Wd green tlc: Western Digital Green 2.5″ 1TB SATA III 3D NAND TLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) WDS100T3G0A

Western Digital Introduces WD Blue And WD Green SSDs

by Billy Tallison October 11, 2016 8:02 AM EST

  • Posted in
  • SSDs
  • Storage
  • Western Digital
  • SanDisk
  • TLC



Five months ago, Western Digital completed its acquisition of SSD and NAND flash manufacturer SanDisk, adding consumer SSDs and more enterprise SSDs to their existing portfolio of hard drives and HGST enterprise SSDs. WD is now introducing two families of WD-branded consumer SSDs, each derived from existing SanDisk product lines.

The WD Blue SSD is based on the SanDisk X400 SATA SSD with minimal hardware changes but has modified firmware and different usable capacities. Like the X400, the WD Blue is available as either a 2.5″ or M.2 drive and uses SanDisk 15nm TLC NAND with the Marvell 88SS1074 controller. Our review of the 1TB WD Blue SSD shows that it improves on some of the X400’s weaknesses but sacrifices some performance on many tests, producing a drive that is not quite as fast overall. The MSRP for the WD Blue is about the same as current actual retail prices for the SanDisk X400, which position it as a mid-range SATA SSD and puts it up against formidable competition from the new wave of drives using the more affordable 3D TLC NAND from Micron.

Western Digital WD Blue Specifications
Capacity 250GB 500GB 1000GB
Form Factor 2.5″ 7mm SATA or M.2 2280 SATA
Controller Marvell 88SS1074
NAND SanDisk 15nm TLC
Sequential Read 540 MB/s 545 MB/s 545 MB/s
Sequential Write 500 MB/s 525 MB/s 525 MB/s
4KB Random Read 97k IOPS 100k IOPS 100k IOPS
4KB Random Write 79k IOPS 80k IOPS 80k IOPS
Average Power 70 mW
Max Power 4. 4 W
Encryption No
Endurance (TBW) 100 TB 200 TB 400 TB
Warranty Three years
MSRP $79.99 $139.99 $299.99

The WD Green SSD is an entry-level product line with limited capacity options. Based on the SanDisk SSD Plus, it uses a Silicon Motion controller in a DRAM-less configuration with SanDisk 15nm TLC NAND. The WD Green has a similar purpose to drives like the Samsung 750 EVO and the recently-announced OCZ TL100: to offer the lowest possible price while still providing acceptable reliability and a noticeable performance jump over hard drives. Higher capacities are omitted from the product line because the total price would be too high for the most cost-sensitive consumers even if the price per GB is marginally lower than a more mainstream budget drive.

While the Green label has connotations of better than average power efficiency when applied to WD’s hard drives, the low performance of DRAM-less SSDs usually leads to poor energy efficiency during active use and the idle power savings tend to be minimal.

The WD Green will be available later this quarter, and pricing has not been announced.

Western Digital WD Green Specifications
Capacity 120GB 240GB
Form Factor 2.5″ 7mm SATA or M.2 2280 SATA
Controller Silicon Motion SM2256S
NAND SanDisk 15nm TLC
Sequential Read 540 MB/s 545 MB/s
Sequential Write 405 MB/s 435 MB/s
4KB Random Read 37k IOPS 37k IOPS
4KB Random Write 63k IOPS 68k IOPS
Idle Power 30 mW
Encryption No
Endurance (TBW) 40 TB 80 TB
Warranty Three years


Western Digital


Western Digital TLC (Triple-Level Cell) SSD — Buy SSD


  • Computing

    • Components
      PC peripheral
      Laptop computer
      Desktop computer
      Raspberry Pi
      Virtual reality
      POS equipment
  • Components

    • Case
      PC power supply
      Hard drive & SSD
      Graphics cards
      PC cooling
      Optical drive
      Controller card
      Sound card
      TV & Capture
      PC tuning
      Network card
      Upgrade bundles
  • Hard drive & SSD

    • Internal hard drive
      External hard drive
      Hard drive accessories
      Hard drive enclosure
  • SSD

No products matching

TLC (Triple-Level Cell)

You can also
remove criteria above.

You can try to reset or modify filters.

No products matching

Some products that might interest you:

Geeksickness? These products are no longer available for sale:

    • Western Digital SSD WD Green 1Tb

    • Western Digital SSD CL SN520 128 GB

    • Western Digital SSD CL SN520 256 GB

    • Corsair MP400 1TB V2 (Certified Refurbished)

    • KIOXIA SSD BG5 1Tb

    • Lenovo ThinkSystem 5210 Entry 6Gb SATA QLC SSD 1. 92 TB

    • Corsair Force MP600 2Tb V2

    • Corsair Force MP600 PRO XT HX 2Tb — White

    • Corsair MP400 4Tb V2

    • Samsung PM983 Enterprise 960 GB

    • Samsung PM9A3 960 GB

    • Corsair Force MP600 PRO LPX 500GB

    • Corsair Force MP600 PRO LPX 4Tb

    • Kingston KC3000 4096 GB

    • Western Digital SSD M. 2 WD Red SN700 1Tb

    • Western Digital SSD WD Green SN350 960 GB

    • Western Digital SSD WD Blue SN570 2Tb

    • Western Digital SSD WD Blue SN570 500 GB

    • Western Digital SSD WD Blue SN570 1Tb

    • Western Digital SSD WD Black SN750 SE 1Tb Battlefield 2042

    • Western Digital SSD WD Black SN750 SE 500 GB Battlefield 2042

    • Western Digital SSD WD Black SN850 2Tb with heatsink

    • Kingston DC1500M 3840GB

    • Kingston DC1500M 1920GB

    • Western Digital SSD WD Black SN750 SE 1Tb

    • Western Digital SSD WD Blue SN550 2Tb

    • Corsair MP400 1Tb V2

    • Seagate FireCuda 510 M. 2 PCIe NVMe 500GB SSD

Our SSD brands:



Western Digital








Seagate Technology














Fox Spirit


We apologise for the inconvenience caused

Testing the WD Green SN350 2TB SSD on a new controller of our own design and with our own QLC NAND

Method for testing drives of the 2021 sample

WD Green drives rarely become the heroes of reviews, although they have always accounted for a huge share of WD SSD sales . But both are easily explained and do not contradict each other. From the very beginning of its existence, this family was positioned as the cheapest — therefore excellent sold itself to , but it was fraught with attracting the attention of testers to it. And the latter could not find anything interesting there — just SATA drives on TLC memory, first paired with a Silicon Motion SM2258XT controller (so they worked completely identical to many budget products), and then moved to the company’s own development. The latter was interesting for the implementation of direct writing to the TLC array (a rarity in this segment), but many users were frightened by very low results in low-level benchmarks. On the other hand, the main target audience of Green never paid attention to benchmarks, focusing solely on prices and personal preferences for different brands (which has always been a competitive advantage for WD) — so they didn’t notice anything bad. And those who chose these devices consciously also paid attention not to the «parrots» of Crystal Disk Mark (of which there were not enough), but to more important characteristics (with which things were often just better than other budget products). But overall, it’s simple and boring.

Boredom ended with the release of the first Green SN350 at the beginning of this year — unlike the base family, these are already NVMe devices. It would seem interesting to study. However, most publications limited themselves to news, and actively speculating on the topic of using QLC memory in the line. Indirectly, this was hinted at by the terms of the warranty — the standard three years were very severely limited by the total recording volume: 40, 60 or 80 TB for a capacity of 240, 480 and 960 GB, respectively. For comparison, the WD Blue SN550 1TB on the same SanDisk 20-82-01008 controller has a five-year warranty limited to 600TB of mileage, i.e. almost an order of magnitude more. It would seem that everything is clear. However, in reality, WD has always been very creative in its approach to TBW (to the great horror of users trying to find some physical meaning in this legal term) — they just wanted to separate the lines away. The controller in the SN550 and SN350 lines was the same, the memory was almost the same: 96-layer 3D TLC NAND BiCS4 is also of our own production. It’s just that Blue used 512 Gb crystals, and Green used 1 Tb. In practice, this only affected the write speed outside the SLC buffer, which is hardly noticeable in typical user tasks. So I had to «play» with the warranty conditions for the budget line — so as not to compete too much with the middle peasants. Moreover, since July of this year, Blue SN550 has also moved to BiCS4 terabit crystals, so there are very few technical differences in pairs of 240-250 and 480-500 GB. The «quality» of the memory itself, however, is also likely to be different — so with the same loads, Blue should «live» longer than Green. But in practice, anything can happen: it is still impossible to predict the service life of a single drive in advance.

Such a commitment to TLC-memory against the background of how many competitors implemented QLC in budget drives looked a little strange. But it is understandable — after experimenting in laboratories, the company decided not to release QLC on 96 layers, but to implement it along with the transition to a more efficient 112-layer BiCS5. The company reported on its development last year — however, it took (as usual) a certain time to master the production process. In addition, for the «correct» work with the new memory, a new controller was also required — the development of which appeared only after it became clear exactly what kind of memory would be produced.

By the start of the Green SN350, neither the controllers nor the memory were ready — so the SSDs turned out the way they turned out. At the moment, everything is over — the result of which was the appearance of the WD Blue SN570 TLC line and WD Green SN350 QLC drives. There are only two of the latter, although as many as five modifications can be found on sale so far. Someone, perhaps, will be more interested in just the starting trio — on TLC. We, first of all, wanted to test something from really new devices — on a new element base.

Not because of the great love for QLC — as has been said more than once, we do not yet consider this memory a universal solution for all areas of application. However, this is largely due to the fact that manufacturers do not yet know how to cook it properly. If you take the cheapest low-power controller, and add 250 or 500 GB of QLC to it … it’s clear what happens. And in general — such configurations and TLC often do not save much. The conservative approach of Samsung — when the new memory is used only in volumes from 1 TB and paired with a powerful controller — is already more interesting. But it is spoiled by the fact that the company is limited to SATA and the 2.5 ”form factor — you can’t install such devices in every computer. Rather, this is such an additional SSD for cold data — and this is still a specific case in the «personal» market. Perhaps best of all, Intel approached the solution of the problem in the 660r / 665r / 670r family — the controllers are not the most budgetary, the capacity is usually high, NVMe and M.2 2280. It is clear that in this design there are a lot of faster devices, moreover on less intimidating TLC memory. But they all cost more — so such an SSD in some cases will be an interesting compromise. For example, in a gaming computer — the size of modern games has already cheerfully stepped over 100 GB, so a high capacity is needed in itself. A quick read won’t hurt at least. But write operations are generally few. Yes, and their speed will often be limited by external factors — for example, installing and updating games via the Internet is seriously limited by connection speed and server load.

WD Green SN350 2TB

In view of the above, let’s look at the latest WD and… Capacity at the moment — only 1 and 2 TB. It is possible that over time, the younger models of 240 and 480 GB will also be “modernized” (960 GB is leaving the market, being replaced by a new terabyte) — but it’s not a fact that they will use QLC. And while this has not been done, it is too early to speculate. The controller is the latest SanDisk 20-82-10048-A2. Specially designed for 112-layer BiCS5 — both TLC (paired with it in the recently announced WD Blue SN570 line) and QLC. Not a top-end solution, but capable of “squeezing out” up to 3500/3000 MB / s read / write from four memory channels, respectively. The latter, however, is achieved exclusively in the terabyte SN570, and even then only within the SLC buffer, but earlier such speeds were not typical for controllers of this class even with such reservations. Actually, 3200/3000 MB / s for the older SN350 look very impressive.

But, of course, we see something similar when writing only within the SLC buffer. For the entire volume, as usual — i.e. up to 25% of free space. Outside of its limits — a little more than 180 MB / s, which is both bad and good. Bad — because top-end drives on TLC-memory of a similar and sometimes even smaller capacity «can» an order of magnitude faster. Good — since many budget drives based on QLC in such conditions completely «fail» to 50-60 MB / s. And within the buffer, they read and write much more slowly. Of course, the selected caching policy (and buffer release) is important — but this must be checked in more complex scenarios.

But before moving on to them, I have to mention that there is a catch, of course. And the catch is the same as before: the total amount of recording with the same three-year warranty period is still seriously limited to 100 TB. This is not a typo, it does not depend on the capacity in the new line, just such an upper bar for both 1 TB and 2 TB. Directly hinting that these devices are not intended for active recording. And no less direct — that the restriction was introduced on purpose. Yes, it will scare off some potential buyers, since at present most TLC terabytes are limited to at least 120 TB per year, and here it is four times less. However, statistics say that a rare PC user writes more than 30 TB per year, and the average values ​​do not exceed 10 TB at all. It is clear that in the first case the warranty period will simply end at the same time as the limit is reached, and in the second case it will end much earlier. In addition, this is just a limitation of the warranty, and not some kind of device life. But what looks frightening is undeniable.


Testing methodology

The methodology is described in detail in a separate article , which provides more information about the software and hardware used. Here we briefly note that we use a test bench based on the Intel Core i9-11900K processor and the Asus ROG Maximus XIII Hero motherboard on the Intel Z590 chipset, which gives us two ways to connect SSDs — to the «processor» PCIe 4.0 lines and the «chipset» ones PCIe 3.0. However, today we will only need the second one, since today’s heroes themselves do not support anything faster. Its results can be extended to many «old» systems, since starting from Skylake (LGA1151 «first version» of 2015 in desktop systems) and ending with last year’s Comet Lake (LGA1200 and corresponding laptops), nothing has changed for Intel in this regard — the chipset connection , almost the same chipsets, almost the same PCIe 3.0 controller.

Comparison samples

The change in methodology and test platform forced us to start accumulating results almost from scratch. However, since then, we have already tested two NVMe drives based on 2 TB of QLC memory — today they will come in handy for us.


Intel SSD 660p 2TB uses a Silicon Motion SM2263 controller with a DRAM buffer, and it comes with a five-year warranty, so it’s a higher-end device. Somewhat outdated — its successors began to work faster, but we have not tested them yet, so we will limit ourselves to this model. And the Kingston NV1 2 TB is rather a lower estimate or even a direct competitor. Since in this case we also have a Phison E13T bufferless controller and a three-year warranty. Its limitations are softer than those of the Green SN350, and the NV1 usually costs less in retail, but its declared speed characteristics are much more modest.

Limiting speed characteristics

Low-level benchmarks in general and CrystalDiskMark 8.0.1 in particular have long been victims in an unequal struggle with SLC caching — so they cannot test anything except the cache itself. However, information published by manufacturers about the performance of devices is also limited by its limits, so it is always useful to check them. Moreover, all the work on caching is being carried out in order to ensure that in real life hit the cache as often as possible. And demonstrate high speeds, despite the reduction in the cost of memory.

Sequential (128K Q8T8) MB/s
Reading Entry Mixed mode
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 1475.4 1940.5 917.3
Kingston NV1 2TB 1933.8 1854.0 1449.3
WD Green SN350 2TB 3542.1 3138.0 3351.8

As mentioned above, the new controller, equipped with the same memory with a fast interface, shows very high results for only four channels. However, nothing surprising — we have already seen Silicon Motion SM2267, for which the above is also true. The only thing that darkens the joy is, after all, only within the limits of the SLC cache in this case. But this also applies to the pair taken for comparison. Especially Kingston NV1 — in Phison E13T, even the speed of reading «fresh» and not very data differs markedly.

Reading in 4K blocks to arbitrary addresses with different queue depths, IOPS
Q1T1 Q4T1 Q4T4 Q4T8 Q32T8
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 15308 40598 113637 184386 222798
Kingston NV1 2TB 12456 46601 152640 214811 286413
WD Green SN350 2TB 7931 28906 103640 136380 168680

WD in its repertoire — as badly suited «green» SSD for hunting small-block parrots, nothing changes. Which is more of research interest, since in practice a regular PC has enough of this level (most SATA drives are not faster), and there are no long queues there at all. But what is, is.

Write 4K blocks to arbitrary addresses with different queue depths, IOPS
Q1T1 Q4T1 Q4T4 Q4T8 Q32T8
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 41784 107962 191231 201541 201691
Kingston NV1 2TB 50370 87157 100614 113718 126916
WD Green SN350 2TB 53755 149257 293355 381965 393915

With the recording, but everything turned out well. Although it is unlikely that anyone specifically tried: it’s just that the controller is relatively powerful, the memory interface is fast, so it’s easy to get high results when writing to the cache.

Reading to arbitrary addresses in blocks of different sizes with a single queue, MB/s
4K 16K 64K 256K
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 62.7 145.2 340.8 850.6
Kingston NV1 2TB 51.0 139,6 173.9 444.5
WD Green SN350 2TB 32.5 171.6 511.3 733.9

Queues in a personal environment are rare (only Old Believers with hard drives have time to line up), but with blocks other than 4K, both the operating system and application programs actively work. And in this discipline, important in practice, the WD Green SN350 can be said to win back for 4K.

Write to arbitrary addresses in blocks of different sizes with a single queue, MB/s
4K 16K 64K 256K
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 171. 1 456.4 1080.0 1586.8
Kingston NV1 2TB 206.3 499.8 985.8 1466.4
WD Green SN350 2TB 220.2 690.9 1515.5 2106.8

There was no need to recoup with the record, so just a stable lead. Let and only in his class.

Reading and writing to arbitrary addresses in blocks of different sizes with a single queue, MB/s
4K 16K 64K 256K
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 73.4 166.0 361.2 770.7
Kingston NV1 2TB 61.5 151.8 212.2 525.1
WD Green SN350 2TB 59.1 203.7 390.1 781. 3

And the leaders here are usually controllers with DRAM — which greatly speeds up the work with the address translation table. Regardless of the type of memory and, to a large extent, the interface, it’s just such a weak point of bufferless ones. With the possible exception of Optane SSDs, which do not need crutches in the form of DRAM. And, as you can see, SanDisk 20-82-10048-A2, their absence does not interfere too much either.

Working with large files

No matter how good the performance in low-level utilities is, it is far from always possible to achieve such speeds in practice. If only because it is always more difficult work — the same CrystalDiskMark works with small (relatively) portions of information, and inside one file. Firstly, in modern conditions, such a cache is almost always and guaranteed to be located in the SLC cache all the time of testing, and secondly, there is no need to be distracted by file system service operations — a real write of one file is also a modification of the MFT, and journals (the main ones used in file systems are journaled — and not only NTFS), so you have to write not to one place sequentially, but to different (and partially — small block ). In general, the Intel NAS Performance Toolkit provides more practical accuracy. With which you can test not only the cache. And not only on an empty device, where it has the maximum size — but also a more realistic case when there is almost no free space. Which is what we always do.

Read 32 GB data (1 file) MB/s
Empty SSD Free 100 GB
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 1609.6 1428.4
Kingston NV1 2TB 1419.9 1233.1
WD Green SN350 2TB 2517.2 2349.5

Single thread operation is the most frequent (146% of cases), but also the most difficult scenario, since there are too few opportunities for internal optimizations. In fact, for the vast majority of budget SSDs on quad-channel controllers, earlier and PCIe 3.0 x2 was not a limitation, but you could move on only by installing a “normal” controller. In this regard, the new four-channel chips can already be considered “normal” too — fortunately they overtake the old ones by a whole gigabyte per second (to assess the scale, we recall that the once popular SATA had a theoretical bandwidth almost half as much).

Read 32 GB data (32 files), MB/s
Empty SSD Free 100 GB
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 1350.5 1305.3
Kingston NV1 2TB 1918.0 1476.9
WD Green SN350 2TB 3490.8 3363.3

In multi-threaded mode, the difference can reach up to two gigabytes per second. Especially if we evaluate the read speed of data already guaranteed to be evicted from the cache — for the WD Green SN350 there is practically no difference, but for the Kingston NV1 it is very noticeable.

Record 32 GB data (1 file)
Empty SSD Free 100 GB
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 1796. 7 347.6
Kingston NV1 2TB 1718.3 1768.0
WD Green SN350 2TB 2359.7 2351.0

What these two SSDs have in common is the desire to clear the cache as much as possible in advance. As a result, it is not always even possible to understand that we are talking about a drive on QLC memory — for this you really need to constantly “gouge” it with requests, not allowing you to free up space (and we will see how this affects later). If write operations occur irregularly (which happens very often), then you don’t have to worry.

Write 32 GB data (32 files), MB/s
Empty SSD Free 100 GB
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 1970.5 354.9
Kingston NV1 2TB 1665.0 1796.0
WD Green SN350 2TB 2873. 7 2400.9

When we try to write to 32 threads at once, we get exactly the same results as in single-threaded mode — because in any case we run into the native capabilities of flash memory. Or in their disguise by means of SLC caching — when there is enough free space in the cache. To always have enough — you need to release in advance. And the SN350 does this — just like the NV1.

Read/write 32 GB data (sequential access), MB/s
Empty SSD Free 100 GB
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 1264.0 513.1
Kingston NV1 2TB 1596.9 1480.1
WD Green SN350 2TB 2844.4 2381.7

In this mode (which is not so rare in practice by itself — for example, when copying data inside the drive without processing), all the above trends remain unchanged. Although, it would seem, three budget drives on QLC memory — but how different the results are!

Read/write 32 GB data (random access), MB/s
Empty SSD Free 100 GB
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 1128.4 516.9
Kingston NV1 2TB 1331.5 1120.6
WD Green SN350 2TB 2032.2 1863.3

And a strategically important area is the improvement of controllers — which allows, if not completely leveling the negative impact of slowing down flash memory as data storage density grows (and this is an objectively necessary process — there is no getting away from it), then significantly smooth it out.

Comprehensive performance

A brief introduction to the new test package PCMark 10 Storage

At the moment, the best comprehensive benchmark for drives is PCMark 10 Storage, a brief description of which can be found in our review. In the same place, we noted that not all three tests included in the set are equally useful — it is best to operate with a “full” Full System Drive, which includes almost all mass scenarios: from loading the operating system to banal copying of data (internal and “ external»). The remaining two are only its subsets, and in our opinion, not too “interesting”. But this one is useful, among other things, by accurately measuring not only the real throughput when solving practical problems, but also the delays that arise in this case. Averaging these metrics over scenarios with subsequent reduction to a single number is, of course, a little synthetic, but it’s not much: there are still no estimates closer to reality “in general”, and not just in particular cases. Therefore, it makes sense to familiarize yourself with this.

PCMark 10 Storage Full System Drive
Empty SSD Free 100 GB
Intel SSD 660p 2TB 1925 1323
Kingston NV1 2TB 1139 629
WD Green SN350 2TB 2134 1445

With constant active work, it is rare that large recording volumes are long periods when it is possible mind your own business . Therefore, in this case, the performance drops for all drives based on QLC memory: in the absence of a supply of free cells, the size of the SLC cache is always not enough. But the absolute result is different: the same Intel SSD 660p is faster at worst than E13T + QLC at best, and Green SN350 is even faster. At the same time, 660r from this trio, although already outdated, is the most expensive in retail. Yes, and the controller in it, although the old four-channel, but with DRAM — i.e. higher class . And, what’s more interesting — there are SATA drives that can overtake Kingston NV1 (in conditions close to reality, and not in peak performance), but this will not work with 660p or SN350.


WD Green SN350 is not the first QLC-based drive we have tested, but perhaps the most successful from a technical point of view. Something comparable was previously obtained only when using the once top-end controllers such as Phison E12 or E16, but they are still not cheap, and DRAM only increases the price. At the same time, manufacturers have always been tempted to take the cheapest bufferless controller (and the Phison E13T is not the worst case here), since the barn burned down — burn and the hut . The result was appropriate. And in the new budget WD model, we see an inexpensive (structurally) bufferless four-channel controller, cheap memory to manufacture — and excellent speed performance. By and large, they are good not only for their class: there are a lot of models on TLC, in a number of scenarios they “brake” even more. Or at least not less.

However, it is clear that these models on the market are unlikely to hold out in splendid isolation for a long time — the recipe for their creation is clear. Controllers will “grow up” with other developers — Phison, for example, has already released new E15T and E19 to replace the E13TT (they are the same inside, but the second one even supports PCIe 4.0). Yes, and memory is also constantly improving. In addition, do not forget about the significant limitation of the warranty: for modern TLC drives, the regulated full recording volume has long been an empty phrase, and 100 TB can really be exceeded even in the most personal environment. And in general, if it comes to a purchase, then the final word will remain with the specific prices in the selected retail store. So, the Green SN350 series is officially the cheapest in the WD range. But in reality, at the moment you can find, for example, a terabyte Blue SN550 (moreover, there are 9 old0007 non-optimized series) is cheaper than the similar Green SN350. If you are not limited only to WD, then the choice is even wider. And most buyers, it seems to us, at equal (or comparable) prices, would prefer to do without the frightening QLC for the time being — especially with such warranty restrictions. It’s like that. But from a technical point of view, we really liked this model. In fact, this is the first SSD on QLC memory that fell into our hands, where its use is noticeable only if you know what and where to look.

WD Green in Stary Oskol: 142-products: free shipping [link]

Affiliate programHelp

Stary Oskol


Product Catalog

Clothing and footwear 90 005

Clothing and footwear

Building materials

Building materials

Textile and leather

Textile and leather

Health and beauty

Health and beauty

Children’s goods

Children’s goods

Food and drink

Food and drink

Electrical engineering

Electrical engineering

Home and garden

Home and garden

Furniture and interior

Furniture and interior

90 785 Agriculture




All categories





non-woven material 2. 863-006 for Karcher vacuum cleaners (MV 4-6, WD 4/ 5 6), 4 pcs.


SSD WD Original PCI-E x4 240Gb WDS240G2G0C Green SN350 M.2 2280


900 02 -60%



Green Label / Paper set dust bag filter 6.959 130.0 for Karcher vacuum cleaners series WD 3, SE 4001, 4002





Green Label, pleated filter for Karcher MV2, MV3, D2250, WD 2, WD 3 FP 110 PET Pro, 6.414-552.0 SE/ WD

V STORE 9000 5



WD Green 480GB (WDS480G3G0A) SSD

DETAILS 9 0005

14 280

Solid State Drive WD Original Green 1TB M.2 WDS100T3G0C China


14 190

SSD WD 2TB Green SN350 NVMe M2 .2280 (QLC)


SSD/ WD Green /SSD drive 480GB/480Gb TEXNO_SELL Manufacturer: Western Digital, Capacity: 480GB,

SSD drive SSD drive WD Green 2Western Digital Wd Green Pc SSD 240 GBWestern Digital Wd Green Pc SSD 120 GBWestern Digital WD GREEN PC SSD 120 GB (WDS120G1G0A)Western Digital WD Green PC Solid State DriveWestern Digital Wd Green Pc Ssd

Western Digital WD Green SSD 1TB 2TB — Built-in Solid State Drive SATA 3. 0 6Gbs, 60GB 120GB 240GB 480GB, Read Speed ​​500MBs, Original


10 88 1

SSD drive WD Green 480Gb 2.5 SATA I Western Digital Manufacturer: Western Digital,


Hard drive WD Caviar Green 4TB (WD40EZRX) merchantCountBpg2: 0, cashback: 1, LT_cluster1: 1


WD -46122 Salad Bowl Carmen 20×6.5 cm Type: salad bowl, Manufacturer: Oriental Way, Material: wood





SSD WD Green M.2 2280 120GB (WDS120G2G0B) reviewsCount: 1, reviewsRating: 5,


SSD WD Green 2.5″ 480GB (W DS480G3G0A) merchantCountBpg2: 0, cashback: 1, LT_cluster1: 1


SSD WD Original PCI-E x4 240Gb WDS240G2G0C Green SN350 M.2 2280


9000 2 Internal SSD WD Green M2 480GB WD Manufacturer: Western Digital, Capacity: 480GB, Form Factor:


SSD WD Green 2. 5″ 1024GB (WDS100T3G0A) merchantCountBpg2: 0, cashback: 1, LT_cluster1: 1 9000 5 DETAILS

SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB (WDS240G2G0B) reviewsCount: 3, reviewsRating: 5,


Western Digital WD 908 43 Green , internal SSD, SATA 3.0 6Gb/s, capacity 1TB/2TB Manufacturer: Western


Internal SSD WD Green M2 120GB WD Manufacturer: Western Digital, Capacity: 120 GB, Form Factor:


WD SSD WD Green 3D NAND WDS100T3G0A 1TB 2.5″ SATA-III (TLC) (replaces WDS100T2G0A)


SSD WD 240GB Green SN350 NVMe M2.2280 (TLC)


Internal SSD WD Green 1TB sata 3.0 WD Manufacturer: Western Digital, Capacity: 1TB, Speed ​​

DETAILS 90 005

WD Green 3D NAND WDS100T3G0A 1TB Manufacturer: Western Digital


SSD drive WD Green ) merchantCountBpg2: 0, cashback: 6,


Western Digital WD Green SSD 1TB 2TB — Built-in Solid State Drive SATA 3.