[SOLVED] Brand new 512 SSD or Used 3TB HDD

[Ahazuerus]

Hey all !!

I'm on a tight budget right now and I need to decide carefully from these two .
I wonder if I should buy a Brand new SSD 512 gb (Team group) or a second hand 3 TB HDD but HD Sentinel shows 100% health and performance . The 3 TB HDD made by Toshiba is almost 8 years old because its date of manufacturing is Dec 2012 .

Both are priced at $54

Which one should I buy ?
I'll be using it for gaming .

Thanks in advance !

 

[herrwizo]

SSDs and HDDs have different roles, and it all depends on which role you need to fill.

The fastest possible system drive to install apps and games on --> SSD
Pure storage for media files, archives and documents --> HDD

That being said, I would never advise anyone on purchasing an 8-year old HDD. Go for SSD.

 

[Ahazuerus]

SSDs and HDDs have different roles, and it all depends on which role you need to fill.

The fastest possible system drive to install apps and games on --> SSD
Pure storage for media files, archives and documents --> HDD

That being said, I would never advise anyone on purchasing an 8-year old HDD. Go for SSD.

Awesome , thanks for the info

 

[Blitz Blitz]

I don't buy any of these. 3 TB hdd is not reliable. And yours which you wanna is old enough, and should be without warranty. Team group I think is not very good brand, choose samsung, crucial for ssd. Also you can search external portable hdd, and remove hdd from case, and make it as internal to your pc. Sometimes, is good deals on market.

 

[Ahazuerus]

I don't buy any of these. 3 TB hdd is not reliable. And yours which you wanna is old enough, and should be without warranty. Team group I think is not very good brand, choose samsung, crucial for ssd. Also you can search external portable hdd, and remove hdd from case, and make it as internal to your pc. Sometimes, is good deals on market.

Oh I see, so buying the 3TB is a bad idea. Is Western Digital and Silicon Power a good brand aswell in SSDs?
Those are the only brands close to my budget

 

[USAFRet]

I also wouldn't buy either of those choices.
Used 3TB HDD = NOT
TeamGroup SSD = NOT

Which specific WD SSD are you considering? If a WD Green, don't.

 

[Ahazuerus]

I also wouldn't buy either of those choices.
Used 3TB HDD = NOT
TeamGroup SSD = NOT

Which specific WD SSD are you considering? If a WD Green, don't.

It's the Green WDs, but I changed my mind .
I saw a Kingston SSD 480 gb. It's brand new for only $45 . Is it a good deal ?

 

[Ahazuerus]

Hey guys, I'm just thinking if HDDs are still worth it today .

I'm aware that SSDs are much faster than HDDs but is more expensive, but sooner or later we will all be using SSDs right?

I was torn apart whether buying a 512 kingston ssd or a used up 3TB Seagate for the same price.
I'm using it for games. I have external storage so I can delete some games in the ssd to free up some space after beating it and just keep some back ups.

Your thoughts?

 

[kanewolf]

I would NOT recommend a used HDD for anything. Especially a 3TB Seagate. They have a bad history -- https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

Is this a new build or adding storage to an existing build?

 

[USAFRet]

How does this differ from your thread the other day?

[SOLVED] - Brand new 512 SSD or Used 3TB HDD

Hey all !! I'm on a tight budget right now and I need to decide carefully from these two . I wonder if I should buy a Brand new SSD 512 gb (Team group) or a second hand 3 TB HDD but HD Sentinel shows 100% health and performance . The 3 TB HDD made by Toshiba is almost 8 years old because...

forums.tomshardware.com

 

[Zoel.fahmi]

For storage only yes

 

[popatim]

We will not be using all ssd's for a long time to come. They cannot match the price to storage ratio of HDD's.
Start with an SSD and then plan on adding in an HDD.

For example. Newegg has a Seagate 8TB on sale for $130 which would only get you a 1TB ssd.

 

[falcon291]

We will not be using all ssd's for a long time to come. They cannot match the price to storage ratio of HDD's.
Start with an SSD and then plan on adding in an HDD.

For example. Newegg has a Seagate 8TB on sale for $130 which would only get you a 1TB ssd.

I am expecting that after 2025 HDDs will become an old technology like tube monitors. So I don't believe it will take that long time.

 

[mdd1963]

If you need more than a couple TB of space for storage, 4-6 TB internal SATA drives are priced fairly reasonably, roughly $25 per TB or so.... (I don't find anyone's external USB drives to be as reliable/long lasting as a quality internal drive..)....

 

[falcon291]

If you need more than a couple TB of space for storage, 4-6 TB internal SATA drives are priced fairly reasonably, roughly $25 per TB or so.... (I don't find anyone's external USB drives to be as reliable/long lasting as a quality internal drive..)....

Yes they put not their best disks into their external drives . Speaking about WD, green and blue are disks to avoid, and when we open the package of WD external drives, we find these disks, not surprisingly.

 

[Karadjgne]

For me, it's reliability. Many times, even if the controller board goes out on a hdd, it can be replaced and data can be recovered. Not seen that done yet with an SSD. Hdds have a known lifespan for the most part and even when sectors go bad, the rest of the data is recoverable. With ssd, they are in a constant state of degradation, starting @ 108% ±, but what exact % is done, I don't know.
Hdds perform the same at 10% as they do at 90% used, only limits being software usage, SSDs can have a tendency at @ 50%ish to take a performance nose dive. Hdds work on any pc, as long as it has a Sata port. SSDs can have issues, NVMe or Sata, specific ports, disabled ports, or in some cases incompatability.

For long term storage, value lies with the hdd. They'll be around until vendors quit putting Sata3 ports on motherboards and older motherboards are no longer viable. Since ppl are still using C2D cpus, lga775 etc, I don't see hdds disappearing any time soon.

 

[USAFRet]

For me, it's reliability. Many times, even if the controller board goes out on a hdd, it can be replaced and data can be recovered.

No matter the drive type or fail mode....a backup is the One True Way to recover.

 

[Karadjgne]

No matter the drive type or fail mode....a backup is the One True Way to recover.

Yes and no. Where does it stop. How many backups do you need to guarantee that they won't fail either and you'll actually have a 'safe' copy? The backup is only as good as the drive and/or media it's stuck on. I see it as more a matter of Faith and less a matter of Fact. To me, a backup only ensures I have a fighting chance to replace/recover my data, but no guarantee.

 

[USAFRet]

Yes and no. Where does it stop. How many backups do you need to guarantee that they won't fail either and you'll actually have a 'safe' copy? The backup is only as good as the drive and/or media it's stuck on. I see it as more a matter of Faith and less a matter of Fact. To me, a backup only ensures I have a fighting chance to replace/recover my data, but no guarantee.

True. There is no 'guarantee'.
But that is why depth is needed.
What is on my system.
Backup in the NAS.
That is 100% backed up to other media.
Life critical data also lives in a drive that is elsewhere, and refreshed every couple of months. (that reminds me...)

If all of those go down at once, I have far bigger problems to worry about.


The problem lies in people assuming that a 'dead drive' and its data can be recovered by simply swapping in a new PCB or replacing a diode.
Bah...the physical drive is trivial and easily replaceable.

 

[Karadjgne]

Hmm yeah, best bet to refresh ssd every 6 months if not hooked up to voltage, between 6 months and 1yr they'll stand a good chance of data corruption as their internal voltages erode.

 

[DSzymborski]

The threads have been merged. OP, please keep it to one thread per topic.

 

[falcon291]

For me, it's reliability. Many times, even if the controller board goes out on a hdd, it can be replaced and data can be recovered. Not seen that done yet with an SSD. Hdds have a known lifespan for the most part and even when sectors go bad, the rest of the data is recoverable. With ssd, they are in a constant state of degradation, starting @ 108% ±, but what exact % is done, I don't know.
Hdds perform the same at 10% as they do at 90% used, only limits being software usage, SSDs can have a tendency at @ 50%ish to take a performance nose dive. Hdds work on any pc, as long as it has a Sata port. SSDs can have issues, NVMe or Sata, specific ports, disabled ports, or in some cases incompatability.

For long term storage, value lies with the hdd. They'll be around until vendors quit putting Sata3 ports on motherboards and older motherboards are no longer viable. Since ppl are still using C2D cpus, lga775 etc, I don't see hdds disappearing any time soon.

You are right for older SDDs, but they got better in time, and now they are almost, if not more reliable as HDDs.

For HDDs the best part is they are able to report failures before they become visible & even they become visible, most of the time it is possible to save whole or most of the data. I had PCs since 1992 and so I had many failed disks. But just once or twice the disk turned into a rock, and even then I believe if I needed the data there were ways to save it.

Anyway if you have lots of data now, the only solution is to have a SSD, and a HDD at least or more of them. You have to have SSDs, they are really fast, HDDs are cheap and for large data they are the only solution, unless if you are rich enough not to mind to buy a 8 TB SSD. And use cloud, I have GBs of data in my my OneDrive, I use it to share data between my desktop and laptop computers.

 

[mdd1963]

Crucial's MX500 500 GB is $65 or so...(excellent drives, I've used several in client builds/upgrades, both desktop and laptops)

I consider the extra $15 worth it over lesser name brands...but, you might feel differently. Good luck whichever you choose.

NOTE: as someone using a 500 GB drive currently, I can tell you even 500 GB seems to fill up way quickly these days! I'd be hesitant to try a 250 GB drive....

 

[seanwebster]

Op: if you need the space, HDD. If you need speed get the SSD. If you are using the drive as your OS drive, get the SSD.

For me, it's reliability. Many times, even if the controller board goes out on a hdd, it can be replaced and data can be recovered. Not seen that done yet with an SSD. Hdds have a known lifespan for the most part and even when sectors go bad, the rest of the data is recoverable. With ssd, they are in a constant state of degradation, starting @ 108% ±, but what exact % is done, I don't know.
Hdds perform the same at 10% as they do at 90% used, only limits being software usage, SSDs can have a tendency at @ 50%ish to take a performance nose dive. Hdds work on any pc, as long as it has a Sata port. SSDs can have issues, NVMe or Sata, specific ports, disabled ports, or in some cases incompatability.

For long term storage, value lies with the hdd. They'll be around until vendors quit putting Sata3 ports on motherboards and older motherboards are no longer viable. Since ppl are still using C2D cpus, lga775 etc, I don't see hdds disappearing any time soon.

No. A HDD can drop dead out of nowhere and have various failures when the day before it was perfect. HDDs are not more reliable. Go drop an HDD a few times while running and see how reliable it stays. AFRs on SSDs are lower than on HDDs. The performance of an HDD slows down as it fills too. You are misinformed. I can google some benchmark data for you or bench some HDDs myself to prove this to you, if you like...

Where do you see SSD performance taking a nose dive at 50% full? I test all my review samples at 50% or more fill and they performance nearly the same as they do when empty. When a drive has a dynamic write cache, it will just shrink as the drive fills, but will still be there to respond quickly to inbound writes... Reads go unaffected by fill %...

And where are you getting these constant degradation % numbers from?

 

[Wu-Zi-Mu]

^^ I've had more than a few HDDs die and not once was I unable to recover the data fully or almost fully without taking it to a shop.

Performance: any drive's performance drops when the data gets fragmented. SSD's don't have the seek overhead that HDDs have so the difference is small, but you can defragment your HDD partitions or create a partition at the faster area at the start of the drive, so you don't have to see any performance loss with a HDD as you fill it up. You can also not use NTFS which natively fills the partition from the fastest to slowest area and consolidates the filled area so you're stuck using the slower area if you use Windows's defragger