In our experience, five-ply pans also take nearly twice as long to heat up compared with regular tri-ply, in some cases 5 minutes or more. This isn’t necessarily the case, though, as some of the five-ply pans we tested exhibited a difference of 100 Fahrenheit degrees between the hottest and coldest points. The argument goes that more layers of metal-such as aluminum or copper sandwiched between multiple layers of stainless steel-result in better heat distribution.
Let me know if you would like to see any other tests/data. At the end of the day, responsiveness to real-world like use is most important. That, and I think because the application test results speak for themselves more than anything. And, performance isn't hugely different between drives in QD2-4 that it matters to show. I used to plot QD1-4 and the average before, but I just don't think it is worth plotting beyond QD1 on random because one file size doesn't always relate to what real-world performance will be like. Optimally, for synthetic testing, I'd do a filesize and QD sweep like I do with enterprise stuff, but for consumers, that would be a lot of data for little value. I have QD 1-128 on 4K random and 128 seq results data for manufacturer comparison. I have it compressed this way because it creates a tail whip pattern to allow me to quickly differentiate good vs bad write performance over sustained writes. But QD1 is what matters most.I'll look into it. I like when random read IOPS are tested at queue depths 1, 2, and 4, FWIW. Personally, I care mostly about synthetics. I was worried it might not have the synthetic benchmarks, but I was glad when I finally got to them.
A lot of authors on here don't seem to read the comments - not even the first few.Īlso, nice review. I feel like it'd give a more intuitive sense of what happens to transfer speeds over time, if it were linear in both X & Y. Plus, a simpler design can help lower the cost to manufacture.īit_user said:I hadn't noticed. This translates into a bit less peak performance, but better power efficiency. But the company cut it down a bit from an 8-channel design to 4-channels, and possibly lowered the core count or are using a smaller manufacturing process node due to its very compact size and low power consumption figures. The Blue SN550’s NVMe 1.4-compliant controller interfaces with the host over a PCIe 3.0 x4 link, a step up from the x2 link the previous SN500 had, which helps performance a bit.Īrchitecturally, we think the new controller is close to WD's 28nm tri-core NVMe controller on the SN750. WD designed the controller and firmware that powers the SSD. WD’s product team are fairly tight-lipped on disclosing hardware specifics enabling the Blue SN550 to perform how it does, but we managed to narrow things down a bit on our own.
True to its name, WD’s Blue SN550 comes with a blue PCB, in a single-sided M.2 2280 form factor, so it can fit in even the thinnest of devices.
#Heat up 2 review windows#
It can also be used for creating system images for back up, which can be quite helpful if/when Windows decides to break after a system update. WD rates the SSD to deliver sequential read speeds of up to 2,400 MBps and write speeds of up to 1,750 MBps, although the smallest 250GB capacity can only hit 950 MBps on the write side of things.Īlong with the toolbox, Acronis True Image WD Edition is a simple-to-use cloning program that allows you to quickly and easily migrate your data from your old drive to your new WD SSD. Pricing is low, with MSRPs of $54.99, $64.99, and $99.99 respectively. WD’s Blue SN550 is available in 250GB, 500GB, and 1TB capacities to suit the mainstream crowd.
0 kommentar(er)
