Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SSHD OR HDD and SSD?

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 22, 2013 3:16:49 PM

I'm planning on building a pc can i use an hybrid drive instead of HDD and SSD?
Thanks :) 

More about : sshd hdd ssd

a c 901 G Storage
June 22, 2013 3:22:16 PM

SSD + HDD over a hybrid drive any day or the week.
m
0
l
a c 125 G Storage
June 22, 2013 3:34:01 PM

I have two high end laptops side by side in my office (0ne has Intel 512 and 7200 rpm HD, other has 7200 rpm Seagate Moments XT 750 hybrid SSD/HD) and asked several peeps to tell me which was which .... without a benchmarking program. No one could.....

Unless you can tell the difference between 16 seconds and 17 seconds at boot time, you won't either.

http://archive.benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=co...

Unless you have the $230 to spring for a WD Black and Samsung 840 pro, Id use the $140 Moments XT (not the new 5400 rpm jobs tho)

http://archive.benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=co...
m
0
l
Related resources
a b G Storage
June 22, 2013 4:39:11 PM

To decrease waiting to boot time, you need SSD. But the problem is the cost ratio for per GB of storage, and it requires particular skill to setup just OS parts, and have everything else (and even post installtion remind every piece of new software where it needs to go) go to a second HDD drive. I personally split the difference here and got both a SSD (for the boot and OS) and then a SDHDD TB drive... I was on a RAID 0 2X500GB 7200RPMS before, but this had greatly improved the response to near immediate I click - it does it system now.
m
0
l
June 23, 2013 2:25:18 PM

USAFRet said:
SSD + HDD over a hybrid drive any day or the week.

But why? if theres only 1 sec of diference in boot time and getting an SSD and an HD gets really expensive.
m
0
l
a c 901 G Storage
June 23, 2013 2:30:24 PM

ProtectorT said:
USAFRet said:
SSD + HDD over a hybrid drive any day or the week.

But why? if theres only 1 sec of diference in boot time and getting an SSD and an HD gets really expensive.


I like to separate out the OS+applications, and everything else. Different drives.

If the OS needs to be blown away, fine. Reinstall, reinstall the applications. All of those are easy to get again.
None of my personal data is subject to loss.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
June 23, 2013 3:44:02 PM

ProtectorT said:
USAFRet said:
SSD + HDD over a hybrid drive any day or the week.

But why? if theres only 1 sec of diference in boot time and getting an SSD and an HD gets really expensive.


Okay your thinking a SHDD and SDD are the same thing - they aren't.

A SSD is just memory chips only, that have a limited life cycle but provide amazing speed, but cost ALOT more (10 to 1 more) than a regular HDD.

A SHDD uses a slower HDD, adds a small but significant 'buffer' using SDD tech between the HDD and the computer, to increase the speed but keep the manufacturing costs down (real more profits). It is measurable difference to a HDD (SHDD VS HDD) which is critical to gamers, video editing, etc. Also you can get longer lasting service out of it, while also getting alot more storage for the $$ spent as compared to just SDD.

So what most people do is (as I did) get a SDD for the OS so you get 40sec power on to actual Windows desktop fully loaded and used boots, quicker response for all the parts of Windows that when you click and wait for it to 'do' it is near instantaneous experiance instead of click and ......... wait for it.. depending on many factors.

I personally went and replaced 2x500GB 7200RPM in RAID 0 to a SSD 256GB + SHDD 1TB drive and anyone seeing my system can easily see the response is nearly instant all the time.
m
0
l
a c 125 G Storage
June 23, 2013 5:13:12 PM

USAFRet said:
I like to separate out the OS+applications, and everything else. Different drives.

If the OS needs to be blown away, fine. Reinstall, reinstall the applications. All of those are easy to get again.
None of my personal data is subject to loss.


But that really doesn't have anything to do with having a separate SSD and HD. The OS doesn't know the difference between a separate drive and a separate partition. I have been doing that for over 20 years with partitioning. In fact, on all my SSD builds, I first install Windows to the HD (SATA 1) on a partition same size as the SSD. Then Programs on D:\ Games on E:\ Data on F:\

Next the SSD goes in on SATA 0, OS gets installed and programs get installed over themselves. This way if the SSD or OS goes south, I can simply go to the BIOS and boot from the HD .... no down time.

m
0
l
a c 901 G Storage
June 23, 2013 5:29:51 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
USAFRet said:
I like to separate out the OS+applications, and everything else. Different drives.

If the OS needs to be blown away, fine. Reinstall, reinstall the applications. All of those are easy to get again.
None of my personal data is subject to loss.


But that really doesn't have anything to do with having a separate SSD and HD. The OS doesn't know the difference between a separate drive and a separate partition.



Right. Except for physical drive failure.
I've been doing the same for a long time as well. Partitions or distinct drives.

But a lot of people want (or are advertised to want) a single large C, but with the speed benefits of an SSD. Hence the hybrid thing, or other SSD caching technologies.

Personally, I'd rather have the standalone SSD C drive, and spinning drives for the other stuff. Vice an SSDD hybrid drive. But that's just me.
m
0
l
October 20, 2013 3:51:54 PM

Tom Tancredi said:
ProtectorT said:
USAFRet said:
SSD + HDD over a hybrid drive any day or the week.

But why? if theres only 1 sec of diference in boot time and getting an SSD and an HD gets really expensive.


Okay your thinking a SHDD and SDD are the same thing - they aren't.

A SSD is just memory chips only, that have a limited life cycle but provide amazing speed, but cost ALOT more (10 to 1 more) than a regular HDD.

A SHDD uses a slower HDD, adds a small but significant 'buffer' using SDD tech between the HDD and the computer, to increase the speed but keep the manufacturing costs down (real more profits). It is measurable difference to a HDD (SHDD VS HDD) which is critical to gamers, video editing, etc. Also you can get longer lasting service out of it, while also getting alot more storage for the $$ spent as compared to just SDD.

So what most people do is (as I did) get a SDD for the OS so you get 40sec power on to actual Windows desktop fully loaded and used boots, quicker response for all the parts of Windows that when you click and wait for it to 'do' it is near instantaneous experiance instead of click and ......... wait for it.. depending on many factors.

I personally went and replaced 2x500GB 7200RPM in RAID 0 to a SSD 256GB + SHDD 1TB drive and anyone seeing my system can easily see the response is nearly instant all the time.

Does that means hdd are faster if it isnt using the ssd cache? please reply
m
0
l
a c 940 G Storage
October 20, 2013 5:02:58 PM

id the SSHD is not pulling data from the SSD cache then it the exact same thing as a normal harddrive as long as the rpm speeds are the same.

An SSHD has only 4 or 8gb of SSD on it. Once you are past the files it has cached what your left with is a normal harddrive. Many SSHD's have 5400rpm drives and some are made from 7200rpm drives.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
October 20, 2013 5:42:08 PM

ichigo1000 said:
Tom Tancredi said:
ProtectorT said:
USAFRet said:
SSD + HDD over a hybrid drive any day or the week.

But why? if theres only 1 sec of diference in boot time and getting an SSD and an HD gets really expensive.


Okay your thinking a SHDD and SDD are the same thing - they aren't.

A SSD is just memory chips only, that have a limited life cycle but provide amazing speed, but cost ALOT more (10 to 1 more) than a regular HDD.

A SHDD uses a slower HDD, adds a small but significant 'buffer' using SDD tech between the HDD and the computer, to increase the speed but keep the manufacturing costs down (real more profits). It is measurable difference to a HDD (SHDD VS HDD) which is critical to gamers, video editing, etc. Also you can get longer lasting service out of it, while also getting alot more storage for the $$ spent as compared to just SDD.

So what most people do is (as I did) get a SDD for the OS so you get 40sec power on to actual Windows desktop fully loaded and used boots, quicker response for all the parts of Windows that when you click and wait for it to 'do' it is near instantaneous experiance instead of click and ......... wait for it.. depending on many factors.

I personally went and replaced 2x500GB 7200RPM in RAID 0 to a SSD 256GB + SHDD 1TB drive and anyone seeing my system can easily see the response is nearly instant all the time.

Does that means hdd are faster if it isnt using the ssd cache? please reply


That is a yes and no answer, because it all depends how fast the mechanical HDD is that a SSD Cache (SSHD <- Correct Acronym) is paired to. Segate formally announced it ceased all 7200RPM (Revolutions or turns the platter makes Per Minute) HDD drive production and removed from stock for selling them, it has instead now takes the much cheaper and SLOWER 5400RPM HDD and pairing it with 16GB of SSD Cache ram. Mathematically and by measurement it is 'faster' then 7200RPM HDD, but we are talkin a second to maybe three seconds at most on a application. Now if you tried to compare a SSHD to a old 10,000RPM HDD, then no the SSHD is much slower.

What most people are doing is NOT CACHE (remember CACHE is where it stores a bunch 'in anticipation' of what the computer will ask next, sort of like already having batteries to hand you just before your flashlight dies, because it 'anticipated' you needed them). Most people PAIR a normal SSD with the OS and large programs (Maya, CAD, etc.) then use a second 7200RPMish HDD (1TB minimum) to install games, files (videos, music, docs, etc.), and use for all the incidental stuff (log files, temp files, etc.) that make the drive constantly read and write (which wears out SSD very quickly).

Does that help explain it ?
m
0
l
!