WD Blue 1,000 GiB SSD Review

Compressible Data Test

As you will have gathered from the previous page, we measured the performance of each drive using CrystalDiskMark.
It is important to note that we connected the SSDs to a SATA-600 port on our motherboard rather than a SATA-300 port, which could cause performance limitations.
First, we set CrystalDiskMark to “All 0x00 Fill mode” to evaluate the performance of the SSD when dealing with compressible data.

On the sequential read benchmark, the WD Blue performed similarly to the HyperX Savage.

On the sequential write benchmark, there was also a technical tie.

On the random read test with 512 kiB blocks, the WD Blue was 18% slower than the HyperX Savage.

On the random write test with 512 kiB blocks, the WD Blue was 7% slower than the HyperX Savage.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the WD Blue was 60% slower than the HyperX Savage.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the WD Blue was 6% faster than the HyperX Savage.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the WD Blue was 9% slower than the HyperX Savage.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the WD Blue was 12% slower than the HyperX Savage.