WD Green 240 GiB SSD Review

 
This time we tested one more value SSD, the WD Green 240 GiB. Let’s see how it performs, comparing it to other SSDs with the same capacity.
Recently, we tested the 120 GiB WD Green, but we know SSDs from different capacities, even from the same model, have different performances. Because of this, now we tested the 240 GiB model from the same line, which is the most recent entry-level SSD family from Western Digital.
As most of the recent entry SSDs, the WD Green uses TLC (triple level cell) memories. This kind of memory stores not two, as on most MLC memory chips, but three bits instead. It allows a higher data density and, thus, a smaller manufacturing cost for a same capacity chip.
The main issue with TLC memory chips, compared to the two-bit MLC chips (and even more compared to the SLC memory chip, that store only one bit per cell) is the smaller lifespan, because there is more cell wearing on the erasing process (executed before writing new data), which reflects in a smaller TBW (Total Bytes Written, which means the amount of data that can be written to the drive before it can have problems). This value is usually very high and will not be a problem for typical home usage, but it makes these models inadvisable for applications that need a big amount of data writing, like servers, for example.
In the table below, we compared the tested units. All of them use SATA-600 interface and the 2.5” form factor, with 7 mm height. All the tested drives have 256 GiB total memory, but they are sold as 240 GiB because 16 GiB are reserved for “overprovisioning”.

Sale

Western Digital 1TB WD Green Internal PC SSD Solid State Drive - SATA III 6 Gb/s, 2.5"/7mm, Up to 550 MB/s - WDS100T2G0A

• SLC (single-level cell) caching boosts write performance to quickly perform everyday tasks
• Shock-resistant and WD F.I.T. Lab certified for compatibility and reliability
• Ultra low power-draw so you can use your laptop PC for longer periods of time
• The free, downloadable WD SSD Dashboard lets you easily monitor the status of your drive

Buy on Amazon

Prices we researched at Newegg.com on the day this review was published.
In the table below, we compared technical specs of the tested drives.

 
Figure 1 shows the box of the WD Green 240 GiB.

Figure 1: WD Green 240 GiB package

On Figure 2, we see the WD Green 240 GiB, which has a plastic case.

Figure 2: the WD Green 240 GiB

On the bottom of the drive, there is a sticker with unit info, as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3: bottom side

Opening the WD Green (the cover is only fitted), we see the PCB. At the solder side, we see two flash memory chips.

Figure 4: solder side of the PCB

On the component side, there are another two flash memory chips, and the controller chip.

Figure 5: component side of the PCB

The controller used by the WD Green 240 GiB is the Silicon Motion SM2258XT, presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6: controller chip

The flash memory chips are from SanDisk, and unfortunately they don’t publish the chip specs.

Figure 7: flash memory chip

During our testing procedures, we used the configuration listed below. The only variable component between each benchmarking session was the SSD being tested.

Hardware configuration

• Processor: Core i7-6950X @ 3.8 GHz
• Motherboard: ASRock Fatal1ty X99 Extreme6/3.1
• Memory: 16 GiB DDR4-2400/PC4-19200, four G.Skill F4-2400C15Q-16GRR 4 GiB modules
• Boot drive: Kingston HyperX Predator 480 GiB
• Video display: Samsung U28D590D
• Power Supply: Corsair CX750
• Case: NZXT Phantom 530

Software Configuration

• Operating System: Windows 7 Home Basic 64-bit using NTFS File System

Benchmarking Software

• CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64

Error Margin We adopted a 3% error margin in our tests, meaning performance differences of less than 3% cannot be considered meaningful. Therefore, when the performance difference between two products is less than 3%, we consider them to have similar performance.
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 Green 240 GiB performed similarly to the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and to the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the sequential write benchmark, the WD Green 240 GiB was 6% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 17% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random read test with 512 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was similar to the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 13% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random write test with 512 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was also similar to the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 10% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was 23% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 19% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was 75% faster than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 10% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the WD Green 240 GiB was 36% faster than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and performed similarly to the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the WD Green 240 GiB was 34% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 28% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.
For this test, we set CrystalDiskMark to the default mode, which uses incompressible data.

On the sequential read benchmark, the WD Green 240 GiB was similar to the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and to the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the sequential write benchmark, the WD Green 240 GiB was 6% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 18% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random read test with 512 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was similar to than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 15% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random write benchmark with 512 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was 9% faster than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 10% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was 18% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 10% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

And on the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the WD Green 240 GiB was 59% faster than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 18% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the WD Green 240 GiB was 36% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and performed similarly to the SanDisk SSD PLUS.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the WD Green 240 GiB was 32% slower than the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and 25% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.
 
Analyzing the data obtained on our tests, the first conclusion is that the WD Green 240 GiB does not present performace drop with uncompressible data, due to its controller that does not rely on data compression to achieve higher speeds.
Compared to the Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GiB and to the SanDisk SSD PLUS 240 GiB, we can say the WD Green 240 GiB was similar on some tests, faster on other ones, and slower on another ones. So, we can say it performs similarly to the other tested models.
So, we believe the WD Green 240 GiB is a good choice for the home user that is looking for an inexpensive SSD to use as a boot drive for a desktop or laptop. However, because of its technical characteristics, it is not recommended on applications where there is a lot of writing operations everyday, where you need to choose a more expensive drive.

Last update on 2023-04-02 at 05:06 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API