Western Digital claims its new QLC SSD beats its last-gen TLC drive — SN5000S is up to 16.5% faster than SN740

Western Digital's SN5000S SSD.
(Image credit: Western Digital)

Western Digital's latest SSD with QLC technology boasts better performance in both reads and writes than its TLC-based predecessor (via ComputerBase). The company's newest SN5000S drive, despite using generally slow QLC NAND flash, is 16.5% faster in reads and 15.5% faster in writes compared to the TLC-based SN740.

The PC SN5000S is Western Digital's latest mainstream consumer SSD, available in the M.2 2280 "gumstick" and the small PC-compatible M.2 2230 form factors, with up to 2TB of storage. It essentially replaces the PC SN740 series, which is offered in the same capacities and form factors.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Western Digital SN5000S Specifications
Row 0 - Cell 0 SN5000SSN740
NAND Flash96-layer QLC112-layer TLC
Capacities512GB, 1TB, 2TB512GB, 1TB, 2TB
Read Performance (2TB Model)6,000MB/s5,150MB/s
Write Performance (2TB Model)5,600MB/s4,850MB/s
Endurance600TBW500TBW
Peak Power6.9W6.3W

The SN5000S 2TB is 16.5% faster in reads and 15.5% faster in writes compared to the SN740 2TB. The SN740 1TB is slightly faster in writes, and the SN5000S's lead drops to a still respectable 14.3%. The SN5000S 2TB also has an extra 100TB worth of endurance compared to its predecessor, though it is worth noting that the 1TB model of the SN5000S only has 300TBW of endurance to the SN740 1TB's 400TBW. Additionally, the SN5000S uses a little more power at peak than the SN740.

Fundamentally, QLC NAND is in last place when it comes to performance compared to other types of NAND. This is because QLC stores four bits per cell, while other technologies store less. SLC stores one bit per cell, MLC has two, and TLC uses three, with fewer bits generally translating into more performance and endurance. While having more bits increases data density, reading and writing more bits often leads to less performance and more wear and tear on the NAND itself.

However, there are ways to improve the performance of QLC and other multi-bit types of NAND. Perhaps the most crucial method is employing an SLC cache. Although QLC has four bits available to fill, an SSD doesn't necessarily need to fill those bits when writing data. SSDs can perform much better by designating a portion of their cells as pseudo-SLC. Of course, this only works with completely empty cells, and SSDs that use pseudo-SLC need to consolidate data down into fewer cells to make this sustainable.

Despite the issues with QLC (and other multi-bit NAND), storage manufacturers like Samsung are interested in developing it further. Since consumers don't necessarily need the best performance or endurance and generally prioritize having lots of storage, QLC can often be the most cost-effective solution for the mainstream. SLC's low data density makes it more suitable for servers, where the raw performance and high endurance are far more useful.

Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • GabrielFerrazTPU
    One correction, the SSDs doesn't uses Kioxia 96-layer QLC but instead its newest variants of BiCS6 1Tb QLC dies
    https://www.techpowerup.com/ssd-specs/#WD%20SN5000S
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    What about sustained performance, not the boosty SLC cache, as sustained performance is the main limiter for what I use these drives for(media recording at high data rates). I sure don't care about getting an extra boost for burst loads, for me the main characteristics of importance are sustained performance and efficiency(also related to sustained performance, overheating leads to throttling).

    Based of the spec showing higher power consumption at load (6.9w vs 6.3w) and the knowledge that sustained performance always drops off with QLC vs TLC, I will keep buying SN740 until someone test these drives out and show me they can keep up on sustained writes. Would love to see power test, but hardly anyone properly puts SSD through their paces like they did 7+ years ago.
    Reply
  • DaveLTX
    cyrusfox said:
    What about sustained performance, not the boosty SLC cache, as sustained performance is the main limiter for what I use these drives for(media recording at high data rates). I sure don't care about getting an extra boost for burst loads, for me the main characteristics of importance are sustained performance and efficiency(also related to sustained performance, overheating leads to throttling).

    Based of the spec showing higher power consumption at load (6.9w vs 6.3w) and the knowledge that sustained performance always drops off with QLC vs TLC, I will keep buying SN740 until someone test these drives out and show me they can keep up on sustained writes. Would love to see power test, but hardly anyone properly puts SSD through their paces like they did 7+ years ago.
    Definitely worse. There's no example of a QLC drive in sustained being faster than a TLC
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    DaveLTX said:
    Definitely worse. There's no example of a QLC drive in sustained being faster than a TLC
    Have you seen the SN740 review... There is some flashes of brilliance from the Sabrent Rocket Q4 2tb (QLC drive) where it is besting the majority of the TLC drives, only Inland TN446 1TB appears to keep up (MP600 CORE MINI 1TB, SN740 and SN770M are the other TLC drives to compare to).

    With some more controller magic as well as onpackage DRAM or software magic (System DRAM allocation),The next generation drives may only be QLC and likely superior to the current TLC best results. The ultimate limiter for QLC nand chips is the native write to QLC chips once pseudo QLC is exhausted, but with all of these tricks, that threshold can be pushed far out and give more opportunities for cache recovery.

    I do find it interesting that while everyone else is climbing the layer count, WD seems to be regressing here(Others are at like 176+ layers WD in these products is going from 112 layers to 96 layers). Are they getting rid of old stock? Or did Kioxia and WD take a different path to scaling 3D Nand, perplexed... Would love to understand their positioning going forward to compete with Hynix, Samsung, and Micron.
    Reply
  • DaveLTX
    cyrusfox said:
    Have you seen the SN740 review... There is some flashes of brilliance from the Sabrent Rocket Q4 2tb (QLC drive) where it is besting the majority of the TLC drives, only Inland TN446 1TB appears to keep up (MP600 CORE MINI 1TB, SN740 and SN770M are the other TLC drives to compare to).

    With some more controller magic as well as onpackage DRAM or software magic (System DRAM allocation),The next generation drives may only be QLC and likely superior to the current TLC best results. The ultimate limiter for QLC nand chips is the native write to QLC chips once pseudo QLC is exhausted, but with all of these tricks, that threshold can be pushed far out and give more opportunities for cache recovery.

    I do find it interesting that while everyone else is climbing the layer count, WD seems to be regressing here(Others are at like 176+ layers WD in these products is going from 112 layers to 96 layers). Are they getting rid of old stock? Or did Kioxia and WD take a different path to scaling 3D Nand, perplexed... Would love to understand their positioning going forward to compete with Hynix, Samsung, and Micron.
    Moments of brilliance doesn't equate to being better.
    However, it appears they "regress" in layer count possibly because higher layer counts are possobly too dense to make multiple channels of QLC unless it's a very high cap SSD. Without multiple channels QLC is devastatingly slow.
    And also possibly because higher layer count QLC can be more unreliable.
    At the very least they're not pulling a solidigm and turning a PLC into a QLC. (D5 P5336)
    Or QLC nand onto pSLC (D7 P5810)
    pSLC isn't close to being SCM! Real SCM have short word lengths and consequently much lower access time than that trash called P5810
    Reply