Having arrived at the third generation of the BiCS 3D NAND, developed by Sandisk and Toshiba, WD thinks the time has come to base consumer products on the new technology. The performance of the WD Blue 3D and Sandisk Ultra 3D are on-par with the 3D NAND-based Micron SSDs and only slightly worse than those of the Samsung 850 Evo. This means that WD can compete, although they do not have the fastest options.
The Sandisk is not readily available and also about 18 pounds / 20 euros more expensive than the WD, for which there is no reason based on the benchmark results. We would not be surprised if the next generation for consumers is only sold through WD’s own brand name. In any case, we still think the WD Blue 3D is a bit too expensive. The Crucial MX300 is also based on 3D NAND and is very comparable, both in terms of performance and warranty, but has a lower price. Furthermore the Crucial also has slightly more storage capacity – 980 versus 930 GB in Windows – and the MX300 also offers support for encryption, something that is lacking on the WD.
Especially now that WD themselves are (co-)owners of the chip factories that manufacture 3D NAND you would think that they have some room to release these SSDs at a lower price and in terms of warranty at least be at the same level as Samsung. However, for now the manufacturer does not do that and with comparable performance to the competitors the added price is difficult to justify.