Samsung 970 EVO Plus vs Western Digital Black SN750

SSDs have become a staple in our personal builds. Today, we look at two of the most sought out NVMe PCIe SSDs in the market. The Samsung 970 EVO Plus and the WD Black SN750. These are both fairly new releases. We weren’t able to get the one with the WD Black NVMe with the heatsink, but luckily we have one that came with our ASROCK X470.

Both these NVMe drives are an upgrade from last year’s Samsung EVO and WD Black 2018 models. Both previous generations have performed wonderfully and both companies have always managed to push out even more speeds and performance from their NVMe drives. To be quite frank, they are actually close to reaching the PCIe 3.0 4x speed limits of 3940MB/s. We are very much excited to see both Samsung and WD move on to the PCIe 4.0 generation once the Ryzen 3000 series has been released in the market.

QUICK SPECS

Samsung makes use of their new 96-layer TLC NAND, making it an upgrade from their previous 970 EVO 64-layer TLC, while Western Digital still make use of their 64-Layer 3D TLC NAND, made by Sandisk (now owned by Western Digital).

TLC or MLC NAND?

There are some really confusing terms here for most people. The first and most important thing is that the LOWER the BITS, the FASTER the SPEEDS.

The naming conventions are as follows:

  • SLC (Single: 1 bit per cell) – fastest, highest price
  • MLC (Multi: 2 bits per cell) – fast, better priced (Samsung 970 Pro)
  • TLC (Triple: 3 bits per cell) – fast, most affordable (Samsung 970 EVO)
  • QLC (Quad): 4 bits per cell) – slowest, cheapest price

Performance

CrystalDiskMark

Putting both SSDs to the test, we first checked out the read and write speeds using Crystal Disk Mark 6 to see what the actual performance. Crystal Disk Mark also gives slightly different 4KB Random Read and Write tests that vary in the Queue Depth and Threads per Test.

Sequential Read Speeds

  • Samsung 970 EVO Plus achieved a Sequential Read speed of 3377MB/s which is 312.8 MB/s (9.26%) faster compared to the 3064.2 MB/s by the WD Black Sn750.

Sequential Write Speeds

  • While the Sequential Write speed tests showed similar results of 2414.0 MB/s from the Samsung 970 EVO Plus compared to WD Black SN750’s 1586.5 MB/s (34.28%)

Both the Sequential Read and Write situations gave extreme speeds that will keep any content creator more than happy.

4KB Random Read/Write (Q8T8)

  • The Samsung 970 EVO Plus achieved 583.6 MB/s versus WD Black SN750’s 857.4 MB/s which is 273.8 MB/s (31.93%) slower in the 4KB Random Read (Q8T8) test
  • The Samsung 970 EVO Plus achieved 1704.2 MB/s versus WD Black SN750’s 745.1 MB/s which is 959.1 MB/s (56.28%) faster in the 4KB Random Write (Q8T8) test

4KB Random Read/Write (Q32T1)

  • The Samsung 970 EVO Plus achieved 305.6 MB/s versus WD Black SN750’s 317.6 MB/s which is 12 MB/s (3.77%) slower in the 4KB Random Read (Q32T1) test
  • The Samsung 970 EVO Plus achieved 218.0 MB/s versus WD Black SN750’s 220.8 MB/s which is 55.8 MB/s (1.27%) faster in the 4KB Random Write (Q32T1) test

4KB Random Read/Write (Q1T1)

  • The Samsung 970 EVO Plus achieved 40.61 MB/s versus WD Black SN750’s 45.85 MB/s which is 5.24 MB/s (12%) slower in the 4KB Random Read (Q1T1) test
  • The Samsung 970 EVO Plus achieved 131.6 MB/s versus WD Black SN750’s 147.0 MB/s which is 15.4MB/s (10.48%) faster in the 4KB Random Write (Q1T1) test

To conclude, we see a variety of benchmarks that give us an idea of what speeds these two NVMe are able to produce but would likely not be able to notice the difference in real-world usage.

AS SSD

AS SSD has similar benchmarks to CrystalDiskMark but with slightly different algorithms.

AS SSD was able to simulate the load speeds at which an ISO file or a large file would be able to copy. It also has two other tests that simulate a Game Copy (Multiple Small files) at random speeds. The last test is opening an application/programs. ==

ISO Copy Test

  • In the ISO copy test, the 970 EVO Plus achieved 1534.85 MB/s which is 11.96% faster than the 1351.18 MB/s, of the WD Black SN750.

Application Load Test

  • In the Application Load test, the 970 EVO Plus achieved 377.99 MB/s which is 1.71% slower than the 384.58 MB/s, of the WD Black SN750.

Game Copy Test

  • In the Game Copy test, the 970 EVO Plus achieved 825.99 MB/s which is 10.37% slower than the 921.59 MB/s, of the WD Black SN750

This is where we are able to better see the real world situations.

ATTO Benchmark

We used ATTO Disk Benchmark 4.00.0f2 to measure read and write performance of file sizes varying from 512bytes to 64MB

We measured read and write speeds at both queue depth 4 and queue depth 8.

Endurance

CONCLUSION

The WD Black SN750 NVMe SSD is definitely an improvement over its predecessor, though the latter still remains to be a worth drive. During our testing, it’s noticeable that it is slower than the Samsung 970 EVO Plus, but in real life situations, it is hardly noticeable. Although, the sustained write speeds drops for the 970 Evo Plus over time. Though Western Digital lags behind in the benchmarks, we would definitely pick one up if they are on a special price making the difference in performance justified. We would still commend WD for keeping Samsung on their toes and making their SSDs far more affordable.

Both are available at PCWORX with the following prices:

– Samsung MZ-V7S250BW 970 EVO Plus NVME M.2 250GB Solid State Drive PHP 4890
– WD Black WDS250G3X0C 250GB – M.2 NVMe PCIE PHP 3790

Post Author: Christian

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *