Barty1884 :
I assume that 2TB Seagate is a 7200rpm at it's core JN?
If you are talking boot time listings, yes those were all 7200 rpm drives.
So, while the "latest and greatest" 5400rpmHybrid drives have closed the gap on their 7200rpm/hybrid predecessors
No gap .... it's been closed and substantially passed. Areal density has vastly increased between 2010 and 2017
PC Mark Vantage (5400 rpm Gen 3 SSHD) = 18,940 (30% faster then Gen 2 7200 rpm SSHD 4.5 times faster than HD)
PC Mark Vantage (7200 rpm Gen 2 SSHD ) = 14,631
PC Mark Vantage (7200 rpm HD) = 4,257
I'm not so sure that one specifically has to any noticeable degree (when the "frequently used" isn't factored in).
But, for most folks ... "frequently used" is what they are using 90+% of the time. Again, its not like the NAND portion is static..... usage is monitored at all times the computer is running. So when you are writing your March Newsletter and playing your "game of the month", the February newsletter and February game of the month files are long gone.
Looking at my data drive on our workstation at all files loaded in the month of August and it totals just 100 MB or 0.1 GB.
In gaming...
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2013/-17-PCMark-7-Gaming,2915.html
Gamers fall primarily into 4 categories:
a) Competitive Gamers - Play same 1 or 2 MMOs every day, sometimes 3
b) Sequential Gamers - Play same 1 or 2 of maybe 3 games every day until moving on to others
c) A hybrid between a) and b) ... 1 MMO and a select 1 or 2 others
d) ADD Gamers - Play 3-4 different games on Monday, a different 4-5 on Tuesday and all over the place.
I have only met one in group d and that's my youngest son. I'd say c) is the biggest. Only d) won't benefit from the SSHD. In the workplace, unless you do video production or something similar most work places use the same files day to day, phasing out the old and welcoming the new slowly over time.
As I said earlier, at it's core, the SSHD you mention is still a 5400rpm drive.... so anything that doesn't benefit from being "frequently" used (some load/save cycles, bulk data transfer etc) is still going to be utilizing the 5400rpm drive aspect..... which can be painful at times. If you have a varied workload, I doubt you'd be happy with the SSHD.
That's a red herring because the increase in areal density in the 7 years between Gen 2 (7200) and Gen 3 (5400) was not factored in
Let's assign a arbitrary value of AD to the areal density of the older 7200 rpm SSHD from 2010
Let's assume a value of 1.33 AD to the areal density of an newer 5400 rpm SSHD from 2017
Which one is faster ? neither, they are exactly the same.
1.33 AD x 5400 / 7200 = 1.00 D
Of course, if you don't transfer bulk data often, only play a few select games etc, then it should be fine - as the 8GB flash storage should be sufficient.
In 2010 when those 7200 rpm drives came area max areal density was about 500 GB/sq.in. In 2015 it was more than double that at 1,100
So when comparing the 2010s Gen 2 7200 and the SOTA in
2015 5400 we have 2.2 AD x 5400 / 7200 ... the 7 year newer 5400 rpm design drive w/ greater areal density is 65% faster.
Of course, if you don't transfer bulk data often, only play a few select games etc, then it should be fine - as the 8GB flash storage should be sufficient.
That's just it, that covers > 90% of what people do > 90% of the time. We ran two 6 week tests with 5 users:
1. Desktop w/ (2) SSD, (2) SSHD and (1) HD ... System was set up so that it could be booted from any of the above via BIOS selection. Users were unaware what storage device they were booting and told that we were experimenting w/ settings and they were asked to note any performance differences observed
After 6 weeks, we had 1 report that the system "seemed to boot slower today" ... so on
1 of the 10 days that this system was booted from HD, one thought it might been slower. None of the other 4 users noticed anything.
2. Another test was run with identical laptops, sole difference being a) was SSD + 7200 rm HD b) was SSHD. None reported any performance differences.
But yes, you can use storage benchmarks to show how fast a device **can be** .... my old Porsche could hit 165 mph. But when using it to go to work, it doesn't get me there any faster than the Volkswagon bug. The user is the bottleneck in this equation just as rush hour traffic ans speed limits was for the cars analogy. Yes we can time opening up 100 tabs in google and have a big "Aha moment" but fact is no one does this in the normal course of their day.... we can run an Office suite script and finish 10 seconds ahead with the SSD over the HD and have another "aha moment", but again those scripted office suite tests combine 100 or more individual commands triggered by one or more keystrokes. A human can react to 100 seconds but they don't have their workflow impacted by saving 0.1 seconds 100 times.
2017's 5400 rpm SSHDs are faster than 2010's 7200 rpm SSHD because areal density has increased more then rps have decreased. Beyond that, it's really impossible to make comparisons unless you know the areal density of the drives being compared or have application based benchmarks. Storage utility benchmarks simply have no impact on how a PC is used int he real world.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram