Samsung 970 EVO 500GB vs Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB
Neither Samsung 970 EVO 500GB nor Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB wins outright — each takes something the other gives up, so the pick is which of those you want.
| Specification | Samsung970 EVO 500GB | Western DigitalWD Green SN350 500GB |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 500 | 500 |
| Sequential read (MB/s) | 3400better | 2400 |
| Sequential write (MB/s) | 2300better | 1500 |
| Current best price | 115,00 €at Amazon.fr · captured 2026-09-09 | 107,77 €betterat Amazon.fr · captured 2026-09-13 |
| Price per TB | 230,00 € | 215,54 €better |
| DRAM cache | Yes | No |
| NAND type | tlc | tlc |
| Controller | Samsung Phoenix controller | WD Polaris MP16 |
How these two compare
Sequential throughput
Samsung 970 EVO 500GB states 3400 MB/s read and 2300 MB/s write; Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB states 2400 MB/s read and 1500 MB/s write, both over PCIe. Sequential numbers like these describe large sustained transfers; the responsiveness you notice day to day tracks random access more closely than the peak figures do.
Price
Samsung 970 EVO 500GB is 115,00 € (230,00 € per TB); Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB is 107,77 € (215,54 € per TB).
DRAM cache
On the cache question: Samsung 970 EVO 500GB carries a DRAM cache, and Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB is DRAM-less. The DRAM keeps the flash-translation table close, sparing a lookup on nearly every access; a drive without it leans on host memory or its own flash, which usually shows as slower sustained random writes rather than in the headline sequential numbers.
NAND, controller and warranty
On the flash itself: Samsung 970 EVO 500GB uses TLC, and Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB uses TLC. NAND tiers count bits per cell — more bits pack more capacity into the same silicon but shorten write endurance and slow sustained writes, which is why QLC sits below TLC on lasting performance even when the sequential numbers match. Controller: Samsung 970 EVO 500GB uses the Samsung Phoenix controller and Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB uses the WD Polaris MP16. The controller runs wear-levelling, error correction and the mapping table, so it shapes sustained and random behaviour as much as the flash does — though the model name alone predicts little without testing. Samsung 970 EVO 500GB carries a 5-year warranty and Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB does not state one — the length the maker will stand behind the drive, and usually a proxy for the endurance it is rated to.
Which to buy
It comes down to which you value more: Samsung 970 EVO 500GB and Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB each lead the other somewhere the site tracks, and no single measure settles it. Read the sections above for which edge fits your use.
Common questions about this pair
- Which is faster, Samsung 970 EVO 500GB or Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB?
- Samsung 970 EVO 500GB states 3400 MB/s read and 2300 MB/s write; Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB states 2400 MB/s read and 1500 MB/s write, both over PCIe. Sequential numbers like these describe large sustained transfers; the responsiveness you notice day to day tracks random access more closely than the peak figures do.
- Which costs less per terabyte, Samsung 970 EVO 500GB or Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB?
- Samsung 970 EVO 500GB is 115,00 € (230,00 € per TB); Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB is 107,77 € (215,54 € per TB).
- Should you buy Samsung 970 EVO 500GB or Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB?
- It comes down to which you value more: Samsung 970 EVO 500GB and Western Digital WD Green SN350 500GB each lead the other somewhere the site tracks, and no single measure settles it. Read the sections above for which edge fits your use.