FINALLY the 3.5" sshds are HERE!!!

[kenkickr]

I've been waiting to grab one for the htpc. Prices aren't that bad considering. SSD Performance. HDD Capacity

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

meh only 8gb of flash on both

1TB + 8GB
2TB + 8GB


would be more interesting if they scaled it up
1TB + 8GB
2TB + 16GB
3TB + 24GB
4TB + 32GB

etc etc altho 16 32 48 64gb would be far more usefull

As it stands its cheaper to grab a cheapo SSD and 1TB drive and just use Intel's caching tech.

 

[newtekie1]

16GB would have been nice, but really 8GB is enough. The amount of files accessed when booting and starting programs for 90% of users is under 8GB.

I've been using a 2.5" 1TB SSHD in my main rig for a little over a month now and it is noticeably faster at startup and loading common programs than the standard 3.5" hard drive it replaced.

As it stands its cheaper to grab a cheapo SSD and 1TB drive and just use Intel's caching tech.

It definitely wouldn't be cheaper. A 1TB drive is about $60. The cheapest SSD on newegg is $47. That doesn't add up to be cheaper than a 1TB SSHD, not to mention you have to have a board that supports Intel's Smart Responce, which a lot of people don't.

 

[rockit00]

The 1TB SSHD should be as fast as the XT 750GB and save a little $$ to boot!

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

16GB would have been nice, but really 8GB is enough. The amount of files accessed when booting and starting programs for 90% of users is under 8GB.

I've been using a 2.5" 1TB SSHD in my main rig for a little over a month now and it is noticeably faster at startup and loading common programs than the standard 3.5" hard drive it replaced.



It definitely wouldn't be cheaper. A 1TB drive is about $60. The cheapest SSD on newegg is $47. That doesn't add up to be cheaper than a 1TB SSHD, not to mention you have to have a board that supports Intel's Smart Responce, which a lot of people don't.

so $117 vs $99

oooh $17 to go from 1TB with 8GB of cache to 1TB with 32GB of cache via SSD which is gonna have the better performance considering both are just using the SSD to cache data.

8GB isnt enough to store the OS or even a single game it only stores the most used files for faster loading so in the end the larger capacity SSD would be a better option.

2TB Toshiba HDD = $89.99
32GB SSD = $46.99

Total Cost = $137

So 2TB SSHD at $139
Or 2TB HDD + 32GB SSD for $137

So while the 1TB is $17 cheaper the 2TB option is $2 more expensive.

In the end both Seagate options are inferior performance wise.

Even without smart response Id rather just buy the actual SSD and run the OS off of it. Granted 32gb is pretty damn paltry in terms of capacity it is still enough for the OS.

 

[Sir B. Fannybottom]

So does anyone have proper bench tests on these drives?

 

[newtekie1]

so $117 vs $99

oooh $17 to go from 1TB with 8GB of cache to 1TB with 32GB of cache via SSD which is gonna have the better performance considering both are just using the SSD to cache data.

8GB isnt enough to store the OS or even a single game it only stores the most used files for faster loading so in the end the larger capacity SSD would be a better option.

2TB Toshiba HDD = $89.99
32GB SSD = $46.99

Total Cost = $137

So 2TB SSHD at $139
Or 2TB HDD + 32GB SSD for $137

So while the 1TB is $17 cheaper the 2TB option is $2 more expensive.

In the end both Seagate options are inferior performance wise.

Even without smart response Id rather just buy the actual SSD and run the OS off of it. Granted 32gb is pretty damn paltry in terms of capacity it is still enough for the OS.

You don't have to store the whole OS, 90% of it is not accessed when booting. 8GB is enough for what is actually accessed when booting as well as a few programs, including games. Though not enough for all the level/textures.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Regardless 8gb is not enough this is the third generation of their hybrid drives and they still havent gotten out of the rut yet.

I see this as far more useful in the 2.5 inch laptop market where you cant pair an SSD and HDD together. For desktops these really are not that great.

That said i also doubt performance will be that great the 2nd Gen Hybrid drives offered faster OS booting but otherwise performance wise where meh they had a hard time with even 5400rpm standard HDDs. In the end its just an HDD with 8gb of nand cache Its nice feature but other than faster boots its rather worthless. If paired with WIndows 8 due to its not fully shutting down unless specifically told to this has almost 0 benefit.

 

[erocker]

Anyone have one of these? Do any benchmark/file transfer with it yet?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Anyone have one of these? Do any benchmark/file transfer with it yet?

I would like to see this as well.

Oh, and your avatar just went from an 8 to a 10.

 

[rockit00]

Been looking for stock, reviews and benchmarks since April. Not even the foreign sites had these drives or a clue as to when they would show up.

 

[theonedub]

meh only 8gb of flash on both

1TB + 8GB
2TB + 8GB


would be more interesting if they scaled it up
1TB + 8GB
2TB + 16GB
3TB + 24GB
4TB + 32GB

etc etc altho 16 32 48 64gb would be far more usefull

As it stands its cheaper to grab a cheapo SSD and 1TB drive and just use Intel's caching tech.

Intel's caching software needs some updating. I purchased a Zenbook with a 32GB SSD and a 500GB 5400RPM HDD using Intel's setup and performance was poor. I would doubt that using 7200RPM drive would bring it up to acceptable levels. My intention was to test the hybrid type setup with my spare Caviar Black 2.5" 7200RPM drive, but I didn't even bother- just bought a large SSD and stuck it in there.

Maybe I am biased because I've been using a decently fast SSD in my main PC for a while now, but after using the 2 setups side by side I would definitely not recommend any Intel Express Cache or comparable software for anyone looking for SSD-like performance even if it is a cheaper solution.

 

[Sir B. Fannybottom]

Been looking for stock, reviews and benchmarks since April. Not even the foreign sites had these drives or a clue as to when they would show up.

I just noticed he changed it, I like it much more. It is very erocker. Side note, would buying a Samsung EVO still be a better choice? A 1TB drive and a 120gb SS EVO are the same price for me.

 

[Nordic]

8gb is enough to make boot up fast but that's about it.

 

[newtekie1]

8gb is enough to make boot up fast but that's about it.

Photoshop, Chrome, Steam, and MSI Afterburner all load much faster for me too. But those are the programs that I always launch right after the computer starts.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

Can you use a ssd of this size as the os drive? I was under the impression that 240gb was the max you wanted to use unless that has changed. To be honest I haven't kept up with it but am thinking now of moving to a ssd for my os drive. If i can use a 1tb ssd drive for the os/ programs and still maintain the performance advantage of a ssd that would be great.

 

[Mussels]

Can you use a ssd of this size as the os drive? I was under the impression that 240gb was the max you wanted to use unless that has changed. To be honest I haven't kept up with it but am thinking now of moving to a ssd for my os drive. If i can use a 1tb ssd drive for the os/ programs and still maintain the performance advantage of a ssd that would be great.

what? you can use any drive, i think TB is recommended due to BIOS not supporting it (UEFI does)



sure people recommend a smaller partition so you dont have to reinstall EVERYTHING if you format, but thats not a requirement.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

I though I read something somewhere that over 240gb there was some issue with trim or something. I could be wrong. And if I can use a bigger ssd for the main drive and keep the great speed that would be cool.

 

[Mussels]

I though I read something somewhere that over 240gb there was some issue with trim or something. I could be wrong. And if I can use a bigger ssd for the main drive and keep the great speed that would be cool.

TRIM doesnt apply, this is not an SSD.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

Ah thats where I am getting confused. Thanks for clearing that up. I though it was a ssd. These drives seem to may be what I am looking for.

 

[Mussels]

its a mechanical drive with an 8GB cache instead of the usual 32MB these days.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

Do we need to wait and see real world performance to see if they are worth it over a standard platter drive with 32mb of cache?

 

[Mussels]

Do we need to wait and see real world performance to see if they are worth it over a standard platter drive with 32mb of cache?

they're hard to benchmark. basically, you have a chance of SSD performance on most used files - say, windows.

if you play a game too big to fit in the cache, it wont load any faster. i guess it all comes down to how they set the cache up - if it loads all the small files and the mechanical part only does the big ones, then it should improve latency a lot.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

Thanks for the info Mussels you have really helped me in my quest for a new drive setup. I am running 3 1tb standard platter drives now, but I want to get some more speed from the main drive.

 

[Athlon2K15]

Kenkickr, did you end up grabbing one of these drives? I have the 2TB capacity in house if you want any benchmark numbers.