Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

SSHD vs. HDD

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 11, 2013 12:29:59 PM

I'm currently in the market for a second drive for my Desktop computer. (My current drive being a 250GB SSD). I want the fastest drive possible without actually shelling out more money for another SSD. I'm currently between this Segate HDD and this Seagate SSHD.

So my main question is: Which of the above drives is faster, and/or do you have any other suggestions in terms of fast hard drives.

More about : sshd hdd

July 11, 2013 12:32:23 PM

The SSHD by far buddy! I have one, trust me, they're around 1-2 seconds slower than an SSD! That's way quicker than a HDD! ;) 
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 353 G Storage
July 11, 2013 1:20:59 PM

^ I'm guessing you are using it as a OS + Program drive. In that case, yes it will boot to OS almost as fast as an SSD. For program load times you are at the mercy of what will fit into the SMALL 8 Gig Cache.

Turtleshotz - I'm guessing you are going to use the drive as a storage drive.; Your overall experience will depend on How frequently you "call" the same file as Only upto 8 gigs of "files will be in the cache and these will be the most often used - all other files will load at the native speed of the HDD.
Bottom Line, If you do call the same files repetitively then you will see a nice performance boost - if Not very little performance boost - U at the mercy of the caching algorithm. Personally, I find it better to couple a SMALL SSD say 32-64 gig that you can select which files to reside on SSD and a HDD for storage.
This is how I've configured all my systems:
.. SSD as OS + program drive
.. 2nd SSD as a "working SSD" - Put my most often used data here.
.. HDD for storage/backup

Share
Related resources
July 11, 2013 1:38:34 PM

Yeah I was considering the HDD mostly because the native speed was faster, being a 7200rpm drive. I'll probably mostly use this drive for playing games that aren't on my SSD and for storage. Since most games are bigger than 8GB, I don't really see how an SSHD would give much of an advantage.
m
0
l
a c 167 G Storage
July 11, 2013 2:03:11 PM

7200rpm does not directly translate into speed. The rpm mostly influences access times.
Larger drives will have denser platters, so they can transfer more data per revolution.

Even the very best hard drives can sustain data transfer rates that are only 1/3 that of a ssd.
In random I/o which is what the os does mostly, a ssd is 50x faster.

Regardless, there is relatively little difference among mechanical drives from a performance point of view. If you want speed, and can afford a ssd, then that is the way to go. If you just want storage, then price and capacity should be the main metric.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
July 11, 2013 4:01:40 PM

^ Geo, He already has a SSD for a OS + Program drive and is trying to decide between which would be best as a storage/working drive a SSHD or a "plain jane" HDD
m
0
l
a c 167 G Storage
July 11, 2013 6:38:55 PM

RetiredChief said:
^ Geo, He already has a SSD for a OS + Program drive and is trying to decide between which would be best as a storage/working drive a SSHD or a "plain jane" HDD


I see that. What is not known is how much capacity is required.
A SSD makes a lot of sense for a second drive if a lot of capacity is not a requirement.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
July 12, 2013 5:36:39 AM

^ Concur
Not a lover of internally cached HDD for a "data" drive. Their primary function was to be a OS + Program + data Drive allwing for improved boot times.
m
0
l
July 12, 2013 5:49:06 AM

Thanks for your help guys, I decided to get the HDD and an additional 120GB SSD. Thanks again.
m
0
l
!