imho SSHD is best choice for operating systems that are not SSD aware (e.g. for retro pc's with windows xp or older). it still gives you extra speed, but you won't wear down the drive as fast as you would with regular ssd. and it's cheaper than regular ssd storage.
+yoshi314 Good point! I actually didn't think about retro systems at all when I did this video :) A compact XP installation might fit entirely into the 8 GB SSD portion of a SSHD?
+yoshi314 there have been some reports of users who have tested SSD's on Windows 2000 and found a major difference in boot up time and performance. Though I don't know if there is a difference in performance between SSD and SSHD when running Windows 2000.
+Æmer0x in case of SSHD it might be on par with ssd, as on this video. windows 2k is a fairly small installation, even with all the usual assortment of apps so frequently read files will fit well into the ssd portion of sshd device and provide ssd like boot times. sshd performance depends on the usage pattern of the drive. if you frequently access only few gigabytes of the disk, that part will be migrated to ssd area. if it fits - you get ssd performance, other files that didn't make the cut ( or are often modified ) get hdd performance. like i mentioned, it is more than likely that entire win2k installation with user's programs might fit this scenario, as sshds have quite sizable ssd modules nowadays.
I have been using a single 1tb sshd and its all I have ever needed the only time you ever think that took ages to load is when you haven't used that app/game for ages.
I always wondered if SSHDs would be on par with SSD speed after their "learning process" and was very skeptical about his. Thank you for going through the struggle of actually benchmarking this. Great insights :) Keep up the good work.
What is about the learing process, when the PC-power was unplugged from the wall? Starts the process again with the at first slower start-speed or will it continue to be so fast?
SSHDs are great for budget gaming builds, where you'd rather save as much money on the storage as possible so you can buy a better CP and GPU, but you don't want to wait a month for your PC to boot. The SSHD is only about 20 usd more than a HDD with the same capacity.
These HDSS drives would be great for older systems with older operating systems as the problem with trim support would be non existent. Great video as usual Phil!
6 years from now, and I just bought a SSHD for my new gaming build, to me, I can either get a decent 240gb SSD for $25 or a solid 500gb SSHD drive for $15, while sure it's faster, it's definitely good enough for the time being until I can get say a 1tb M.2 for $100, although I question that as well when you can get a 2tb SSHD for $60, so I think SSHD have some worthwhile value to squeeze the most out of a small budget without sacrificing disk size
Another great video Phil cheers, yeah everyone these days should have a ssd for boot, even if it's just 30GB, I built a multiboot universal pc last year using a 100GB Mach16 partitioned to install dos/win me/ win xp. Everything dos was complete instant, it was like loading stuff off a ram drive it was so fast. 3DFX games also loading before you could blink lol
I think SSHD's are great if the price is right, especially for laptops where you can only install one hard drive. Lots of storage space with some fast solid state storage for an extra speed bump here and there.
Years ago I bought a 2.5" Hybrid SSHD for my laptop. It worked OK for about a year, then started having problems. It would interrupt processes for 1 second every 4-5 seconds. It made playing games or even watching videos completely useless, and turned me against hybrid drives. I put a Crucial M4 in it after that and she's still going strong. BTW - it's a Dell Inspiron 1720 that I bought new in 2008. I maxed out the memory at 4GB DDR2, upgraded the C2D T8300 to a T9300, put a secondary 500GB HD in the other bay and even bought a second NVIDIA 8600GTM in case the original card died (I thought it was fried when I started getting the stutter caused by the SSHD). It's still a great machine, but incapable of running anything beyond HL2 with decent graphics and frame rates.
Interesting ideas and conclusions, Phil, but I have to share my personal experience with the Seagate SSHD. I have been using the 1TB 2.5" (laptop) version for over a year and a half now, and I just received my *THIRD* drive under warranty. That's right; I've actually had to avail myself of the warranty for this drive on three occasions because I was getting clear symptoms of impending doom for each of the three failed drives. I'm talking about steadily increasing system hangs, extremely slow or hung boot processes that necessitate repeated reboots to finally get it to come up, declining access times once booted, and finally the program that I use to examine what's going one, GSmartctontrol, indicates multiple unrecoverable errors in the S.M.A.R.T. listings for the drive. I didn't just give up in each case, but really tried to see if it would clear up before finally sending each of the failing drives in under warranty. With each of the warranty replaced drives (all clearly marked as "Factory Recertified," i.e. refurbished), I can immediately notice everything is right back where it should be, with no hangs, no slowing access time, and no S.M.A.R.T. errors...at least for the first two or three months, then I start getting increasingly worse signs of deterioration once again. It's a damn good thing that I use a drive imaging program (Clonezilla) regularly to back up my drives, because at least restoring after I get the replacement drive is always a snap, but at this rate, I have to wonder if Seagate has totally dropped the ball with this particular drive. And I say that as someone who has used Seagate drives for twenty years now, with a 500GB 3.5" (desktop version) and a 1.5TB 3.5" that I've used for several years straight with not a sign of trouble from either. At least Seagate makes good on their warranty every time, and they make the process as easy as possible, but at this point, I have ton wonder if the warranty process is that way because they have so much practice having it used. Maybe Seagate's seriously bad QC problems are isolated strictly to their 2.5" 1TB SSHD and all their more conventional hard drives and possibly their desktop SSHD and (I doubt it, given my history, but who knows?) probably less possibly their other 2.5" SSHD are also good, but I have no way of knowing for sure. All I know beyond all doubt is that their 1TB drive intended mainly for laptops is *TERRIBLE*. Seriously, avoid that thing like the plague, unless you really want to deal with shuttling bad hard drives back to them every few months and possibly lose all your data when it fails before you've had a chance to do a proper backup.
I've had a Seagate SSHD 2TB drive in my main PC for almost for 2 years and a 1TB in a 6 year old HP laptop. They are not a speed monster like a SSD is, but both do a quick job booting Windows 7 (I'm a little scared about upgrading) and loading apps that I use all the time. I still wonder what it would do if a SSHD had more than 8 gigs of onboard memory.
+PhilsComputerLab I wish someone would do it too, at least go up to 16 gigs or more so the whole OS can be loaded from there. I dont know how much space Windows 10 needs, but I have heard its big.
HELP ME here so i have 1tb hdd and only hav 70gb left ... im looking to get storage upgrade + get better thing as windows 10 is ridic SLOW 100% DISK after doing common fixes sso im thinking a SSHD as i NEED a 1TB drive or higher no lower and wantting to only spend £50 and theres a SSHD 1TB for £55 .......... if i install my OS on the new SSHD a clean install KEEPing my files on this HDD is this better ? im really stuck right now as idk wether to get SSHD 1tb for £55 OR a 2TB HDD for £55 come on now ;/ help me here? plus will windows 10 even be faster on this SSHD or shll i keep my WINDOWS 10 on this hdd and just get 2tb and put up with the slow os i mean its not bad once it gets going but its slow at times really slow note that i want to use my new drive as a OS and a storage for games and well basically everyuthing thats why some say sshd is not best as im using it for all ? DRIVES IM LOOKIN INTO out of this SSHD www.cclonline.com/product/225336/ST1000LX015/Hard-Drives/Seagate-FireCuda-1TB-2-5-Inch-SATA-Internal-Solid-State-Hybrid-Drive/HDD2836/ OR THIS HDD? www.cclonline.com/product/102865/DT01ACA200/Hard-Drives/Toshiba-DT01ACA200-2TB/HDD1738/
I'm really interested in having a SSHD in my new desktop(this will be the only disk), but every time I question somebody about these drives, they all disprove SSHD and advise me to have a SSD+HDD....but all the videos I see, SSHD seems to be exacly what I want, awesome Windows boot speed, memorizes my activities and speed them up (games that I play most will start faster than if they were installed on a normal hdd) and I can save up to 50€ with a SSHD instead of ssd+hdd. My question is, are these hybrid disks reliable? Another question, do I need to do some configuration on Windows to run these SSHD optimally (on SSD I usually disabled superfetch and did several other of optimizations...) Thanks
No, there is nothing to configure. That's one of the good things, you just plug it in and that's it. They are just as reliable as any hard drive, so yes, I got two now, very happy with the one in my capture computer. I run the same software on it all the time, so everything loads up fast, but I still got 2 TB of storage for my videos :)
7 років тому
As most cheap SSHD have 8GB NAND, and as you have Windows, the firmware will fill up the NAND part with Windows libraries and some files, but don't expect your games to be any faster. People don't recommend it as you don't choose what will be on NAND and what will be on platters, the firmware do. If you don't have a whole lot RAM and use a lot of it, await the Windows paging file to file up what's left of your NAND.
Good choice buying a Crucial SSD. I'm using Crucial SSDs since Intel stopped using their own controllers. All Crucial SSDs bought since 2011 are still running trouble free. I don't like SSHDs, where possible a combination of a SSD and HDD is much better. I also assume, that it could be a nightmare to diagnose errors on a SSHD.
+armorgeddon I wasn't sure which one to get, so I asked around in forums and Crucial was often recommended. Newegg had a good price, so I bought it. It should last me a long time and it's been really good with my video editing. Especially in HD and 60 fps the files can become quite large. I also agree that SSD + HDD is the way to go. A 128 GB SSD with a 2 TB drive is good value and so much faster. 60 GB is too small for a gaming machine though. Some of the modern games, like Black Ops III, are very large.
+PhilsComputerLab I always chose SSDs that were supposed to be the most reliable. 5-6 years ago that were Intel SSDs and then starting with the M4 series Crucial took over. Both weren't the benchmark kings, but in my experience drives winning the benchmarks, i.e. Samsung drives, are only fast in certain use cases where they can utilize compression procedures and the like and I've also experienced benchmark kings who slowed down very much when they were filled with data. I also made sure to have the most recent firmware installed on a new SSD. Never had a problem with any Intel X25-M or Crucial SSD so far, but friends had bad experiences with OCZ and Samsung drives. The nice thing with Crucial is that they are on the cheaper side also.
Crucial / Micron also do really good memory. I have SDRAM from them and they work great. CL2 as well, which makes the system faster. Again someone recommended them to me because they made the chips and the memory modules all themselves, rather than buying the chips elsewhere. I do have a few other SSDs from SanDisk and a brand that might not be know well, Silicon Image. All of them still work, but they don't anything heavy to be honest.
Can you measure the speed of the usb3.0 and the SSHD, and will be awesome if the SSHD could connect into two SATA3 ports for faster DATA transfer, but it will definitely need more Cache, around 320MB Cache.
why are those ssd's slow? I have a few different systems with ssd's ranging from a Kingston v300 (one of the slowest current ssd's) and Samsung 850pro (one of the fastest sata ssd's) and neither take more than 20 seconds from pressing power to getting to usable windows
thanks Philip for explaining vry informative , I have question I heard many forums talking about ver HDD like red, blue ,white and black what different between them and wt best HDD for NAS? cuz I bought synology 8 bay .and thnks
+datadyne112 The colours are easy ways of telling you what the drives are for. In the past they had black, blue and green. Black was performance, blue was standard and green was energy efficient. For NAS the red line is the way to go. Not sure about white...
Using my mates PC that is till using my old 2x150GB Raptor raid sata 1 drives when I did an upgrade for him a few days ago (swapped out the A10 7800 for a i5 4790K@4.7GHZ) showed me how bad it can be when you are used to SSD. It crawled along, and even when I slapped his newer 1TB WD black sata drive in as a boot drive, the system was still slower to respond and use than his old A10 7800 was with an old SSD when I got the thing home to clean up so someone else could use it. If you have a mechanical HDD, and SSD will give you the biggest everyday boost to performance of any upgrade, a much faster CPU and RAM won't even give you as much of a noticeable boost to system responsiveness as a cheap SSD. A 120GB one should be the default in any system these days even if all it has is the OS on it, even if your other apps are loading off of HDD, the system will be vastly more responsive. Lol I always though his internet was really slow, it is compared to mine, but a lot of the problem is how sluggish the HDD is to load up each page more than the internet speed (especially with the old raptors), and I know its the HDD as you can hear it clicking away as each page loads.
Good comparison. Too bad we now have TLC and QLC SSDs which made them cheaper but I do have concerns with QLCs' write cycles. If no one have developed QLCs or even TLCs, SSHD would've been feasible. Possibly SSHDs can find their way in some or few laptops which have limited expansions but definitely no way for desktops.
6 років тому
SSHD is cooll! Not to Bad Speed, and 1 TB ! Low Price LIKE
Maybe I should test my 120GB SSD that's in my Presario 6300us Desktop into my laptop to see how fast it is. It's running Ubuntu 15.04 with KODI as the interface.
***** Tested the SSD and it's blazingly fast since the laptop has SATA III 6Gbps. From power on to interface is 10 seconds. Planning on getting a 500GB SSD for the laptop in place of the 320GB HDD that has Windows 10 Pro x64 on it.
In my personal opinion, when running an SSD on Windows vista or newer, one really does not need the caching services turned on. It is really a waste, no benefit, and will open up quite a bit of memory when turning that speed boost crap off. Probably will save some write cycles on the SSD as well when it is turned off. It is a good point that you made about Windows image backup, it does take longer on that first couple reboots for Windows to figure itself out again on the new hard drive after a re-image. One thing that I have not heard anyone comment on, when referring to the write cycles of an SSD, is windows temporary files ( I am including temp files from browsers or installing programs as part of windows temp files ), hibernation, and pagefile. Those all reside still on the SSD and are constantly writing to the SSD. I think, but I have not tried this yet, is to use 2 SSD drives, one for the main drive and programs, and the other, say a cheaper 128GB drive, for the temp files, hybernation, and pagefile. Kind of use the second SSD as a sort of trash drive, so that can be the cheapest thing ever. The reason I say that, instead of moving those files to a standard HD is because you would still have the speed of an SSD when windows is reading and writing stuff to those temp directories, like pagefile for example, would still be very fast for windows read/write out of it to memory, but would save the main, more expensive SSD, from all of those write cycles. Obviously these things would require some reconfiguration in windows and the registry to do this, but it makes sense to me if one is worried about trying to get as much life and performance out of their SSD setup as possible.
+WaybackTECH Write cycles on SSDs isn't an issue, if an SSD dies is most often for other reasons. I never avoided having temp files, pagefile, swap or anything like that on the main SSD and even my very first SSD bought in 2010 still runs and and health data indicates it could run many more years. You are right that those Windows caching services should be disabled with an SSD and also deactivate automatic defragmentation and also never do it manually.
I use to use SSHD all the time but ssd are so cheap now I dont both. If SSHD wanna stay relivent at all they need to increase the ssd section and have much faster caching and memory.
PhilsComputerLab Even my retro stuff i've upgraded to ssd. Im on a 478 p4 right now typing this and it has a SSD and my pentium 3 off to the side has a ssd. With proper OS and decent hardware upgrades even retro rigs stay usefull for web browsing and old gaming. My only grip is html5 on youtube. I hate how my browser of choice (maxthon) doesnt seem to have flash option as flash playback is around 70% less cpu intensive for single core setups.
Quick question for anyone who is willing to help. I bought the SSHD seagate from gamestop and installed it into my PS4. Now did I just waste my money? If the performance gains are from continual use from the cache, but the PS4 deletes cache at shutdown, then is it simply a 5400rpm drive due to cache being deleted? Im willing to shell out the money for a 7200RPM drive if that makes things better.
Do people really care about booting speed? I have an old WINDOWS7 with a Phenom X4 965BE @3.9GHZ, oc 8GB DDR2 YES DDR2 RIPJAWS & 1TB HDD and boots in around 14-24secs
Thanks for video, but just the word SSD gives me the jitters, my first 3 failed and i lost all my data, since then i would never use one even if u paid me. Ever till the day i die. I download 60gb a day now, i play games at the same time and copy dvds at the same time,watch youtube and my standard HDD have never failed on me. Been using standard drives since 1996 and never had one failed. I have heard one make noises But i quickly backed my stuff and got a new one.
+Antonios LesvosLover Sorry, that's sucks. What I did is have a 4 TB mirrored RAID array on another computer. I save all the important stuff, like my video projects, drivers, documents. But for pure speed, I can't go back to normal or even SSHD drives.
For speed? I think u need FX Amd like i have, i copy discs, play world of warcraft,have youtune playing Rt news video so can listen to it, and i am converting 23mkv to avis and torrents open downloading 400kps setting and copying dvds using burnaware at 8x. And all that my western digital black caviar isnt slow at all, how much more speed could anyone have? I have 16gb memory, 4gb ddr 5 video card 584bit.
Platter HDD is the weakest part in a computer by a long shot. When I work on a project and I'm waiting for the computer, I'm losing time. The computer should be waiting for me :)
imho SSHD is best choice for operating systems that are not SSD aware (e.g. for retro pc's with windows xp or older).
it still gives you extra speed, but you won't wear down the drive as fast as you would with regular ssd. and it's cheaper than regular ssd storage.
+yoshi314 Good point! I actually didn't think about retro systems at all when I did this video :) A compact XP installation might fit entirely into the 8 GB SSD portion of a SSHD?
+yoshi314 there have been some reports of users who have tested SSD's on Windows 2000 and found a major difference in boot up time and performance. Though I don't know if there is a difference in performance between SSD and SSHD when running Windows 2000.
+Æmer0x in case of SSHD it might be on par with ssd, as on this video.
windows 2k is a fairly small installation, even with all the usual assortment of apps so frequently read files will fit well into the ssd portion of sshd device and provide ssd like boot times.
sshd performance depends on the usage pattern of the drive. if you frequently access only few gigabytes of the disk, that part will be migrated to ssd area. if it fits - you get ssd performance, other files that didn't make the cut ( or are often modified ) get hdd performance.
like i mentioned, it is more than likely that entire win2k installation with user's programs might fit this scenario, as sshds have quite sizable ssd modules nowadays.
I think SSD for operating system, SSHD could replace HDD for saved all data and file storage
I have been using a single 1tb sshd and its all I have ever needed the only time you ever think that took ages to load is when you haven't used that app/game for ages.
did your sshd start out a bit slow at first and sped up over time? seemed to me like thats what this video showed.
I always wondered if SSHDs would be on par with SSD speed after their "learning process" and was very skeptical about his. Thank you for going through the struggle of actually benchmarking this. Great insights :) Keep up the good work.
+blasterbeam I knew there was at least one person out there that was wondering the same :D
What is about the learing process, when the PC-power was unplugged from the wall? Starts the process again with the at first slower start-speed or will it continue to be so fast?
SSHDs are great for budget gaming builds, where you'd rather save as much money on the storage as possible so you can buy a better CP and GPU, but you don't want to wait a month for your PC to boot. The SSHD is only about 20 usd more than a HDD with the same capacity.
That's it. Although looking at some of the current SSD deals, I think going with a 120 SSD + platter drive is the way to go these days.
they need to make a hybrid drive with something bigger than an 8gb ssd, why they still haven't yet is beyond me?
I agree and I also wondered why.
Liam Priestman because Intels optane would be getting useless if they do so ;)
These HDSS drives would be great for older systems with older operating systems as the problem with trim support would be non existent. Great video as usual Phil!
+Tommaso Petrella Yes they are! I actually made a video about this :D The title is SSHD the perfect retro hard drive? Or something like that :)
I will have to check it out, thanks!
6 years from now, and I just bought a SSHD for my new gaming build, to me, I can either get a decent 240gb SSD for $25 or a solid 500gb SSHD drive for $15, while sure it's faster, it's definitely good enough for the time being until I can get say a 1tb M.2 for $100, although I question that as well when you can get a 2tb SSHD for $60, so I think SSHD have some worthwhile value to squeeze the most out of a small budget without sacrificing disk size
For a modern PC I wouldn't get a SSHD anymore, you are much better with a smaller SSD and a large HDD and splitting up your files in a smart way.
Another great video Phil cheers,
yeah everyone these days should have a ssd for boot, even if it's just 30GB,
I built a multiboot universal pc last year using a 100GB Mach16 partitioned to install dos/win me/ win xp.
Everything dos was complete instant, it was like loading stuff off a ram drive it was so fast.
3DFX games also loading before you could blink lol
+hardcore8uk Nice!
wonderful video! just after 5 times~ i have a sshd by curiosity, and now i am happier than before hahaha
I think SSHD's are great if the price is right, especially for laptops where you can only install one hard drive. Lots of storage space with some fast solid state storage for an extra speed bump here and there.
Years ago I bought a 2.5" Hybrid SSHD for my laptop. It worked OK for about a year, then started having problems. It would interrupt processes for 1 second every 4-5 seconds. It made playing games or even watching videos completely useless, and turned me against hybrid drives. I put a Crucial M4 in it after that and she's still going strong. BTW - it's a Dell Inspiron 1720 that I bought new in 2008. I maxed out the memory at 4GB DDR2, upgraded the C2D T8300 to a T9300, put a secondary 500GB HD in the other bay and even bought a second NVIDIA 8600GTM in case the original card died (I thought it was fried when I started getting the stutter caused by the SSHD). It's still a great machine, but incapable of running anything beyond HL2 with decent graphics and frame rates.
Interesting ideas and conclusions, Phil, but I have to share my personal experience with the Seagate SSHD.
I have been using the 1TB 2.5" (laptop) version for over a year and a half now, and I just received my *THIRD* drive under warranty.
That's right; I've actually had to avail myself of the warranty for this drive on three occasions because I was getting clear symptoms of impending doom for each of the three failed drives.
I'm talking about steadily increasing system hangs, extremely slow or hung boot processes that necessitate repeated reboots to finally get it to come up, declining access times once booted, and finally the program that I use to examine what's going one, GSmartctontrol, indicates multiple unrecoverable errors in the S.M.A.R.T. listings for the drive.
I didn't just give up in each case, but really tried to see if it would clear up before finally sending each of the failing drives in under warranty.
With each of the warranty replaced drives (all clearly marked as "Factory Recertified," i.e. refurbished), I can immediately notice everything is right back where it should be, with no hangs, no slowing access time, and no S.M.A.R.T. errors...at least for the first two or three months, then I start getting increasingly worse signs of deterioration once again.
It's a damn good thing that I use a drive imaging program (Clonezilla) regularly to back up my drives, because at least restoring after I get the replacement drive is always a snap, but at this rate, I have to wonder if Seagate has totally dropped the ball with this particular drive.
And I say that as someone who has used Seagate drives for twenty years now, with a 500GB 3.5" (desktop version) and a 1.5TB 3.5" that I've used for several years straight with not a sign of trouble from either.
At least Seagate makes good on their warranty every time, and they make the process as easy as possible, but at this point, I have ton wonder if the warranty process is that way because they have so much practice having it used.
Maybe Seagate's seriously bad QC problems are isolated strictly to their 2.5" 1TB SSHD and all their more conventional hard drives and possibly their desktop SSHD and (I doubt it, given my history, but who knows?) probably less possibly their other 2.5" SSHD are also good, but I have no way of knowing for sure.
All I know beyond all doubt is that their 1TB drive intended mainly for laptops is *TERRIBLE*.
Seriously, avoid that thing like the plague, unless you really want to deal with shuttling bad hard drives back to them every few months and possibly lose all your data when it fails before you've had a chance to do a proper backup.
Hi Phil, please do how-to installation of retro OS on SSD, SDHC, CF.
I've had a Seagate SSHD 2TB drive in my main PC for almost for 2 years and a 1TB in a 6 year old HP laptop. They are not a speed monster like a SSD is, but both do a quick job booting Windows 7 (I'm a little scared about upgrading) and loading apps that I use all the time. I still wonder what it would do if a SSHD had more than 8 gigs of onboard memory.
+wildbilltexas I think it's a given that newer models will come with a larger SSD component. I just hope they hurry up. 8 GB isn't cutting it anymore.
+PhilsComputerLab I wish someone would do it too, at least go up to 16 gigs or more so the whole OS can be loaded from there. I dont know how much space Windows 10 needs, but I have heard its big.
+wildbilltexas WD10S12X SSHD 1TB + 16GB SSD
Nice overall comparision thanks. :)
I would probably get a SSD for boot and performance and an SSHD for storage. Best of both worlds.
how much do you restart your pc
TVCH LORD Pretty often when adjusting my oc. Why do you ask?
because buying a ssd just so your pc restarts faster isnt worth it, you need a big ssd to install everything on
I got a 250gb ssd for $80 and a 2tb sshd for $70. Everthing is working great.
I'M SO GLAD THAT I CHOSE A 512 GB SSD IN MY NEW Y700!
in same price i can get western digital blue 3 TB internal HDD or Seagate Desktop 2 TB internal SSHD
please tell me which is the best option ?
HELP ME here so i have 1tb hdd and only hav 70gb left ... im looking to get storage upgrade +
get better thing as windows 10 is ridic SLOW 100% DISK after doing common fixes sso im thinking a SSHD as i
NEED a 1TB drive or higher no lower and wantting to only spend £50 and theres a SSHD 1TB
for £55 .......... if i install my OS on the new SSHD a clean install KEEPing
my files on this HDD is this better ? im really stuck right now as idk
wether to get SSHD 1tb for £55 OR a 2TB HDD for £55 come on now ;/ help
me here?
plus will windows 10 even be faster on this SSHD or shll i keep my
WINDOWS 10 on this hdd and just get 2tb and put up with the slow os i
mean its not bad once it gets going but its slow at times really slow
note that i want to use my new drive as a OS and a storage for games and well basically everyuthing thats why some say sshd is not best as im using it for all ?
DRIVES IM LOOKIN INTO
out of this SSHD
www.cclonline.com/product/225336/ST1000LX015/Hard-Drives/Seagate-FireCuda-1TB-2-5-Inch-SATA-Internal-Solid-State-Hybrid-Drive/HDD2836/
OR THIS HDD?
www.cclonline.com/product/102865/DT01ACA200/Hard-Drives/Toshiba-DT01ACA200-2TB/HDD1738/
I'm really interested in having a SSHD in my new desktop(this will be the only disk), but every time I question somebody about these drives, they all disprove SSHD and advise me to have a SSD+HDD....but all the videos I see, SSHD seems to be exacly what I want, awesome Windows boot speed, memorizes my activities and speed them up (games that I play most will start faster than if they were installed on a normal hdd) and I can save up to 50€ with a SSHD instead of ssd+hdd. My question is, are these hybrid disks reliable?
Another question, do I need to do some configuration on Windows to run these SSHD optimally (on SSD I usually disabled superfetch and did several other of optimizations...)
Thanks
No, there is nothing to configure. That's one of the good things, you just plug it in and that's it. They are just as reliable as any hard drive, so yes, I got two now, very happy with the one in my capture computer. I run the same software on it all the time, so everything loads up fast, but I still got 2 TB of storage for my videos :)
As most cheap SSHD have 8GB NAND, and as you have Windows, the firmware will fill up the NAND part with Windows libraries and some files, but don't expect your games to be any faster. People don't recommend it as you don't choose what will be on NAND and what will be on platters, the firmware do. If you don't have a whole lot RAM and use a lot of it, await the Windows paging file to file up what's left of your NAND.
Good choice buying a Crucial SSD. I'm using Crucial SSDs since Intel stopped using their own controllers. All Crucial SSDs bought since 2011 are still running trouble free.
I don't like SSHDs, where possible a combination of a SSD and HDD is much better. I also assume, that it could be a nightmare to diagnose errors on a SSHD.
+armorgeddon I wasn't sure which one to get, so I asked around in forums and Crucial was often recommended. Newegg had a good price, so I bought it. It should last me a long time and it's been really good with my video editing. Especially in HD and 60 fps the files can become quite large.
I also agree that SSD + HDD is the way to go. A 128 GB SSD with a 2 TB drive is good value and so much faster. 60 GB is too small for a gaming machine though. Some of the modern games, like Black Ops III, are very large.
+PhilsComputerLab I always chose SSDs that were supposed to be the most reliable. 5-6 years ago that were Intel SSDs and then starting with the M4 series Crucial took over. Both weren't the benchmark kings, but in my experience drives winning the benchmarks, i.e. Samsung drives, are only fast in certain use cases where they can utilize compression procedures and the like and I've also experienced benchmark kings who slowed down very much when they were filled with data. I also made sure to have the most recent firmware installed on a new SSD. Never had a problem with any Intel X25-M or Crucial SSD so far, but friends had bad experiences with OCZ and Samsung drives.
The nice thing with Crucial is that they are on the cheaper side also.
Crucial / Micron also do really good memory. I have SDRAM from them and they work great. CL2 as well, which makes the system faster.
Again someone recommended them to me because they made the chips and the memory modules all themselves, rather than buying the chips elsewhere.
I do have a few other SSDs from SanDisk and a brand that might not be know well, Silicon Image. All of them still work, but they don't anything heavy to be honest.
Can you measure the speed of the usb3.0 and the SSHD, and will be awesome if the SSHD could connect into two SATA3 ports for faster DATA transfer, but it will definitely need more Cache, around 320MB Cache.
hi how can I find out my laptop hard is sshd or hdd?!! help me please
why are those ssd's slow? I have a few different systems with ssd's ranging from a Kingston v300 (one of the slowest current ssd's) and Samsung 850pro (one of the fastest sata ssd's) and neither take more than 20 seconds from pressing power to getting to usable windows
+northern marine The sound card loads some software that holds up the process. And I load Office and a few other applications as well.
northern marine my ssd is also the fastest one, it's a Kingston
thanks Philip for explaining vry informative , I have question I heard many forums talking about ver HDD like red, blue ,white and black what different between them and wt best HDD for NAS? cuz I bought synology 8 bay .and thnks
+datadyne112 The colours are easy ways of telling you what the drives are for. In the past they had black, blue and green. Black was performance, blue was standard and green was energy efficient. For NAS the red line is the way to go. Not sure about white...
should I get the sshd if I'm gonna, be playing larger games, ie fallout 4, gta v, Battlefield?
For gaming I would rather go with a SSD + standard drive.
So sshd is like a faster version of hdd and better looking on the computer.
Using my mates PC that is till using my old 2x150GB Raptor raid sata 1 drives when I did an upgrade for him a few days ago (swapped out the A10 7800 for a i5 4790K@4.7GHZ) showed me how bad it can be when you are used to SSD. It crawled along, and even when I slapped his newer 1TB WD black sata drive in as a boot drive, the system was still slower to respond and use than his old A10 7800 was with an old SSD when I got the thing home to clean up so someone else could use it. If you have a mechanical HDD, and SSD will give you the biggest everyday boost to performance of any upgrade, a much faster CPU and RAM won't even give you as much of a noticeable boost to system responsiveness as a cheap SSD. A 120GB one should be the default in any system these days even if all it has is the OS on it, even if your other apps are loading off of HDD, the system will be vastly more responsive. Lol I always though his internet was really slow, it is compared to mine, but a lot of the problem is how sluggish the HDD is to load up each page more than the internet speed (especially with the old raptors), and I know its the HDD as you can hear it clicking away as each page loads.
Why is no one talking about using an ssd and as sshd insted of an see and an hdd
Which is best for video editing?
ssd
will do you prefer me i get SSHD 2TB than 500 GB SSD ?
if you already have 1tb or 2tb hdd i prefer to 500GB SSD but if no, just go for an 2TB SSHD
It is strange that I have 12 yrs old laptop with 500GB SSHD and my pc boots up in 18 seconds.
SSD>SSHD>HDD
How do you activate windows 10 in the ssd??
Same way you do on a HDD...
Yes
Another lovely video! :)
+MasterDXT Thank you :)
Oh my god what do you film with?
+Mr Fez Why what's wrong?
+PhilsComputerLab Nothing is wrong it's just that the quality is amazing
Mr Fez Oh, thank you. It's a Nikon D3300. I'm still learning how to use it. Actually I am learning new things all the time, it's quite exciting.
Thanks man didn't mean to make it sound like I was angry
Mr Fez No worries, all good :)
Good comparison. Too bad we now have TLC and QLC SSDs which made them cheaper but I do have concerns with QLCs' write cycles. If no one have developed QLCs or even TLCs, SSHD would've been feasible. Possibly SSHDs can find their way in some or few laptops which have limited expansions but definitely no way for desktops.
SSHD is cooll! Not to Bad Speed, and 1 TB ! Low Price LIKE
I don't think this is fair because they don't have the same amount of storage.
+Matthew Chambers Storage =/= Speed
Good content
Maybe I should test my 120GB SSD that's in my Presario 6300us Desktop into my laptop to see how fast it is. It's running Ubuntu 15.04 with KODI as the interface.
***** Tested the SSD and it's blazingly fast since the laptop has SATA III 6Gbps. From power on to interface is 10 seconds. Planning on getting a 500GB SSD for the laptop in place of the 320GB HDD that has Windows 10 Pro x64 on it.
In my personal opinion, when running an SSD on Windows vista or newer, one really does not need the caching services turned on. It is really a waste, no benefit, and will open up quite a bit of memory when turning that speed boost crap off. Probably will save some write cycles on the SSD as well when it is turned off. It is a good point that you made about Windows image backup, it does take longer on that first couple reboots for Windows to figure itself out again on the new hard drive after a re-image.
One thing that I have not heard anyone comment on, when referring to the write cycles of an SSD, is windows temporary files ( I am including temp files from browsers or installing programs as part of windows temp files ), hibernation, and pagefile. Those all reside still on the SSD and are constantly writing to the SSD. I think, but I have not tried this yet, is to use 2 SSD drives, one for the main drive and programs, and the other, say a cheaper 128GB drive, for the temp files, hybernation, and pagefile. Kind of use the second SSD as a sort of trash drive, so that can be the cheapest thing ever. The reason I say that, instead of moving those files to a standard HD is because you would still have the speed of an SSD when windows is reading and writing stuff to those temp directories, like pagefile for example, would still be very fast for windows read/write out of it to memory, but would save the main, more expensive SSD, from all of those write cycles. Obviously these things would require some reconfiguration in windows and the registry to do this, but it makes sense to me if one is worried about trying to get as much life and performance out of their SSD setup as possible.
+WaybackTECH Write cycles on SSDs isn't an issue, if an SSD dies is most often for other reasons. I never avoided having temp files, pagefile, swap or anything like that on the main SSD and even my very first SSD bought in 2010 still runs and and health data indicates it could run many more years.
You are right that those Windows caching services should be disabled with an SSD and also deactivate automatic defragmentation and also never do it manually.
I use to use SSHD all the time but ssd are so cheap now I dont both. If SSHD wanna stay relivent at all they need to increase the ssd section and have much faster caching and memory.
+Clesarie Totally agree with you!
PhilsComputerLab Even my retro stuff i've upgraded to ssd. Im on a 478 p4 right now typing this and it has a SSD and my pentium 3 off to the side has a ssd. With proper OS and decent hardware upgrades even retro rigs stay usefull for web browsing and old gaming. My only grip is html5 on youtube. I hate how my browser of choice (maxthon) doesnt seem to have flash option as flash playback is around 70% less cpu intensive for single core setups.
german?
I heard it too. He sounds like a mix of German and Australian. It's been throwing me off this whole video.
Quick question for anyone who is willing to help. I bought the SSHD seagate from gamestop and installed it into my PS4. Now did I just waste my money? If the performance gains are from continual use from the cache, but the PS4 deletes cache at shutdown, then is it simply a 5400rpm drive due to cache being deleted? Im willing to shell out the money for a 7200RPM drive if that makes things better.
60 FPS - looking through a windows
attractive video
Do people really care about booting speed? I have an old WINDOWS7 with a Phenom X4 965BE @3.9GHZ, oc 8GB DDR2 YES DDR2 RIPJAWS & 1TB HDD and boots in around 14-24secs
Thanks for video, but just the word SSD gives me the jitters, my first 3 failed and i lost all my data, since then i would never use one even if u paid me. Ever till the day i die. I download 60gb a day now, i play games at the same time and copy dvds at the same time,watch youtube and my standard HDD have never failed on me. Been using standard drives since 1996 and never had one failed. I have heard one make noises But i quickly backed my stuff and got a new one.
+Antonios LesvosLover Sorry, that's sucks. What I did is have a 4 TB mirrored RAID array on another computer. I save all the important stuff, like my video projects, drivers, documents. But for pure speed, I can't go back to normal or even SSHD drives.
For speed? I think u need FX Amd like i have, i copy discs, play world of warcraft,have youtune playing Rt news video so can listen to it, and i am converting 23mkv to avis and torrents open downloading 400kps setting and copying dvds using burnaware at 8x. And all that my western digital black caviar isnt slow at all, how much more speed could anyone have? I have 16gb memory, 4gb ddr 5 video card 584bit.
Platter HDD is the weakest part in a computer by a long shot. When I work on a project and I'm waiting for the computer, I'm losing time. The computer should be waiting for me :)
+Antonios LesvosLover What SSD did you buy? Brand matters
im using a sandisk 512gb ssd it boots windows less than as sec weeeeee
+zacky boysexay You sure you're not just waking it up from sleep? Or is it Win 10?
veldig bra
good.......😔😔😔😔😔😔
woooooooooooooow
nice video thank you.. :)