7200rpm SSHD with 8gb flash vs 5400rpm SSHD with 16gb flash

[Maplez]

Hello!

I am posting this today because I could not find out online which one of these drivers would be faster than the other; I know I should get an SSD, but I want to experience what using an SSHD in a 2007 laptop is like.

The 2 drives are:

7200rpm SSHD 750gb Seagate Momentus with 8gb flash [ST750LX003]

5400rpm SSHD 750gb WD Black with 16gb flash [WD7500L12X]

Both drives cost the same 40 CAD and I want to know which would be faster as a main drive; I've seen some benchmarks online of these drives and they show the Seagate one being slightly faster but it has half the amount of flash storage compared to the WD Black one.

In my own personal experience, I've replace a 7200rpm drive that got 60MB/s with a 5400rpm drive that gets 110MB/s and the 7200rpm one seemed fast in windows then the 5400rpm one. This is another reason that I ask about these 2 SSHDs because I've seen with HDDs that ones with higher test read and write speeds seem slower then ones with lower test read and write speeds.

[jaslion]

They both suck but the 7200rpm is gonna be a bit better

 

For real tho just get a cheap ssd

 

The sshd have too small of a cache to be usefull so it doesnt matter

[Maplez]

13 minutes ago, jaslion said:

They both suck but the 7200rpm is gonna be a bit better

Even though it only gets 8gb instead of 16gb of flash?  Wouldn't that extra 8 GB be able to store more Windows system files so it could boot and finish annoying Windows stuff faster?

 

15 minutes ago, jaslion said:

For real tho just get a cheap ssd

I know; my main gaming PC and all my laptops use SSDs [even my 2004 laptop]; I recently got this 2007 Dell laptop and decided I wanted to experience an SSHD since my HDD experience with it wasn't bad.

[jaslion]

Just now, Maplez said:

Even though it only gets 8gb instead of 16gb of flash?  Wouldn't that extra 8 GB be able to store more Windows system files so it could boot and finish annoying Windows stuff faster

Been tested over and over the cache is too small to do much of anything and only starts mattering a bit when it gets to 64gb.

 

With windows 7 it was a bit better not much but a bit since it had less stuff swapping around however 32gb was the start the cache started doing something.

 

Else you were basically using a hdd

[mariushm]

the rpm is not the only thing... one drive could have a newer generation of platters with higher data density so you'd get same amount of data in one second, or even more.

 

seagate datasheet here : https://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_momentus_xt.pdf

 

The seagate has 2 platters, 4 heads, and it's designed with 4096 byte sectors, not 512 bytes as it's the default.

 

can't find specs for the wd black but on some random page i found it's native 512 byte sectors (so more compatible) and  it has 2 platters / 3 heads ... so it squeezes 250 GB per platter surface compared to maybe 180 GB per platter surface on Seagate, this means at each rotation more data is read on the WD drive.

 

It's 16GB MLC while the seagate uses SLC but doesn't really matter... in theory the drive is supposed to figure out what is read most often from platters and cache it in those 8/16 GB ... so when you first install the drives you won't get any benefit.. it would take some time for the drive to figure those out and start caching (several windows reboots and it should start caching OS files and drivers that load at startup)

 

 

[Guest]

It's pointless getting either of those drives frankly. Get a decent sized SSD before prices go up again. Those drives will be frustratingly slow to use.  The advantage of old fashioned mechanical hard drives is as bulk storage and that's effectively all. There is no point in using them in any modern system other than for that purpose.

[kokosnh]

SSHD die fast, as the NAND degrades… do not buy, do not use. 
For around 40 CAD you will get SSD no problem 

 

you can get good one like KC600 256GB 48$ 

https://www.amazon.ca/Kingston-KC600-256GB-2-5in-Rev3-0/dp/B07ZDBZDR9/

Or cheper DRAMless TLC 

TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z 512GB  46$

https://www.amazon.ca/TEAMGROUP-T-Force-Vulcan-Internal-T253TZ512G0C101/dp/B0B6ZC5MS3/

 

 

[mariushm]

13 minutes ago, kokosnh said:

SSHD die fast, as the NAND degrades… do not buy, do not use. 
For around 40 CAD you will get SSD no problem 

 

you can get good one like KC600 256GB 48$ 

https://www.amazon.ca/Kingston-KC600-256GB-2-5in-Rev3-0/dp/B07ZDBZDR9/

Or cheper DRAMless TLC 

TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z 512GB  46$

https://www.amazon.ca/TEAMGROUP-T-Force-Vulcan-Internal-T253TZ512G0C101/dp/B0B6ZC5MS3/

 

 

I wouldn't bother with bottom of the barrel SSDs. Just go on eBay and get some enterprise grade drives for around same price.

 

example $43 for Intel S3520 480 GB : https://www.ebay.com/itm/355218603819

Made with MLC, rated for one drive write per day for 5 years...  Used, but the seller says 99% health so it's all good..

 

There's new unused Samsung PM883 for $55 : https://www.ebay.com/itm/284413351082

has dram, 683 TB endurance for the 480 gb model...

 

 

 

[Ryker Robb]

@mariushm You should check out this website https://rml527.blogspot.com, it's very helpful for finding platter capacities and plattter/head counts. Also the seagate is actually 187.5gb per platter surface.