Browsing online and saw this on their front page, I think it’s a pretty good price.
Someone modified this to make it sound like it is just online but this is NOT just online, It’s available in store too!
WD Green 120GB SSD $48 (Online & in-Store) + Postage (or Free C & C) @ Centrecom
121
[Deactivated] on 14/05/2018 - 11:02 centrecom.com.au (219 clicks)
Last edited 14/05/2018 - 17:39 by 4 other users
Last edited 14/05/2018 - 17:39 by 4 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
finding the usb 2 hub that is an integrated part of my TV is getting low on power as devices are added to the point the movie drive (spindle) doesn't reliably fire up (need to remove other devices), seems OK with flash drive loads …. might get one of these and put it into a USB case for movie storage for the TV … cheap way to get reliable 120GB of removeable flash storage.
Actually… since you would be writing it once and reading it over and over. That would be a stupidly reliable way of doing it. Put it in the right case and it should be able to take a drop as well. That's a damn good idea! Plus no annoying hard drive noise while you're watching!
For $10 shipping you may as well buy the $49 from Umart and pickup. And in my opinion you'd be better off spending $10-20 more on a better brand.
caveat, only a benificial soloution for those that live close to a Umart
I thought WD was a good brand?
Which brands are better?
Not for SSD which the main player is Samsung
Samsung, Crucial and Intel
WD hasn't been into making SSD for very long.
WD also own sandisk, it's a complex web of brands parents companies, what they sell for data centres, PC OEMs and retailer.
Crucial and Micron are same company, same NAND, slightly different software, crucial is retail, Micron is for PC manufactuers and data centres.
Same with how WD position their brands.
Samsung are big in retail hence people know the brand, not so big in data centres. Also samsung were first with TLC .. took them a while to get the durablity, but it allowed higher yeilds in the end. Most for consumer have moved to the next gen of TLC, 3D which we see more of now …. high yeild, reasonable durablity, and scales well.
While WD is a decent brand, the WD Green series rates very poor for performance when compared to other similar priced models, particularly in write speed. Kingston, Sandisk, Crucial - all are considerably better overall in that respect. However I cannot comment on durability.
Edit: e.g. User benchmark WD Green vs Sandisk SSD Plus
WD Green series has always been the slowest and less reliable also including in the hard drive range. You never use to put an operating system on a WD Green drive. It was only known for slow storage.
These drives would be better suited for whatever you don't expect to be important.
As for me i use a few Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD drives for the operating system and games and have never gone wrong there.
The WD Green is effectively a Sandisk SSD Plus (I won't say re-branded, but they are VERY similar), at least for the latest revisions.
WD owns Sandisk, and both the WD Green and Sandisk SSD Pro are "dram-less" designs using a Silicon Motion controller and TLC Sandisk NAND. Earlier versions of the SSD Plus used a different controller, and some even used much faster MLC NAND, which probably explains the difference in benchmarks. But currently they're basically the same hardware.
Also, the WD Blue is effectively a Sandisk X400 SSD.
@webbiegareth: MLC was good, but too expensive to make. Very few people focus on controllers used e.g Silicon Motion vs Marvell, etc and also size of drives …. bigger drives are faster due to controller bus and NAND density used.
I just go by $$ per GB now days as they for SATA they all perform about the same in real life and are just as reliable as the next brand.
So under that premise. According to what you're claiming that a WD Green SSD would perform about the same and be as reliable as a Samsung 850 or 860 Pro SSD. I don't think so. You will find those Samsung drives would outperform and last way longer.
Yeah the WD Greens and SSD Plus are definitely "bottom of the barrel" with the non-3D TCL NAND and dramless design - there's definitely a performance difference and the non-3D TLC doesn't have the same endurance as the "3D" (vertically stacked) TLC that Samsung use in their current SSD's.
That said, I have an SSD Plus in one of my machines and it works fine for it's usage (general Windows use, web browsing, Youtube and MS Office). Should still last years and years.
@hollykryten: might out perform, especially if compared to a 120GB vs 500GB … different bus architecture but reliability wise the same … don't get caught up in brand , look under the covers and what is in the silicon … come down to write cycles and how much spare they put in the drive for worn out cells.
Need to work with spec sheets when talking reliability and durability not emotions based on brand perception.
the green is rated upto 1 million hrs MTBF …. you PC is long gone before then, and has 3 year warranty ….
they don't quote how many TB writes the drive is good for , not sure what the Samsung TB writes are for a 120GB evo 850 ….
keep PULLing…
Express shipping included @ $39.90 is pretty sharp
lol, can anyone find any ebay sellers lower $39.90??
Pretty awful SSD, would not recommend.
Kingston A400 is $1 more and substantially better - http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/WD-Green-120GB-2018-vs-…
As in all WD Green drives were pretty awful when it came to performance the reliability. For the best in the WD series go for the WD Black.
The WD Green hard drives have never been unreliable, and they performed well for a lower spindle speed drive.
These SSDs are notable for being DRAMless (which has a not insignificant effect on lifespan), and with pretty dreadful performance for an SSD. They're at the absolute bottom of the market. That doesn't mean they're not a great choice to replace a spinning hard disk as a boot drive if you still don't have one in 2018, it just means that they are remarkably poor performers, way more than the Green hard drives ever were.
DRAMless and lifespan …. life span is based on the write cycles to a cell, not read cycles. Also how much extra flash they have incorporated so that as cells age then can replace them with spare ones to meet the spec sheet and warranty. I recall early Samsung TLC was 1500 writes.
Some have a DRAM cache which feeds some SLC (expensive and fast) then the 3D (slow and cheap) but this is for speed up writes, not read.
@garage sale: Yes, life span is based on write cycles and DRAM in an SSD helps save writes.
Because of wear leveling etc, the locations of data on the SSD as the computer sees it don't map neatly to the locations of data on the actual NAND flash chips. That table mapping the locations is held in the SSD's RAM and eventually has to be written to flash so that it persists.
A truly DRAMless SSD needs to write that map immediately, with every write. It has to, because it has nowhere else to store it, and the next queued read needs that map to be readable in a current state. That takes every logical write from 1 point something actual writes to 2 actual writes. It also reduces the amount of work the controller can do in parallel.
Some DRAMless SSDs get around this by not actually being DRAMless - e.g. the Phison S11 controller chip used by the Kingston A400 SSD people keep comparing this WD to has a small amount of embedded RAM. Others (like the WD Green) accept the penalty to performance and lifespan.
Edit: I'm not saying I wouldn't buy one - I did, I needed something to quickly replace a dead Kingston A400 - just that it's an important part of the equation to consider.
If you are going for the Kingston A400, then you can get it for $45 delivered from Kogan with this method;
- Create a new Kogan account via the referral link on this page to get $10 in store credit (min spend $35)
- Create a Shipster account with the same email (free 2-month trial) or try getting free shipping via the Kogan app as per this deal.
- Pay $45 in total at the checkout with your $10 credit.
Local stock, so you will also be getting a 3-year manufacturers warranty. Can’t see any cheaper option according to StaticIce
Wow, the write speeds on that Green SSD are way, way lower than their specs. WD list peaks of 540MB/s and 405MB/s for read/write respectively, so the read speed isn't too far off, but that write is atrocious.
Interestingly, the sequential write speed and mixed read/write is lower than a 5400rpm WD Green HDD http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/2487/WDC-WD5000AZRX-0…
Can someone please recommend a USB C case for these? Cheap and locally available…
Wanting to use Windows To Go with my MacBook.
It's not a type C , you'd need an adapter cable
$7.30
https://www.ebay.com.au/i/142294407236?chn=psdrive enclosure
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Aluminium-2-5-SATA-to-USB-3-0-Ha…
About $13 delivered from Ebay …
I own 3 of these, they are aluminium not plastic and screw together, I have some cheaper plastic ones for $8 but I'm not happy with those.
and you have the cable that came with the case for non usb C macs and PCs.
But wouldn't that mean it's running at 3.0 speeds, not 3.1…?
USB x.x is the signalling protocol:
USB 3.1 Gen 1 = 5Gbps = USB 3.0
USB 3.1 Gen 2 = 10GbpsType C is the physical connector format, there's nothing stopping you from having USB 2.0 Type C cables/connections.
I'm guessing from your comments you want a case that handles USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type C <- a bit of a mouthful.
@4wd: yep and the drives have a sata interface which is the lowest common denominator, and the CPU on a PC has to do a lot of the work when talking to USB and memory management ….
issue for macbook users is that the newer macbooks come with usb C connectors not A type…. so it's not speed, it's physical interface.
+shipping $9.95 for Sydney.