WD Blue SA510 SSD 1TB $80

Just beware that unlike the original version of the WD Blue SSD, the SA510 WD Blue is DRAM-less.

Chipbug wrote: ↑ Just beware that unlike the original version of the WD Blue SSD, the SA510 WD Blue is DRAM-less.

I tried reading replies on google, but wasn't understanding. Why is DRAM-less an issue?

Skilas wrote: ↑ I tried reading replies on google, but wasn't understanding. Why is DRAM-less an issue?

DRAM can improve performance especially for random read/write. For drive mainly for storage, it probably makes no difference. But for OS drive (especially like Windows which seems to read and write all over the places constantly), it could make some differences.

I am not saying you shouldn't buy DRAM-less SSD. They are cheaper and perfectly useful for many use cases. I just wanted to point out that the new WD Blue SSD removed DRAM as some people may not have aware of that.

Avoid the SA510 series. Lots of failures per WD forums and Reddit.

The older original WD blue is fine.

Price is great for a name brand 1TB SSD but not for a series with issues.

Skilas wrote: ↑ I tried reading replies on google, but wasn't understanding. Why is DRAM-less an issue?

Don't run an operating system on it without DRAM, you can wear down the hard drive a lot faster and performance sucks without it. Without DRAM, an SSD is best used for storage only - something where you're not putting continuous write cycles onto it.

I would say 1 TB for a DRAMless should be $60'ish nowadays for a good deal. $88 can get you a Crucial MX500 with DRAM.

WD abuses its long running Blue series naming for profit. Hard to say which is worse, undisclosed part swapping or ambiguous product classing.

The 3D NAND Blue from what I’ve heard is a much better drive.

While you do get a 5-year warranty with this SSD, the warranty claimant has to pay shipping to the warranty location which I think is in the US? No idea how long the replacement process will take and you’re down an SSD in the event of a defective unit. In 3 years of time per TB cost perhaps drops so much that buying a new one makes more sense?

Man, buying a SSD is such a research project these days.

Now we'll also need to be on the lookout for cheaped out drives like the SA510 which is not the successor to the WD Blue drives. There's a reason why the "improved" version is much cheaper than the original version -- and that's the catch: no DRAM; and high failure rate. Not a good combination.

I don't care if the drive even comes with a 5 year or 10 year warranty. If I'm RMA-ing the drive more than using it, what's the point? I'll never get to enjoy my purchase long enough to see its value. I made the mistake of buying a bad hard drive many years ago based purely on budget considerations and it was the biggest lemon ever.

It looks like you'll have to be on the lookout for your use case as well if this will be a system or storage only drive as well as your budget -- and know the fair market prices like back of your hand to know if you're really getting a good deal or companies like WD trying to pull the wool over the eyes of someone who is purely budget driven with no other considerations. Maybe the only way to "stay competitive" in the marketplace is to cut corners like this since "everyone is doing it" and to undercut the competition. WD won't risk damaging their brand either, since they'll just roll back on their heels and say, "This is our budget line. Don't expect enterprise level performance or reliability."

This is another bad example of a race to the bottom and a waste of valuable resources to create more e-waste that benefits nobody.

Save your money for something that's the real deal.

Wallet safe.

Skilas wrote: ↑ I tried reading replies on google, but wasn't understanding. Why is DRAM-less an issue?

Chipbug wrote: ↑ DRAM can improve performance especially for random read/write. For drive mainly for storage, it probably makes no difference. But for OS drive (especially like Windows which seems to read and write all over the places constantly), it could make some differences.

I am not saying you shouldn't buy DRAM-less SSD. They are cheaper and perfectly useful for many use cases. I just wanted to point out that the new WD Blue SSD removed DRAM as some people may not have aware of that.

Honestly, I don't think it makes a difference. Going from 10-40mb per second to 300mb per second (spinning HDD to SATA) was the game changer.
Going from 300mb SATA to 3000mb nvme save me couple of seconds at boot up time. Its not "game changer" for me. (For what I remember , I reduced 11sec to 4-5sec boot up time?)
Going from 3000mb speed to 6000mb speed - I don't even notice it. I tried using different use cases. Its so fast, its irrelevant now - again in my opinion. Maybe in your use cases it is insufficient.

Only really good logic is reliability. AS long as you have good backups, I think just buy whatever cheaper , half decent nvme you can get.

flyingRamenMonst wrote: ↑ WD abuses its long running Blue series naming for profit. Hard to say which is worse, undisclosed part swapping or ambiguous product classing.

The 3D NAND Blue from what I’ve heard is a much better drive.

While you do get a 5-year warranty with this SSD, the warranty claimant has to pay shipping to the warranty location which I think is in the US? No idea how long the replacement process will take and you’re down an SSD in the event of a defective unit. In 3 years of time per TB cost perhaps drops so much that buying a new one makes more sense?

The WD PDF product briefs for the previous WD Blue and newer SA510 series only show 3D NAND for the older series. I guess the newer SA510s are using cheaper NAND? The SA510 series also only goes up to 1TB capacity.
As for warranty, I would never send a used and broken drive back since I don't want any company or anyone for that matter to have a storage device with my data on it. There's a reason why many companies pay a few bucks extra for them to keep their drive if a warranty replacement is needed.

The Crucial BX500 looks to be a better deal at $73 for the 1TB version on Amazon.ca

Its also DRAM-less but has a better reputation for reliability

Edit: Looks like this an ATL!

bluestreak7 wrote: ↑ The Crucial BX500 looks to be a better deal at $73 for the 1TB version on Amazon.ca

Its also DRAM-less but has a better reputation for reliability

Edit: Looks like this an ATL!

BX500 1tb ($73) or Patriot Burst Elite 960gb ($57). They are in the same league, both with QLC and no DRAM. The BX500 is $16 more but with a better reputation.

Still waiting for 1tb QLC to go below $50cdn mark for all my old computers/laptops...

Can anyone confirm if this drive has DRAM? It does have according to this link:
https://drivesolutions.com/western-digi ... t3b0a.html

But WD's official spec does not mention DRAM at all.

dennyhj wrote: ↑ BX500 1tb ($73) or Patriot Burst Elite 960gb ($57). They are in the same league, both with QLC and no DRAM. The BX500 is $16 more but with a better reputation.

Still waiting for 1tb QLC to go below $50cdn mark for all my old computers/laptops...

Ah bummer - I didn't know the BX500 was TLC below 1TB and QLC for the 1TB & 2TB sizes

dennyhj wrote: ↑ Can anyone confirm if this drive has DRAM? It does have according to this link:
https://drivesolutions.com/western-digi ... t3b0a.html

But WD's official spec does not mention DRAM at all.

SA510 WD Blue is DRAM-less. Someone already opened the case to examine the hardware and found no DRAM chip.

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1477420 ... erformance

Also WD almost always used its own controller. You know this site probably has inaccurate information when it showed the drive is using Marvell controller.

bluestreak7 wrote: ↑ Ah bummer - I didn't know the BX500 was TLC below 1TB and QLC for the 1TB & 2TB sizes

Id rather pay a bit more for TLC compared to QLC which has much higher failure rate

Bought at CC when on sale for 90 bucks or something last month. Drive failed after a couple weeks. When returning he said I was the 3rd drive returned that day...

flyingRamenMonst wrote: ↑ WD abuses its long running Blue series naming for profit. Hard to say which is worse, undisclosed part swapping or ambiguous product classing.

The 3D NAND Blue from what I’ve heard is a much better drive.

While you do get a 5-year warranty with this SSD, the warranty claimant has to pay shipping to the warranty location which I think is in the US? No idea how long the replacement process will take and you’re down an SSD in the event of a defective unit. In 3 years of time per TB cost perhaps drops so much that buying a new one makes more sense?

WD Warranty location is in Mississauga ON. and if u complaint to c/s about shipping cost they will provide a pre paid label.

PrinceMS wrote: ↑ Honestly, I don't think it makes a difference. Going from 10-40mb per second to 300mb per second (spinning HDD to SATA) was the game changer.
Going from 300mb SATA to 3000mb nvme save me couple of seconds at boot up time. Its not "game changer" for me. (For what I remember , I reduced 11sec to 4-5sec boot up time?)
Going from 3000mb speed to 6000mb speed - I don't even notice it. I tried using different use cases. Its so fast, its irrelevant now - again in my opinion. Maybe in your use cases it is insufficient.

Only really good logic is reliability. AS long as you have good backups, I think just buy whatever cheaper , half decent nvme you can get.

Those numbers you mentioned are sequential read/write speeds. Equally if not more important are random read/write speeds and latency, and DRAM certainly makes a difference in those metrics.

flyingRamenMonst wrote: ↑ While you do get a 5-year warranty with this SSD, the warranty claimant has to pay shipping to the warranty location which I think is in the US? No idea how long the replacement process will take and you’re down an SSD in the event of a defective unit. In 3 years of time per TB cost perhaps drops so much that buying a new one makes more sense?

I had one of these fail, shipping to their Canadian RMA center was literally a $1.92 stamp, and I got the replacement shipped to me in 2 days.

For shipping I stuck it inside a folded piece of cardboard and taped the edges together. Passed the Canada Post "envelope" test.