By In an emergency, few users require or can utilize 14GBps PCIe 5.0 NVMe performance. particularly when Windows Explorer is unable to fully utilize it.
Therefore, why spend more money on something you don’t need when you can get something much cheaper, like the PCIe 4.0 WD Blue SN5100, which gets you there 95% of the time?
Additionally, some readers might not be aware that NVMe’s blazingly quick seek times account for a large portion of its perceived (and actual) performance. PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0 SSDs are roughly as fast at finding files as PCIe 5.0 SSDs; therefore, these don’t get any better per generation.
Regarding the fight between the corporation and itself for the longest product name, WD is winning. The drive’s full PR name, “WD Blue SN5100 powered by Sandisk,” is just a few letters longer than “WD Passport HDD, works with USB-C.” Well done.
What features does the WD Blue SN5100 have?
A 2280 (22 mm wide by 80 mm long) NVMe 2.0, PCIe 4.0 SSD, the WD Blue SN5100 is the replacement for the SN5000. It uses a Sandisk controller and a 332-layer Sandisk BiCS8 QLC NAND. Additionally, because it is single-sided, the SSD may be installed in nearly any device that supports 2280 NVMe.
During lengthy writes, the quad-layer cell, or QLC for short, usually performs as well as other NANDs until the secondary cache is exhausted (QLC written as SLC to be later written as QLC).
Unlike past models, continuous transfers in the current QLC only decline to SATA SSD levels, not 2.5-inch SATA HDD levels or worse, as was previously the case.
Because the Blue SN5100 is a host memory buffer (HMB) architecture, its principal caching functions rely on system memory. When it comes to sustained reads and writes, HMB designs are usually as fast as or faster than systems that use dedicated DRAM for primary caching (depending on how you transfer files). However, DRAM designs are faster when it comes to smaller random operations.
What is the price of the WD Blue SN5100?
The deal is this, isn’t it? There is no significant pricing difference between the top dogs, and competition is severe on the low-end of the SSD market, where PCIe 4.0 HMB is now the low-end.
This means that the retail costs of $55 for 500GB, $80 for 1TB, $150 for 2TB, and $300 for 4TB that WD offered me are a little excessive. They will undoubtedly be less expensive shortly after debut since there are just too many less costly options for those prices to hold, whether or not they are brand names.
What is the WD Blue SN5100’s speed?
The 2TB Blue SN5100 that I tested is incredibly fast for a PCIe 4.0 host memory buffer SSD until it runs out of secondary cache while writing huge volumes of data.
The write rates fluctuate between a manageable 250 MBps and 700 MBps, even when the secondary cache runs exhausted. This implies that if and when you see a decline in writing rate, you probably won’t spend the night yelling and blaming the individual who suggested the drive. Hint, hint.
In terms of sustained throughput, the Blue SN5100 was unquestionably superior to the Blue SN5000; yet, somewhat unexpectedly, the older drive performed better in the random operations tests conducted by CrystalDiskMark 8.
WD Blue SN5100 2TB NVMe SSD – M.2 2280, PCIe Gen 4.0, Internal Solid State DriveÂ
The 4TB version of the SN5000, which had BiCS6 QLC, is the one displayed in the charts; the 1TB and 2TB versions used quicker TLC. To the best of my knowledge, the SN5100 utilizes the previously described BiCS8 QLC in all of its capacities.
As previously said, I did not anticipate that the SN5100 would lose so easily to its older cousin in the 4K tests conducted by CrystalDiskMark 8. Because of this, the older SN5000 is probably a superior SSD to run an OS on.
In the 48GB transfer tests (which now include the much faster Xcopy and FastCopy data), the Blue SN5100 lost by just over a second to the SN5000 on one especially slow write (a 48GB folder under Explorer). In most tests, nevertheless, it outperformed the older drive.
Keep in mind that, even when compared to its native command-line Xcopy, Windows Explorer tends to smooth out performance by being relatively rubbish at transfers. The results from FastCopy and Xcopy are more representative of actual performance, and I strongly suggest the latter to save time when transferring huge files.
Is the WD Blue SN5100 a good purchase?
Yes, for the right reasons and at the appropriate price. Most users find it fast enough, and in most situations, it’s fast enough for everyone except the pickiest pros. Additionally, even while it slows down significantly in extremely lengthy texts, the drop isn’t extremely uncomfortable.
