SHARE

Incompressible Data Test

For this test, we set CrystalDiskMark to the default mode, which uses incompressible data.

WD Green 240 GiB

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.

WD Green 240 GiB

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.

WD Green 240 GiB

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.

WD Green 240 GiB

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.

WD Green 240 GiB

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.

WD Green 240 GiB

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.

WD Green 240 GiB

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.

WD Green 240 GiB

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.