The State of SSHD Today

[PGHammer]

Okay - I'm finding that I need to start looking at the infamous SSHD (hybrid between platter drives and SSDs) and still for reasons of capacity vs. price - solid-state drives are STILL too expensive at 1TB and larger sizes except for corporate use, while even with 64MB cache sizes on standard platter drives (such as Seagate Barracuda and WD Black Series) they don't have the sheer speed of a straight SSD; hence the hybrids.  Seagate has started pushing the FireCuda hybrid SSHDs at Barracuda price tags (as little as $89.99 for 2TB on Amazon) - hopefully, I can pull the trigger on one this week (a straight replacement for my existing ex-MyBook 1TB WD Eco-Green boot drive - the issue is capacity and age).

While the listing is for a notebook drive, there is no reason the drive wouldn't be usable in a desktop (if the FireCuda proves itself, it will be an upgrade cndidate across all my hardware  -including the notebooks, of course).

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-FireCuda-2-5-Inch-Notebooks-ST2000LX001/dp/B01M1NHCZT/ref=pd_cp_147_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01M1NHCZT&pd_rd_r=6BKRQX89YGK4BBQHAWCN&pd_rd_w=yiquM&pd_rd_wg=HmvP4&psc=1&refRID=6BKRQX89YGK4BBQHAWCN

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Is there a question?

 

I wouldn't really recommend, necessarily, an SSHD for a desktop system.  Might be best to go with a lower capacity SSD and pair it with a higher capacity HDD.  Toss the OS and frequently used programs on the SSD and utilize the spinner for everything else.  The one you linked to is also a 5400RPM spinner w/ 8GB NAND ... noooo thank you.  Even the slowest SSD would blow away this SSHD....and even 7200RPMs would be faster (well anything not in the small 8GB NAND).

Notebooks ... yes ... an SSHD (like this one) would be a good choice since storage options are very limited.

[PGHammer]

52 minutes ago, Jim K said:

Is there a question?

 

I wouldn't really recommend, necessarily, an SSHD for a desktop system.  Might be best to go with a lower capacity SSD and pair it with a higher capacity HDD.  Toss the OS and frequently used programs on the SSD and utilize the spinner for everything else.  The one you linked to is also a 5400RPM spinner w/ 8GB NAND ... noooo thank you.  Even the slowest SSD would blow away this SSHD....and even 7200RPMs would be faster (well anything not in the small 8GB NAND).

Notebooks ... yes ... an SSHD (like this one) would be a good choice since storage options are very limited.

The problem (as I stated) is capacity vs. price, and it's not fun for desktops OR notebooks.  SSD capacities at the midrange for price are too small, platter drives have WAY more capacity, but are snails in comparison - I'm trying to keep things KISS, even on desktops; two types of drives are anything but - hence the SSHD, even for desktops.

[Mockingbird]

Why not get both a hard drive and a solid state drive and use Intel RST to set the SSD as cache?

 

If your system is incompatible with Intel RST, you can use a different SSD cache software.

[Xahid]

Jim K, is right, even low grade SSD blow away SSHD, and if you search for comparison, SSHD did not perform any better than normal HDD 7200RPM, so you should go with low grade SSD for OS/Programs and HDD for everything else.

[PGHammer]

12 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

Why not get both a hard drive and a solid state drive and use Intel RST to set the SSD as cache?

 

If your system is incompatible with Intel RST, you can use a different SSD cache software.

RST is a desktop-only solution - I'm looking for a solution that is viable across both desktops and notebooks (hence SSHDs and scaling up the notebook solution to desktops).

SSHDs are applicable to notebooks, AIOs (desktops using notebook parts), and even straight desktops.  Where things get strange with desktops is the desire to over-complicate with RAID and other complexities when a KISS solution makes more sense

[PGHammer]

2 minutes ago, Xahid said:

Jim K, is right, even low grade SSD blow away SSHD, and if you search for comparison, SSHD did not perform any better than normal HDD 7200RPM, so you should go with low grade SSD for OS/Programs and HDD for everything else.

I didn't say he was wrong - the issue is that SSDs have smaller capacities than platter drives - a LOT smaller.  More drives - regardless of type - increase complexity (and in the same way more partitions do); hence my preference for KISS-type approaches.

[ThaCrip]

i tend to have the mindset of i would rather have a proper SSD drive paired with a regular hard drive.

 

you can get a good 250GB range (possibly more) SSD drive for roughly $100 and for another $45-50 you can get a 2TB hard drive.

 

so for roughly $150 you can get a solid SSD and 2TB hard drive.

 

sure, i realize 250GB or so is not a lot of storage space but it's good enough (i figure anything under the 250GB range SSD's are not worth buying as they simply don't offer a usable amount of space) especially if your not loading up plenty of games from the SSD at any given time. but 500GB range SSD give you a bit more room to breathe but the costs tend to be a little steep as just that 500GB or so range SSD will probably cost a bit more than the 250GB SSD/2TB HDD combined.

[spaceelf]

I have two SSDs in this system and a Firecuda desktop drive.  I'm fond of this arrangement (at least have one ~500gb SSD around, IMO.)

 

I didn't get the notebook one because I don't have a notebook.  What's the point?

 

Pros to SSDs: They aren't terribly expensive anymore and they are fast.  I've been buying them since the early days and damn do I wish I'd saved some of that money.

Minuses: It's still money, even if not nearly as much.

Pros to Firecuda: You won't have to constantly move games off it to put more important stuff on.  If you keep games downloaded that you aren't playing every single day or really don't need the speed, it's an excellent option.  It'd also be great for a boot drive (mixed hot and cold data,) although I didn't feel like moving my install to it.

Minuses: You still get to defrag it.

 

Now I'm well aware people don't believe me when I say games on the Firecuda load as fast as on an SSD, but they do.  Not first load, obviously, but it doesn't need to cache the entire game to load faster.

 

I think if people actually used these drives instead of just dismissing them outright they'd love em.

Edited May 30, 2017 by dwLostCat

[Jim K Global Moderator]

4 hours ago, dwLostCat said:

I have two SSDs in this system and a Firecuda desktop drive.  I'm fond of this arrangement (at least have one ~500gb SSD around, IMO.)

 

I didn't get the notebook one because I don't have a notebook.  What's the point?

 

Pros to SSDs: They aren't terribly expensive anymore and they are fast.  I've been buying them since the early days and damn do I wish I'd saved some of that money.

Minuses: It's still money, even if not nearly as much.

Pros to Firecuda: You won't have to constantly move games off it to put more important stuff on.  If you keep games downloaded that you aren't playing every single day or really don't need the speed, it's an excellent option.  It'd also be great for a boot drive (mixed hot and cold data,) although I didn't feel like moving my install to it.

Minuses: You still get to defrag it.

 

Now I'm well aware people don't believe me when I say games on the Firecuda load as fast as on an SSD, but they do.  Not first load, obviously, but it doesn't need to cache the entire game to load faster.

 

I think if people actually used these drives instead of just dismissing them outright they'd love em.

I do not think anyone was dismissing them.  I was purely commenting on the notebook FireCuda ... which is a 5400 spinner w/ 8GB NAND...because that is what PGHammer linked to (and referred to mostly).  It doesn't make sense for a desktop ... the desktop FireCuda is a 7200 spinner and would be more appropriate (for a desktop)...especially for those on a budget.

[spaceelf]

1 hour ago, Jim K said:

I do not think anyone was dismissing them.

I'm not just talkin about here.  I've discussed them on several forums.

 

I don't see the point of anyone buying normal HDs anymore...unless they really need an external drive.

[Mando]

Ive pondered on the same situation at home and changed my tack,

i only install games on my desktop that im currently playing or will play, but to be fair there are a lot of them.

 

Ive ended up with 6 SSDs 2x123gb in RAID0 striped for Windows (cos i had them already) and then made another 2 volumes on 2x256Gb ssds for games1 and 2x256 games 2, both in RAID0 striped for double the Rws and double the capacity of a single drive. (2x 466Gb vols) all other data/media is stored on my NAS.

 

vowed no more platters at home, except in my NAS  

[+Fahim S. MVC]

3 hours ago, Mando said:

Ive pondered on the same situation at home and changed my tack,

i only install games on my desktop that im currently playing or will play, but to be fair there are a lot of them.

 

Ive ended up with 6 SSDs 2x123gb in RAID0 striped for Windows (cos i had them already) and then made another 2 volumes on 2x256Gb ssds for games1 and 2x256 games 2, both in RAID0 striped for double the Rws and double the capacity of a single drive. (2x 466Gb vols) all other data/media is stored on my NAS.

 

vowed no more platters at home, except in my NAS  

Likewise, only platters in my NAS and my server for now  I plan to take my server to 100% SSD at some point (and fanless too)  

[Athlonite]

I'm +1 for the SSD+HDD from what I've seen in real life and read on sites the SSHD is a have for numpties who don't know any better maybe if they were in a format like 120GB of NAND and 1TB+ of HDD they may do the job they purport them to do but 8GB of NAND is not enough to make them anymore effective than an 7200rpm HDD + 64MB cache which leads me to the opinion for me at anyrate that they're a have an nothing more 

[Athlonite]

On 5/30/2017 at 5:27 PM, PGHammer said:

I didn't say he was wrong - the issue is that SSDs have smaller capacities than platter drives - a LOT smaller.  More drives - regardless of type - increase complexity (and in the same way more partitions do); hence my preference for KISS-type approaches.

considering the capacity of HDD's these days you could go for a single 8TB HDD + 250GB+ SSD so only 2 drives one boot/prorams/games and one for everything else that really isn't that complicated at all 

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

On ‎30‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 2:11 PM, dwLostCat said:

I'm not just talkin about here.  I've discussed them on several forums.

 

I don't see the point of anyone buying normal HDs anymore...unless they really need an external drive.

i buy regular 2.5" drives for media storage, they are fine for storing videos and music on, but are a bit slow for apps / games, but it really depends, some games are just badly designed and have loading issues on non sdd drives. (remember battlefield 3)

 

i run all my games off a 7200rpm drive connected up via esata.

[PGHammer]

10 minutes ago, Athlonite said:

I'm +1 for the SSD+HDD from what I've seen in real life and read on sites the SSHD is a have for numpties who don't know any better maybe if they were in a format like 120GB of NAND and 1TB+ of HDD they may do the job they purport them to do but 8GB of NAND is not enough to make them anymore effective than an 7200rpm HDD + 64MB cache which leads me to the opinion for me at anyrate that they're a have an nothing more 

What I am looking at are 2TB SSHDs for the notebooks (as none of them have platter drives larger than 500GB), and the 2TB Firecuda is basically a straight swap for any of the platter drives in any of the notebooks, and 4TB (or larger, depending on price, for my one desktop).  The issue for the notebooks is capacity and NOT losing performance compared to a replaced platter drive; none of the notebooks are exactly "beasty".  The same would be true of my desktop - I am finding myself running out of capacity, and I haven't looked at desktop drives since I got the ex-MyBook three years ago (sweat-equity paid for it) - budget IS a consideration.

[Mando]

tbh PGHammer, i would consider RAID0 striped on a pair of platters if your needing higher than platter R/Ws and capacity, id wager a pair of 3.5" platters in a raid set would outperform a single SSHD.

[Seahorsepip Veteran]

HDD's won't have a long future, Samsung unveiled 16TB SSD disks a while ago which is larger then the biggest HDD currently available. So in the longterm I expect SSD technology to take over the whole market and slowly transition to 3D XPoint from there.

 

1 hour ago, Mando said:

tbh PGHammer, i would consider RAID0 striped on a pair of platters if your needing higher than platter R/Ws and capacity, id wager a pair of 3.5" platters in a raid set would outperform a single SSHD.

Yeah 7200rpm disks in raid are in a lot of cases faster then a SSHD since SSHDs tend to have a small SSD cache and a 5400rpm disk...

[+Fahim S. MVC]

18 minutes ago, Seahorsepip said:

HDD's won't have a long future, Samsung unveiled 16TB SSD disks a while ago which is larger then the biggest HDD currently available. So in the longterm I expect SSD technology to take over the whole market and slowly transition to 3D XPoint from there.

Given the per GB price of SSDs, that's not happening for a while yet.  To me the sweet spot is <£100 (or $100 if you'd prefer) for 1TB.  Right now they are close to 3x that.

[Seahorsepip Veteran]

10 minutes ago, Fahim S. said:

Given the per GB price of SSDs, that's not happening for a while yet.  To me the sweet spot is <£100 (or $100 if you'd prefer) for 1TB.  Right now they are close to 3x that.

It will probably be rather sooner then later that those prices will become lower for consumers and for companies it's not the price per GB that matters but the bandwidth of the drive and required space in most cases.

 

Personally I can't wait till prices have finally dropped below $0,10 / GB, still have a few TB disks that I want to replace.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

8 hours ago, Seahorsepip said:

It will probably be rather sooner then later that those prices will become lower for consumers and for companies it's not the price per GB that matters but the bandwidth of the drive and required space in most cases.

 

Personally I can't wait till prices have finally dropped below $0,10 / GB, still have a few TB disks that I want to replace.

At the moment the prices for flash storage are not heading in the right direction. I think we are a good 3-4 years away from prices reaching this level. 

[Athlonite]

On 6/11/2017 at 1:52 AM, PGHammer said:

What I am looking at are 2TB SSHDs for the notebooks (as none of them have platter drives larger than 500GB), and the 2TB Firecuda is basically a straight swap for any of the platter drives in any of the notebooks, and 4TB (or larger, depending on price, for my one desktop).  The issue for the notebooks is capacity and NOT losing performance compared to a replaced platter drive; none of the notebooks are exactly "beasty".  The same would be true of my desktop - I am finding myself running out of capacity, and I haven't looked at desktop drives since I got the ex-MyBook three years ago (sweat-equity paid for it) - budget IS a consideration.

For you desktop I' definitely go 120~256GB SSD and the Largest HDD (7200rpm + 64MB cache) you can afford 

 

for the Laptop atleast a 256GB SSD gives you some space and a 2TB 2.5" USB3.0  HDD (it's small and light weight) for anything that wont fit on the SSD   

[spaceelf]

On 6/10/2017 at 7:50 PM, Fahim S. said:

At the moment the prices for flash storage are not heading in the right direction. I think we are a good 3-4 years away from prices reaching this level. 

Prices don't really seem to change much unless the manufacturing process does.  The 64+ layer 3D NAND rolling out now might help lower it a little, but I'm not expecting any huge movement for some time.