Which Storage Drive to Get

[Hyp0xia]

So I'm in the market for a storage drive for a system of mine. In an ideal world, I'd have enough money to get one of the new Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSDs, but, since I'm not that rich, I'm trying to decide between the Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB, which I've used in the past, and Seagate's new 3.5" 2TB 7,200 RPM solid-state hybrid drive (model ST2000DX001), which is available on Newegg for approximately the same price. If it were for a boot drive, the SSHD would definitely be the way to go, but, as a storage drive, it's going to be filled with my Steam library, my qBittorrent downloads folder, some video content, and my music library, thus minimizing the effectiveness of the solid-state cache. If it were your choice (and please set aside all your biases for or against Western Digital and/or Seagate), which would you choose and why?

[Excon]

Barracuda, I find them to be a lot more reliable and cheaper.

Edit: also i suggest just a plain HDD not one of those SSHDD's or whatever The ST2000DM001 is still a great option

[WoodenMarker]

The sshd would beat any hdd in overall speed. As for transfers, it's not that common for speed to be bottlenecked by the connection on the other side such as an external hdd or a usb stick.

[whatthe_fuzz]

WD Black. find it on sale and then grab a $60 ssd for your boot. this would be optimal if you can achieve it. or grab a WD Blue as it would be cheaper

[Hyp0xia]

WD Black. find it on sale and then grab a $60 ssd for your boot. this would be optimal if you can achieve it. or grab a WD Blue as it would be cheaper

 

The boot drive is already taken care of. I have a 256GB SSD for that. I'm talking exclusively about high performance storage here. Price is not a factor until we start going beyond the $200 range, so I'd definitely take a WD Black over a WD Blue. The real question is how a 3.5" SSHD is going to compare.

[whatthe_fuzz]

The boot drive is already taken care of. I have a 256GB SSD for that. I'm talking exclusively about high performance storage here. Price is not a factor until we start going beyond the $200 range, so I'd definitely take a WD Black over a WD Blue. The real question is how a 3.5" SSHD is going to compare.

 

oh well nvm  

 

my votes for the Black but if you wait, 32GB NAND Flash versions of SSHD's should be available soon. Also WD announce they will have SSHD's

[Hoppa]

The boot drive is already taken care of. I have a 256GB SSD for that. I'm talking exclusively about high performance storage here. Price is not a factor until we start going beyond the $200 range, so I'd definitely take a WD Black over a WD Blue. The real question is how a 3.5" SSHD is going to compare.

I don't think you can defrag a SSHD. My opinion is not to get a hybrid.

It may be little faster than a HDD but I think the SSD will be worn out quicker in that situation.

Your better off having a SSD as OS and HDD as programs and general storage.

 

Note - A HDD has faster writes when it isn't used as an OS, If it is a secondary device, it will run faster.

 

 

 

EDIT: oh ok.. you have a SSD already... still.. just get the HDD, you will have less problems.