM drives are still a thing. 8 of those in an AIC you shove into your Plex server and you have an use for them.
@Leonardo Nascimento,
Thanks! Fixed.
Why make the drive that long if everything would fit in a much shorter PCB?
@Greg, WD is simply filling a niche. If there were no buyers they wouldn’t make it. I don’t think it’s fair to call this drive garbage when it does perfectly what it’s supposed to. If folks want higher endurance or performance, choose the blue or black
@Chris – I mean, I guess – in my mind a drive that can only be overwritten ~80 times (960GB TLC version TBW is 80) is unacceptable for any targeted use case.
Meanwhile I’m happy with my 2tb crucial p2 for £120, the old one with tlc
As a game drive this make a lot of sense, this 2TB drive will cost almost the same as high end 1TB4gen, as a game drive you will not see any difference in endurance nor load speeds, but you will definitely feel the capacity. As you will store twice of the games.
100TBW? Rubbish SSD.
This ssd is a piece of shit, the slc cache is like 5gb, then it drops to 100-200mbps level, my sata sandisk from 5 years ago is way better at continued writing, so disappointing, it was a gift tho so i’m using it, but ordered a netac nv5000 cheaper, which has dram cache, a dissipator, amongst stellar performance compared to this garbage, reviewer took 3 pages to tell how crappy the ssd is, this makes it lose quite a lot of credibility
Stupid bloody thing died on me after a Dell technician repaired my laptop. Mobo replacement not likey :<