Seagate 3.5” SSHD 1TB
- Thread starter Flynno
- Start date
Solution
- Aug 24, 2012
- 16,252
- 1,521
- 87,240
That's exactly what it is. However, the SSD is not separately accessible by the user, it's used as a very fast smart cache for the slower spinning drive. Overall speed is somewhere between a pure spinning disk and an SSD.
Ecky
Illustrious
- Feb 3, 2013
- 7,592
- 2
- 38,960
Probably doesn't belong in CPUs section, but I'll answer anyway.
There are two types of hybrid drive:
1) Those with both a SSD and HDD platters within them, that show up as separate drives (Western Digital makes a few of these)
2) Those that show up as a single drive, and use the NAND as a cache for frequently used files
That particular drive is the latter. It has 8GB of NAND, and over time, the drive will put files you frequently use into that NAND, for faster access. However, any new files you put on will, for a while, perform like they're on any slow, conventional hard drive - because they are. Also, with only 8GB of flash, and not particularly fast flash memory at that, only a small fraction of the files on your drive will end up in the cache.
These drives are a little better than conventional hard drives, but are nowhere near as fast as even the worst SSD.
There are two types of hybrid drive:
1) Those with both a SSD and HDD platters within them, that show up as separate drives (Western Digital makes a few of these)
2) Those that show up as a single drive, and use the NAND as a cache for frequently used files
That particular drive is the latter. It has 8GB of NAND, and over time, the drive will put files you frequently use into that NAND, for faster access. However, any new files you put on will, for a while, perform like they're on any slow, conventional hard drive - because they are. Also, with only 8GB of flash, and not particularly fast flash memory at that, only a small fraction of the files on your drive will end up in the cache.
These drives are a little better than conventional hard drives, but are nowhere near as fast as even the worst SSD.
Martell1977
Splendid
- Oct 26, 2010
- 3,846
- 3
- 24,960
I have had 3 SSHDs now, all 2.5", but 2 have been with the HDD portion at 7200rpm and the third has the HDD at 5400rpm. The ones with the 7200rpm are great and after a week or 2, it is a noticeable upgrade. However, the 5400rpm drive sucks. Anything not cached or running mostly off the drive is horribly slow. In fact, I plan on swapping out the SSHD 5400 with a regular 7200HDD to improve performance.
If you don't have the money for a SSD + HDD combo, then a SSHD with the HDD at 7200rpm is great. It's not as fast as the combo, but it is a good amount faster than a standard HDD. My desktop is running on a 2.5" SSHD 7200 with 500gb as the master drive.
If you don't have the money for a SSD + HDD combo, then a SSHD with the HDD at 7200rpm is great. It's not as fast as the combo, but it is a good amount faster than a standard HDD. My desktop is running on a 2.5" SSHD 7200 with 500gb as the master drive.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
-
Question HELP !!!!! My Desktop PC randomly sends monitors to standby???
- Started by EpicsGamer
- Replies: 7
-
-
RTX 4060 Ti vs RX 7700 XT faceoff: Which midrange graphics card is superior?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 28
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram