WD Black PCIe 512GB SSD Review

Early Verdict

WD pairs the high-performance NVMe protocol with underwhelming planar 15nm TLC NAND and hopes you don't look beyond the go-fast stickers. The Black is WD's third recent consumer SSD, but none of them have been competitive at release. We can only hope the company takes the gloves off and makes meaningful changes going forward.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Low pricing

  • +

    Software management

  • +

    Solid notebook battery life

  • +

    5-Year warranty

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    Low performance

  • -

    Poor endurance

  • -

    2D NAND again

  • -

    Misleading branding

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Specifications And Features

Once reserved for enthusiasts and power users, NVMe SSDs have trickled down-market. We haven't seen a flood of low-cost products to take us beyond the limits of SATA, but there are enough available to give us a few choices. The latest low-cost NVMe model comes from Western Digital. The new Black PCIe SSD represents the fastest consumer product from the company, but this isn't the same Black series we've come to love in hard disk drive flavor.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Chris Ramseyer
Contributor

Chris Ramseyer was a senior contributing editor for Tom's Hardware. He tested and reviewed consumer storage.

  • lun471k
    I was all hyped up when I saw the article title. Each line I read and graph shown just killed the feeling. Looks like WD's far behind everyone else. I was hoping they'd at least be in the mid range, especially considering the branding of the black series.
    Reply
  • sillynilly
    Agree LUN - I was a WD fanboy in the HDD days and wanted to see similar performance from the black lineup. Looks like crap on a cracker instead. Too bad.
    Reply
  • velocityg4
    Looking at current pricing. There is nothing remarkable about it. It is priced around the similar performing Intel 600p and MyDigitalSSD BPX. Looking at real world uses. For the average user, gamer, workstation user, &c you won't notice the difference. So get whichever NVMe option is the cheapest.

    If you are running a server, multiple VMs or some special workstation functions. Then performance will matter.
    Reply
  • ubercake
    Seems like getting SanDisk on board would yield more competitive results. Maybe WD still insists on being the boss even though they are late to the game?
    Reply
  • CRamseyer
    This is from the SanDisk team for the most part.
    Reply
  • Stevemeister
    "Seems like getting SanDisk on board would yield more competitive results". This reminds me of when Daimler-Benz hitched itself to Chrysler . . . it didn't raise the standards at Chrysler rather it started to sink DB. This looks like another case of a smaller high performance brand being dragged down into mediocrity (or worse) by a much larger but technically obsolete Behemoth.
    Reply
  • gasaraki
    I got the MyDigitalSSD BPX and it's really fast in everyday use. Why get this when the BPX is cheaper, faster and has better endurance?
    Reply
  • takeshi7
    In the Random Write Performance chart you seem to have switched the MyDigitalSSD BPX with the WD Black. In the first graph it shows the BPX getting around 150K IOPS and the Black ~98K IOPS, but the second graph shows the BPX with ~98K IOPS and the Black with ~150K IOPS.
    Reply
  • WhyAreYou
    Nice review!
    Reply
  • hpram99
    Looking at the chart, that's about 10ms at 800MB/s that means the cache is 8MB
    Really? This is false advertising that the drive is 800MB/s for 0.001% of the drive
    Reply