Are Desktop SSHD's worth it?

[IAmAndre]

Hi,

 

I currently have a 250GB Samsung EVO SSD and a Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD in my PC. I'm running out of space of my HDD, and I'm in the market for a new one. I'm considering getting an SSHD for gaming only. This morning I saw Digital Foundry's latest videos about the new Seagate FireCuda. The 2.5" version did have a huge impact on performance on the PS4, but since I have a desktop and can add plenty of hard drives, I'm wondering if spending more to get an SSHD is a good choice.

The 2TB 3.5" FireCuda costs around €118, but the 3TB BarraCuda (standard 7200 RPM HDD) costs only around €105, and the 2TB version costs around €75. With the price of a 2TB SSHD, I could buy a 2TB HDD and a 64GB (maybe 128GB SSD). Worded like this, buying an SSHD sounds stupid, but on the other hand, since I'm going to use it primarily for gaming, I don't think an SSD would be suitable since I would only be able to install the games I play the most at the moment, which means I would do a lot of installations and migrations (when I want to install a new game). An SSHD would solve this problem.

Any thoughts on this?

[Oshino Shinobu]

Nope, not worth it. The cache on it is so small that it only makes a handful of frequently used things load faster. If you want speed, a normal HDD and a separate SSD for cache is a better choice. 

[IAmAndre]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Nope, not worth it. The cache on it is so small that it only makes some things load faster. If you want speed, a normal HDD and a separate SSD for cache is a better choice. 

What do you mean 'for cache".

[Oshino Shinobu]

4 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

What do you mean 'for cache".

SSHDs are just normal HDDs with a small SSD cache. This means that frequently used data is stored in the SSD part, making them load faster. SSHDs tend to have a very small SSD cache, but cost significantly more than a regular HDD. For around the same price as an SSHD, you can often get the same size HDD and an SSD that is significantly larger than the SSD portion on the SSHD. You can then set it up to use the SSD as a cache for the HDD, much in the same way an SSHD works, only the cache is much larger, so you get more benefit out of it. 

 

EDIT: Intel Smart Response Technology is typically used for SSD caching. You can read a bit on it here https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/How-it-Works-Intel-SSD-Caching-148/

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

What do you mean 'for cache".

HDDs have a disk buffer (cache) that is where the info they've read is placed to alleviate burden on real-time delivery of data. 

 

Main difference between the SSHD and HDD is using non-volatile memory vs volatile memory.

[IAmAndre]

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

You can then set it up to use the SSD as a cache for the HDD, much in the same way an SSHD works, only the cache is much larger, so you get more benefit out of it. 

That was my question. How can I do that? Is it software or OS related?

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, IAmAndre said:

That was my question. How can I do that? Is it software or OS related?

I edited my post with some info on that. Intel Smart Response Technology is likely what you'll use. 

[Quaker]

If you just have "data" (mp3s, mpegs, DVD rips, etc) on your HDD, just get a larger one.

If you have stuff on your HDD that you want to access faster (games, apps, etc), get an additional SSD to move them to.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Watch a youtube video on sshd's.

Even digital foundry did one today for the ps4. Think comparitively to this...

 

For a secondary drive...to an ssd.. its a good idea.. aka games drive d:\

Where a normal SSD houses Windows c:\

 

Capacity + speed boost (esp repeated workloads like game assets)

There ARE uses for them when you think a little deeper than "just get an ssd or normal hdd" like your going to hear.

[IAmAndre]

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

I edited my post with some info on that. Intel Smart Response Technology is likely what you'll use. 

Thanks. That'll be useful. Now it says "The SATA controller must be set to RAID mode". I just bought a new motherboard and it doesn't support RAID configurations since I didn't need one at the time. Do you think I should return it? It also says "(no arrays need to be configured)". What does it mean?

[Oshino Shinobu]

6 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

Thanks. That'll be useful. Now it says "The SATA controller must be set to RAID mode". I just bought a new motherboard and it doesn't support RAID configurations since I didn't need one at the time. Do you think I should return it? It also says "(no arrays need to be configured)". What does it mean?

What board do you have? Most modern boards support at least basic RAID (0, 1 and 10 are common), but you're not actually going to be using RAID, just the controller needs to be set from AHCI to RAID. Bear in mind that changing this can cause the system to be unable to boot if you have an OS that was installed under AHCI (you can change the controller back with no issues if this is the case), but it does mean you'd need to reinstall Windows with the controller set to RAID. 

 

No arrays need to be configured means that you're not actually setting up a RAID array, it just needs to have the controller set to RAID. 

[IAmAndre]

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

What board do you have? Most modern boards support at least basic RAID (0, 1 and 10 are common), but you're not actually going to be using RAID, just the controller needs to be set from AHCI to RAID. Bear in mind that changing this can cause the system to be unable to boot if you have an OS that was installed under AHCI (you can change the controller back with no issues if this is the case), but it does mean you'd need to reinstall Windows with the controller set to RAID. 

I have an ASRock B85M Pro3.

Just to make sure there's no misunderstandings, I already have an SSD with my two OS's and an HDD for storage purposes. The new drive shouldn't impact my current installation. If it does, I guess it makes sense to buy an SSHD.

[Mooshi]

I used a 2TB a Firecuda in my itx rig for extra storage with a 480GB SSD for main drive. Works fine for me. 

[Oshino Shinobu]

14 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

I have an ASRock B85M Pro3.

Just to make sure there's no misunderstandings, I already have an SSD with my two OS's and an HDD for storage purposes. The new drive shouldn't impact my current installation. If it does, I guess it makes sense to buy an SSHD.

Looks like you may be able to do it on your board then. 

 

It really depends on what you're storing and your main use for the HDD (or SSHD). Personally, I'd take an extra 1TB over 8GB or so of SSD cache, making a few things load faster. I am a data hog though, as I have over 12TB of drives right now. The extra cost of the SSHD isn't worth it to me, particularly because you have no control over what is put in the cache, it is just determined by your frequently used files.

[IAmAndre]

5 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Looks like you may be able to do it on your board then. 

 

It really depends on what you're storing and your main use for the HDD (or SSHD). Personally, I'd take an extra 1TB over 8GB or so of SSD cache, making a few things load faster. I am a data hog though, as I have over 12TB of drives right now. The extra cost of the SSHD isn't worth it to be, particularly because you have no control over what is put in the cache, it is just determined by your frequently used files.

Well I don't use that much storage. Most of the stuff I use are online. I don't store any movies or music since I use cloud services, and most of my daily job is done on servers. It took me over 2 years to fill this 1TB HDD, and it's mostly filled with games. Getting a 3TB HDD would allow to not invest on storage for the next 5+ years, but on the other hand I'm getting allergic to loading times. If using this Intel caching technology is possible with no impact on current dual-OS setup, I'm definitely down for it.

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, IAmAndre said:

Well I don't use that much storage. Most of the stuff I use are online. I don't store any movies or music since I use cloud services, and most of my daily job is done on servers. It took me over 2 years to fill this 1TB HDD, and most of it is filled with games. Getting a 3TB HDD would allow to not invest on storage for the next 5+ years, but on the other hand I'm getting allergic to loading times. If using this Intel caching technology is possible without no impact on current dual-OS setup, I'm definitely down for it.

It looks like you'd need a different board as that one doesn't support any RAID modes. It may still support having the controller set to RAID, which is all you need for Intel SRT. The issues you may have is that moving from AHCI to RAID will often require the OS to be reinstalled. For a single OS, it's not that big of a deal, but for dual OS, it may be a real pain. 

 

Are there particular programs you're getting tired of the loading times? If there's only a couple, investing in a regular HDD and an SSD for those programs may be a good solution, and it won't require any re-installations. 

[IAmAndre]

3 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Are there particular programs you're getting tired of the loading times? If there's only a couple, investing in a regular HDD and an SSD for those programs may be a good solution, and it won't require any re-installations. 

Most new games are very long to load, especially on a 7200 RPM HDD. NBA 2K is a good example. It's still better that consoles, but I still find it too long. So SSHD it is?

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, IAmAndre said:

Most new games are very long to load, especially on a 7200 RPM HDD. NBA 2K is a good example. It's still better that consoles, but I still find it too long. So SSHD it is?

You can try an SSHD. Just bear in mind that the SSHD cache is going to be 8GB or less (depends on the model, 8GB is the highest for the FireCuda I believe). For modern games, this isn't really much, even if only the game is being cached (which is unlikely, due to the algorithm used to determine what goes in the cache).  That's why I suggest a normal HDD and then a SSD for games that take a while to load. 

 

You can pick up a 128GB SSD and 2TB HDD for around $120. It's about $20 or so more than a 2TB SSHD, but you get a lot more SSD space to store games and other programs you want to launch faster. It will take more management than an SSHD though, as you'll have to manually pick what to put on the SSD. 

[IAmAndre]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

You can try an SSHD. Just bear in mind that the SSHD cache is going to be 8GB or less (depends on the model, 8GB is the highest for the FireCuda I believe). For modern games, this isn't really much, even if only the game is being cached (which is unlikely, due to the algorithm used to determine what goes in the cache).  That's why I suggest a normal HDD and then a SSD for games that take a while to load. 

 

You can pick up a 128GB SSD and 2TB HDD for around $120. It's about $20 or so more than a 2TB SSHD, but you get a lot more SSD space to store games and other programs you want to launch faster. It will take more management than an SSHD though, as you'll have to manually pick what to put on the SSD. 

That was my first idea, but don't you think doing so would wear off the SSD? That would be a lot of installations/uninstallations. Even though that might not be an actual problem because NBA 2K has to be installed only once every year

[Oshino Shinobu]

Just now, IAmAndre said:

That was my first idea, but don't you think doing so would wear off the SSD? That would be a lot of installations/uninstallations. Even though that might not be an actual problem because NBA 2K has to be installed only once every year

Not really. It takes quite a lot of writes to actually kill an SSD, not something that's going to be achieved just by installing some games, even if they needed to reinstalled every month. 

 

Techreport did a test with a handful of SSDs to see how many writes they could take. The worst of them did 700TB of writes before dying. Even if you half that for whatever SSD you got, that's still 350TB of writes to kill the drive, which would take a very long time. If we assumed that NBA 2Kxx was on average a 60GB install and you installed it every single month, it would take you 486 years to reach 350TB of writes from installing it every month. 

[IAmAndre]

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Not really. It takes quite a lot of writes to actually kill an SSD, not something that's going to be achieved just by installing some games, even if they needed to reinstalled every month. 

 

Techreport did a test with a handful of SSDs to see how many writes they could take. The worst of them did 700TB of writes before dying. Even if you half that for whatever SSD you got, that's still 350TB of writes to kill the drive, which would take a very long time. If we assumed that NBA 2Kxx was on average a 60GB install and you installed it every single month, it would take you 486 years to reach 350TB of writes from installing it every month. 

Good, thanks ! I think I'll get a 2 or 3 TB HDD and a 64 or 120 GB SSD