SSHD + Optane? Will IT WORK?

[DanielMDA]

Hi, I was wondering, since I might help a friend do a relatively "cheap" build in the future with a Core i3 8350K (4C/4T @ 4.2 GHZ), I was considering to use a Intel 600p M.2 SSD (128GB) as a boot drive and a FireCuda SSHD (1 TB) as a Game Drive. (alongside 16GB of RAM, and a GeForce GTX 1060 6G). The MoBo will most likely have 2 M.2 Slots, so this brings me to this next question.

Will an Intel Optane Module work with an SSHD? (Note: Im asking if it WILL work not if you like Optane or not.)

Also what SSHD should I go for? The 7200RPM FireCuda? Or should I find a "Enterprise" 10K or 15K RPM Drive?

Please Help

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

I'm not sure you can use optane with any drive other than the boot drive. 

 

 

[aiucaiu]

It would probably work according to this tom's hardware post https://goo.gl/5jJJjS but it's a waste of money cause it would not help much with an sshd, just buy a hdd an optane.

Edited September 7, 2017 by SpeedyDucky

[Jurrunio]

Get HDD instead of SSHD if it's cheaper. Most SSHDs have such a small SSD cache they are no faster than an HDD unless you open the same files over and over again.

 

Why do you need Optane to boost an SSD boot drive?

[DocSwag]

It should work.

 

I don't understand why you're getting a 600p for boot drive though. NVMe doesn't improve boot times or app launch times, and the 600p is only as good as an 850 evo.

 

And I don't understand why you want an optane either... you'd be better off getting a larger ssd and using half of it for caching or something.

[argyle]

According to intel you can only accelerate one Windows 10 boot drive with Optane, so in your scenario I do not think it will help

[Enderman]

Both SSHDs and optane suck compared to a SSD+HDD setup...

Why do you have the two worst options?

[GER_T4IGA]

24 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

Hi, I was wondering, since I might help a friend do a relatively "cheap" build in the future with a Core i3 8350K (4C/4T @ 4.2 GHZ), I was considering to use a Intel 600p M.2 SSD (128GB) as a boot drive and a FireCuda SSHD (1 TB) as a Game Drive. (alongside 16GB of RAM, and a GeForce GTX 1060 6G). The MoBo will most likely have 2 M.2 Slots, so this brings me to this next question.

Will an Intel Optane Module work with an SSHD? (Note: Im asking if it WILL work not if you like Optane or not.)

Also what SSHD should I go for? The 7200RPM FireCuda? Or should I find a "Enterprise" 10K or 15K RPM Drive?

Please Help

 

I would strongly adivse against the 8350k ist very poor value for the money. Same goes for the optane module. Just buy an AMD processor and a reall SSD at that price point for better price/performance. The Optane module seems to run completely independently from other storage. It was tested with a HDD and with SSDs but didn't yield and increased performance. Hasn't Linus made a video about it?
I am sorry if my answer is dissapointing but it is the objective truth.

[pyrojoe34]

If you already have an SSD as your boot drive then don't bother getting Optane, like previous SS cache solutions is really only worthwhile for non-techies that have a HDD based system and don't want to reinstall the OS on an SSD. It doesn't give any significant improvement over the SSD and won't really help for your SSHD either. Just take the extra money and get a 256GB SSD instead of the 128GB one.

[DanielMDA]

On 7/9/2017 at 8:51 AM, SpeedyDucky said:

It would probably work according to this tom's hardware post https://goo.gl/5jJJjS but it's a waste of money cause it would not help much with an sshd, just buy a hdd an optane.

An SSHD is only 5-10$ more than a regular HDD

[DanielMDA]

On 7/9/2017 at 9:10 AM, Enderman said:

Both SSHDs and optane suck compared to a SSD+HDD setup...

Why do you have the two worst options?

The build would be SSD + SSHD

[DanielMDA]

On 7/9/2017 at 9:11 AM, GER_T4IGA said:

I would strongly adivse against the 8350k ist very poor value for the money. Same goes for the optane module. Just buy an AMD processor and a reall SSD at that price point for better price/performance. The Optane module seems to run completely independently from other storage. It was tested with a HDD and with SSDs but didn't yield and increased performance. Hasn't Linus made a video about it?
I am sorry if my answer is dissapointing but it is the objective truth.

Axtually, I think the 8th Gen i3s will actually beat the Ryzen 3s (even though they are awesome) because they´ll have the same core/thread count, but the i3s will have higher clocks. In the case of the i5s vs Ryzen 5, the 1600 and 1600X will be better than the i5s, because of the HT, but the i5s will be better than the 1400 and 1500X (again, great processors) because the i5s will hgave 6C/6T. In the case of the i7s, Ryzen 7 will still be better than the i7s because of the core count, However on siglethreaded it will go down to IPCs, and wether OCing makes a difference on any Processor

[DanielMDA]

On 7/9/2017 at 9:11 AM, GER_T4IGA said:

I would strongly adivse against the 8350k ist very poor value for the money. Same goes for the optane module. Just buy an AMD processor and a reall SSD at that price point for better price/performance. The Optane module seems to run completely independently from other storage. It was tested with a HDD and with SSDs but didn't yield and increased performance. Hasn't Linus made a video about it?
I am sorry if my answer is dissapointing but it is the objective truth.

Oh, btw, i wont use Optane, you are right. But the build will be SSD + SSHD

[Enderman]

57 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

The build would be SSD + SSHD

No, go with a regular HDD and buy a bigger SSD.

[DanielMDA]

3 hours ago, Enderman said:

No, go with a regular HDD and buy a bigger SSD.

It was going to be a Black HDD anyway, and the SSHD is onl $5-10 more

[Enderman]

7 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

It was going to be a Black HDD anyway, and the SSHD is onl $5-10 more

WD blacks aren't very good, they are loud and run hot.

blue is better if you're on a budget, red is better if you want higher performance and longevity while running cooler and quieter.

SSHDs are just crap.

[DanielMDA]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

WD blacks aren't very good, they are loud and run hot.

blue is better if you're on a budget, red is better if you want higher performance and longevity while running cooler and quieter.

SSHDs are just crap.

Id hardly call them crap, they are super useful to load things like Steam libraries, and they are just $5 more, besides the new Blacks (2015) aent that loud (or hot) they are HDDs they run less than 40 Celsius, and the good part of Blacks is the super lon warranty

[DanielMDA]

7 minutes ago, Enderman said:

WD blacks aren't very good, they are loud and run hot.

blue is better if you're on a budget, red is better if you want higher performance and longevity while running cooler and quieter.

SSHDs are just crap.

BTW, Id like to message you (since you seem to be experienced) on what do you think of my future (personal) rig, the one I was commenting above is for a friend.

[Enderman]

27 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

Id hardly call them crap

They are, the SSD part of SSHDs is extremely small, usually 32GB or less so you can't fit more than a few files or programs on it, and the nand is very slow compared to a real SSD.

The hard drive part is also slower than a good quality HDD like a WD black or red.

On top of that, you don't get to choose what goes on the SSD part of the drive, it does it on it's own by tracking your usage patterns so it never is fast on the first time you open a program or file.

This also means that it is almost always reading and writing from the SSD to the HDD, and from the HDD to the SSD.

Increased drive usage and increased wear on the nand.

 

SSHDs should only be used by people who have a laptop with only one drive bay, and can't afford a large SSD.

 

BTW WD reds have a longer warranty and MTBF than blacks.

[DanielMDA]

13 minutes ago, Enderman said:

They are, the SSD part of SSHDs is extremely small, usually 32GB or less so you can't fit more than a few files or programs on it, and the nand is very slow compared to a real SSD.

The hard drive part is also slower than a good quality HDD like a WD black or red.

On top of that, you don't get to choose what goes on the SSD part of the drive, it does it on it's own by tracking your usage patterns so it never is fast on the first time you open a program or file.

This also means that it is almost always reading and writing from the SSD to the HDD, and from the HDD to the SSD.

Increased drive usage and increased wear on the nand.

 

SSHDs should only be used by people who have a laptop with only one drive bay, and can't afford a large SSD.

 

BTW WD reds have a longer warranty and MTBF than blacks.

Not saying your argument is invalid, but do you have any benchmarks to confirm it?

 

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

Not saying your argument is invalid, but do you have any benchmarks to confirm it?

 

Just look at the benchmarks of SSHDs...

Also, ask people who own one, I have seen plenty of people on this forum say they regret buying one.

The part about it writing back and forth to the SSD is simply how it works, you can look up videos on youtube of what an SSHD is and how it works inside, or read wikipedia.

 

It is basically just a regular HDD with oversized cache, that's how it works, because you don't get to pick what goes on the solid state portion.

It's just garbage.

[DanielMDA]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Just look at the benchmarks of SSHDs...

Also, ask people who own one, I have seen plenty of people on this forum say they regret buying one.

The part about it writing back and forth to the SSD is simply how it works, you can look up videos on youtube of what an SSHD is and how it works inside, or read wikipedia.

Late 2011 and early 2012 benchmarks using an SSHD consisting of a 750 GB HDD and 8 GB of NAND cache found that SSHDs did not offer SSD performance on random read/write and sequential read/write, but were faster than HDDs for application startup and shutdown.^[18][19]

The 2011 benchmark included loading an image of a system that had been used heavily, running many applications, to bypass the performance advantage of a freshly-installed system; it found in real-world tests that performance was much closer to an SSD than to a mechanical HDD. Different benchmark tests found the SSHD to be between an HDD and SSD, but usually significantly slower than an SSD. In the case of uncached random access performance (multiple 4 KB random reads and writes) the SSHD was no faster than a comparable HDD; there is advantage only with data that is cached. The author concluded that the SSHD drive was the best non-SSD type of drive by a significant margin, and that the larger the solid-state cache, the better the performance.

• Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_drive

[Enderman]

13 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

Late 2011 and early 2012 benchmarks using an SSHD consisting of a 750 GB HDD and 8 GB of NAND cache found that SSHDs did not offer SSD performance on random read/write and sequential read/write, but were faster than HDDs for application startup and shutdown.^[18][19]

The 2011 benchmark included loading an image of a system that had been used heavily, running many applications, to bypass the performance advantage of a freshly-installed system; it found in real-world tests that performance was much closer to an SSD than to a mechanical HDD. Different benchmark tests found the SSHD to be between an HDD and SSD, but usually significantly slower than an SSD. In the case of uncached random access performance (multiple 4 KB random reads and writes) the SSHD was no faster than a comparable HDD; there is advantage only with data that is cached. The author concluded that the SSHD drive was the best non-SSD type of drive by a significant margin, and that the larger the solid-state cache, the better the performance.

• Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_drive

1) HDDs and SSDs have gotten a lot better than they were 5 years ago, so that article is useless

 

2) "best non-SSD" Except that's only if you have only one drive mount, such as in a laptop.

Also, that author is not very smart, because HDD performance varies a lot so just because the SSHD is as fast as a crappy HDD doesn't mean it is as fast as a WD red or black.

32GB won't even fit a game on it, even if you DID have the option to choose what gets cached.

 

3) So basically you spend more money on an SSHD that has worse disk performance than a good quality HDD, has worse solid state performance than a good quality SSD, you do not choose what gets to be sped up by the SSD part, you get very little solid state space, and you often get a shorter warranty and worse quality.

 

4) Many people also experience hanging since it has to constantly move data back and forth from the disk to the cache, which makes the drive almost unusable while it's doing that. And of course, as I mentioned earlier this wastes even more of the nand's write cycles.

 

If you want to waste your money on it, that's up to you.

I'm just explaining things to you that I've seen many people complain about over the past 5 years on this forum.

[DanielMDA]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) HDDs and SSDs have gotten a lot better than they were 5 years ago, so that article is useless

 

2) "best non-SSD" Except that's only if you have only one drive mount, such as in a laptop.

Also, that author is not very smart, because HDD performance varies a lot so just because the SSHD is as fast as a crappy HDD doesn't mean it is as fast as a WD red or black.

32GB won't even fit a game on it, even if you DID have the option to choose what gets cached.

 

3) So basically you spend more money on an SSHD that has worse disk performance than a good quality HDD, has worse solid state performance than a good quality SSD, you do not choose what gets to be sped up by the SSD part, you get very little solid state space, and you often get a shorter warranty and worse quality.

 

4) Many people also experience hanging since it has to constantly move data back and forth from the disk to the cache, which makes the drive almost unusable while it's doing that. And of course, as I mentioned earlier this wastes even more of the nand's write cycles.

 

If you want to waste your money on it, that's up to you.

I'm just explaining things to you that I've seen many people complain about over the past 5 years on this forum.

then Ill go with a WD Black for me