Looking to add storage, SSHD or HDD?

[KTsarlz]

So, I'm kinda late but I just saw there's an option SSHD, right now I have a 1TB Seagate for all files and Samsung 850 Evo 250gb for OS. I am looking to add another drive and looking forward to HDD or SSHD, is SSH worth it? I'll use it for some games and eventually some files will go there too. Will SSHD worth it? Pricing right now, I can get a 4TB HDD and the price is close to a 2TB SSHD. 

[Altecfenix]

SSD is worth it 100% in my opinion.

[gtx1060=value]

sshd isn't the most cost effective choice - frankly the hdd is better - a couple of seconds waiting won't kill anyone 

[RadiatingLight]

HDD for mass storage.

 

SSHD is really only useful for scenarios where you can only have one drive, and want the speed of an SSD + the storage of an HDD.

It's better just to get 2 separate drives in most cases, and for data storage, HDDs win.

[RadiatingLight]

4 minutes ago, Altecfenix said:

SSD is worth it 100% in my opinion.

SSD isn't an option.

re-read the original post.

[TechQuest]

2 minutes ago, gtx1060=value said:

sshd isn't the most cost effective choice - frankly the hdd is better - a couple of seconds waiting won't kill anyone 

sshd is the better choice , compare to hdd, hdd sensitive to drop, shock , humid,and more. sshd is like a chipset.

[KTsarlz]

3 minutes ago, Altecfenix said:

SSD is worth it 100% in my opinion.

SSD isn't really an option for me now though.

 

1 minute ago, gtx1060=value said:

sshd isn't the most cost effective choice - frankly the hdd is better - a couple of seconds waiting won't kill anyone 

Overtime, it won't be faster than a normal hdd? Right now, opening some movies from my HDD takes a little more time and kinda ticks me 

 

1 minute ago, RadiatingLight said:

HDD for mass storage.

 

SSHD is really only useful for scenarios where you can only have one drive, and want the speed of an SSD + the storage of an HDD.

It's better just to get 2 separate drives in most cases, and for data storage, HDDs win.

 

Hmn, is seagate still the "best" right now? It's been my goto back then. And if I go with HDD or SSHD, I am looking into seagate or wd's

1 minute ago, TechQuest said:

sshd is the better choice , compare to hdd, hdd sensitive to drop, shock , humid,and more. sshd is like a chipset.

My existing hdd is kinda old though 

[Cracklingice]

I habitually avoid SSHDs.  I do not know how they fail.  What happens when the small amount of solid state space runs out?  Does it just become a normal HDD without data loss?  Does the whole thing stop working and require data recovery services?  To me an SSHD basically carries the same risks as raid 0 in my mind.  It may or may not in actuality though.

[RadiatingLight]

3 minutes ago, TechQuest said:

sshd is the better choice , compare to hdd, hdd sensitive to drop, shock , humid,and more. sshd is like a chipset.

You're confusing SSD with SSHD.

SSHD still has an HDD inside, with drive platter & moving parts. (so still vulnerable to drops and shocks). SSHDs just have a 8 or 16GB cache which helps the HDD be slightly faster for commonly accessed files.

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, KTsarlz said:

Overtime, it won't be faster than a normal hdd? Right now, opening some movies from my HDD takes a little more time and kinda ticks me 

SSHDs are only faster than HDDs when you're dealing with commonly accessed files.

if you watch the same movie every day, it will load faster.

if you randomly decide to watch a movie you haven't watched for a while, it will load as slow as an HDD

[Cracklingice]

6 minutes ago, TechQuest said:

sshd is the better choice , compare to hdd, hdd sensitive to drop, shock , humid,and more. sshd is like a chipset.

 

1 minute ago, RadiatingLight said:

You're confusing SSD with SSHD.

SSHD still has an HDD inside, with drive platter & moving parts. (so still vulnerable to drops and shocks). SSHDs just have a 8 or 16GB cache which helps the HDD be slightly faster for commonly accessed files.

 

Exactly.  SSHD are just HDD with a small solid state cache instead of the usual small amount of ram cache.  Also the cache is typically used for smaller files that are slower to access on HDD technology.  I don't think you'll see any benefit from SSHD for large file storage.

[Daniel Z.]

7 minutes ago, TechQuest said:

sshd is the better choice , compare to hdd, hdd sensitive to drop, shock , humid,and more. sshd is like a chipset.

Where did you learn this lol

[TechQuest]

1 minute ago, Daniel Z. said:

Where did you learn this lol

I read from a article, forget which one unfortunately.

[RadiatingLight]

2 minutes ago, TechQuest said:

I read from a article, forget which one unfortunately.

The article you read was wrong, or you misinterpreted it.

 

only SSDs have the benefit of increased durability.

[Mooshi]

I use a 2TB Firecuda for mass storage and it's been pretty solid--way more than any Seagate I ever used and faster than the old 1TB WD Blue I gave to my girlfriend.

 

YOLO

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, wrathoftheturkey said:

But it doesn't give you the speed of an SSD -- it's just an HDD with a tiny cache

Yeah, Of Couse.

 

Say you need to store a ton of information on your laptop. 2TB or so.

You could get a 2TB SSD, but that costs a ton. you could get a 2TB HDD, but that's slow. a good middle ground is a 2TB SSHD.

[KTsarlz]

9 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

SSHDs are only faster than HDDs when you're dealing with commonly accessed files.

if you watch the same movie every day, it will load faster.

if you randomly decide to watch a movie you haven't watched for a while, it will load as slow as an HDD

 

8 minutes ago, Cracklingice said:

 

 

Exactly.  SSHD are just HDD with a small solid state cache instead of the usual small amount of ram cache.  Also the cache is typically used for smaller files that are slower to access on HDD technology.  I don't think you'll see any benefit from SSHD for large file storage.

 

 

 

Thanks!!

2 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

I use a 2TB Firecuda for mass storage and it's been pretty solid--way more than any Seagate I ever used and faster than the old 1TB WD Blue I gave to my girlfriend.

 

YOLO

 

 

 

 

 

Yolo 

[KTsarlz]

Just now, RadiatingLight said:

Yeah, Of Couse.

 

Say you need to store a ton of information on your laptop. 2TB or so.

You could get a 2TB SSD, but that costs a ton. you could get a 2TB HDD, but that's slow. a good middle ground is a 2TB SSHD.

 

This is what I am eyeing for right now, it says 2TB HDD/8gb 64mb SSHD, is it the same with 2TB SSHD or nah?

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, KTsarlz said:

This is what I am eyeing for right now, it says 2TB HDD/8gb 64mb SSHD, is it the same with 2TB SSHD or nah?

I don't understand.

 

2TB HDD/8GB SSHD means that it's an SSHD with 8GB of cache.

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

IT'S NOT A MIDDLE GROUND, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

 

People confuse SSHDs as being the same thing as SSD/HDD combos. This is false (well technically not, but in practice). 

 

An SSHD's only going to have a tiny portion (usually 8-16GB) of flash storage. In addition, you don't get to pick which programs get stored on it, it's usually just determined by what you tend to access more often -- think of it as a super-slow superfetch (compared to RAM). If you want a middle ground, you get a small SSD boot drive, not an SSHD

Yes, it's not as good as an SSD, but it's better than an HDD, and in the situation I described, it would be the best option.

[KTsarlz]

2 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

I don't understand.

 

2TB HDD/8GB SSHD means that it's an SSHD with 8GB of cache.

 

 

Seagate 2tb Firecuda MLC/8gb 64mb SSHD (ST2000DX002), This the actual description of the item, 

1 minute ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

IT'S NOT A MIDDLE GROUND, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

 

People confuse SSHDs as being the same thing as SSD/HDD combos. This is false (well technically not, but in practice). 

 

An SSHD's only going to have a tiny portion (usually 8-16GB) of flash storage. In addition, you don't get to pick which programs get stored on it, it's usually just determined by what you tend to access more often -- think of it as a super-slow superfetch (compared to RAM). If you want a middle ground, you get a small SSD boot drive, not an SSHD

 

 

1 minute ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

8 GB of flash cache isn't worth it, m8.

That's the highest I can see available where I reside, amazon isn't really an option because taxes  

 

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, KTsarlz said:

Seagate 2tb Firecuda MLC/8gb 64mb SSHD (ST2000DX002), This the actual description of the item, 

That's the highest I can see available where I reside, amazon isn't really an option because taxes  

 

so get an HDD. Way more storage for cheaper.

[KTsarlz]

21 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

so get an HDD. Way more storage for cheaper.

19 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

That's a pretty standard amount of cache for an SSHD -- which is why they're not really any better than standard HDDs. They're not supposed to be, they just get to use that tiny cache to justify a higher price as a "middle ground." I'd say just go with a standard WD/Seagate drive.

 

 

 

Thanks a lot you both!!  

[JoostinOnline]

I have a SSHD and it's slower than most hard drives.  I knew that going in though, I just bought it because it was on sale for less than other hard drives.