[SOLVED] SSD vs SSD+HDD vs SSHD?

[Isaac Zackary]

I've got a couple tower computers I'm fixing up and need to install drives in them. Both need about 1TB of storage besides whatever Windows a couple of apps will need. These are both older SATA computers, no NVME.

Of course I'd like to have an SSD for a boot drive. I've always gone with the Crucial MX500 series due to the low cost and it's DRAM cache. I'm also a little concerned about SMR reliability if I go with a hard drive as a second drive, but am unsure if my concerns about shingled drives is valid for just simple file storage on a PC.

So here's what I've come up with:

1. I could go with just an SSD. It seems that the MX500 doesn't come in 1.25 or 1.5TB flavors, so a 2TB would likely be what I'd need. But those go for around $200 right now. Or I could get a 250GB or 500GB drive for around $48 or $55 respectively and another 1TB SSD for about $100, for about $150 or so for 1.25 or 1.5TB total.
2. Or I could go with a smaller SSD, like the 500GB MX500 for $55, and a HDD like a 1TB WD Blue for $38 more, or just under $95.
3. But if I avoid SMR then it's a 1TB WD Red for $59, or about $115 when paired with the MX500 500GB.
4. But for just a little more I can keep all the files on just one drive if I go with a 2TB SSHD SG Firecuda for about $118. I don't know if those are SMR or not and they only have 8GB of nand flash storage, but do have 64MB of cache. We have one computer with a 1TB SSHD (not sure the specs) but it seems to work pretty well, almost as good as an SSD for booting.

Anyhow, what do you think for simple desktop use? I don't think pure SSD is necessary, but if an SSHD is only $3 to $20 more than a two drive SSD and HDD combo, plus it has 500GB more...

I guess the question I'm asking is which will be more reliable for the cost in the long run. I'm not concerned with losing files. But I don't want to spend top dollar and a flimsy drive either.

 

[USAFRet]

500GB SSD + HDD of whatever size.

Or

2TB SSD, and suck up the cost.

 

[jasonf2]

500GB SSD + HDD of whatever size.

Or

2TB SSD, and suck up the cost.

Agreed. And I lean towards just doing the SSD.

 

[Isaac Zackary]

Ok. So it sounds like everyone would avoid the SSHD. I'm guessing because it only has 8GB of actual SSD on it and costs more than the 500GB SSD options. Maybe because of reliability too???

Anyhow, I'll probably put in the 500GB SSD and a 1TB HDD. In these machines the storage is going to cost more than the rest of the computer as it is, so I think I'll pass on the bigger SSD.

Thanks!

 

[popatim]

SSHD is a complete waste of $$ Seagate's have 8gb of flash that make up the SSD portion and it is only used as a cache. You have no control over what it caches.
So basically you have a PC that starts up windows and a program or 2 fairly quickly and then you have a nice slow hard drive for everything else.

For fun, calculate how much your paying for that 8gb ssd.

 

[Isaac Zackary]

SSHD is a complete waste of $$ Seagate's have 8gb of flash that make up the SSD portion and it is only used as a cache. You have no control over what it caches.
So basically you have a PC that starts up windows and a program or 2 fairly quickly and then you have a nice slow hard drive for everything else.

That's basically what I'd need it for. To start up Windows and a program or two quicker than with the HDD they have had up till now.

For fun, calculate how much your paying for that 8gb ssd.

True. There are 2 TB drives in less than $50. I could do that with a $50 500GB SSD and have a much better experience for the price.

I think I'll pass on the 2TB SSD in my case, although that would probably be the best option for most people.

 

[USAFRet]

That's basically what I'd need it for. To start up Windows and a program or two quicker than with the HDD they have had up till now.

Everything is faster with an SSD.
Open File Explorer, virus scan, any application that lives on it...

 

[lvt]

I'm not fond of SSHD.

So typical SSD + HDD setup for me.

 

[Isaac Zackary]

Everything is faster with an SSD.
Open File Explorer, virus scan, any application that lives on it...

Maybe. But I've never seen a noticeable slowdown when using File Explorer to see files and folders on an HDD, with maybe the exception of loading not-yet-generated thumbnails.

Wouldn't a slower virus scan simply leave more resources for the rest of the system?

 

[USAFRet]

Wouldn't a slower virus scan simply leave more resources for the rest of the system?

Or, it is finished faster, freeing up the resources for other use.

 

[alceryes]

Is the 1TB of space needed just for flat files/data not program installations? Will both the systems be connected to a reliable/fast network?
How about 500GB SSDs and a networked NAS for both (multiple?) systems?

Otherwise I would say just go with 2TB SSDs for each system.

 

[Isaac Zackary]

Is the 1TB of space needed just for flat files/data not program installations? Will both the systems be connected to a reliable/fast network?
How about 500GB SSDs and a networked NAS for both (multiple?) systems?

Otherwise I would say just go with 2TB SSDs for each system.

In my situation, yes, 1TB for just files, not programs.

Reliable/fast network?... not really. Download speeds of 20-25Mbps on a good day. There have been several days this past year the internet has been out for the entire valley (including cellular). One time it was out for 3 days.

NAS?... The reason for having the hard drives (or SSD) is mainly because of internet instability. Otherwise we could get by with just our Office and Onedrive subscriptions, for an example.

2TB SSDs? Mind you I'm adding these drives to computers that were either given to me or cost less than $50.

 

[alceryes]

I'm referring to your local network, not internet speeds. A local NAS.
It may be more than you're willing to spend now, but as long as the computers are on a wired (or fast wireless) connection you should be able to run a small NAS connected to your router. You could then map a drive from the shared space on both your computers. You may even be able to get away with 250GB SSDs in this instance but I don't know how big the programs that are needed are.

Initial cost will be higher with this solution but NASs do have their benefits.

 

[Isaac Zackary]

I'm referring to your local network, not internet speeds. A local NAS.
It may be more than you're willing to spend now, but as long as the computers are on a wired (or fast wireless) connection you should be able to run a small NAS connected to your router. You could then map a drive from the shared space on both your computers. You may even be able to get away with 250GB SSDs in this instance but I don't know how big the programs that are needed are.

Initial cost will be higher with this solution but NASs do have their benefits.

The computers are going into different buildings/homes. But thanks for the idea. It makes me start thinking about my own home setup.

As far as programs go, we could probably get by with a less than 100GB boot drive for each computer.

The reason I mention the 500GB MX500 SSD from Crucial is because I've heard that SSD's wear out faster and are slower if they don't have DRAM cache. Crucial's MX500 line seems to be the cheapest DRAM cache SSD's available, at least to my limited knowledge. And the 500GB SSD is only a few dollars more than the 250GB.

But maybe I'm overthinking it and should just go with a cheaper cacheless SSD. The ADATA Ultimate SU650 120GB SSD for $24 or the Crucial BX500 120GB SSD for $39 would both work as far as storage requirements for the OS and programs/apps are concerned.

 

[USAFRet]

As far as programs go, we could probably get by with a less than 100GB boot drive for each computer.

No, not really.

Even a 120GB SSD is marginal.
You have to account for temp files, pagefile, OS, applications, the semi annual Windows update.

An SSD needs 15% or so free space.

For a 120GB drive, you really only have 85GB useful space.

We see people here ALL the time with a 120GB OS drive, wondering what to do with the lack of space.

In addition, the better SSD manufacturers (SAmsung/Crucial/WD) don't even make/sell 120GB drives anymore.

 

[alceryes]

As far as programs go, we could probably get by with a less than 100GB boot drive for each computer.

Nope. Consider 250GBs to be the absolute minimum.
You'll need the extra space for everything from Microsoft Office, to Windows updates, to pagefile, hibernate file, and temp space. If you plan to not have to reload the OS for 3+years add 15GBs for updates ALONE. Yes, you can reduce that number by cleaning up, using DISM, etc., but the point is that Windows is a 'hoarder' OS and 120GB just isn't enough for a long Windows 10 life.

 

[lvt]

From my year-long observation, Windows 10 uses less than 50GB (all included).

So using a 128GB for boot drive is OK, 256GB makes you feel comfortable, 512GB is a waste.

 

[lvt]

The reason I mention the 500GB MX500 SSD from Crucial is because I've heard that SSD's wear out faster and are slower if they don't have DRAM cache. Crucial's MX500 line seems to be the cheapest DRAM cache SSD's available, at least to my limited knowledge. And the 500GB SSD is only a few dollars more than the 250GB.

But maybe I'm overthinking it and should just go with a cheaper cacheless SSD. The ADATA Ultimate SU650 120GB SSD for $24 or the Crucial BX500 120GB SSD for $39 would both work as far as storage requirements for the OS and programs/apps are concerned.

The below diagram shows the effect of SSD not having a cache memory.

That's why performance SSD all have DRAM cache.

No DRAM cache? No problem, but on small SSD like 128GB , you'd better not to use more than 50% of its capacity.

 

[popatim]

If they can spare another $50 , you could install the 2tb HDD into another cheap PC and easily turn it into a NAS. Freenas even boots from a flash drive.

 

[Isaac Zackary]

Good thoughts! I've been using a 120GB SSD as a boot/programs drive on my current computer for the past several years. But yes, it does need a good cleanup every once in a while.

Still, a 250GB SSD goes for around $33.

The below diagram shows the effect of SSD not having a cache memory.

That's why performance SSD all have DRAM cache.

No DRAM cache? No problem, but on small SSD like 128GB , you'd better not to use more than 50% of its capacity.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion!

I've heard that cached SSD's are better than cache-less SSD's. I've also heard that having an SSD that's twice as big as what you need it for is also better. But I didn't understand exactly why.

So from what I can tell a 250GB cache-less SSD or 120GB cached SSD (the latter don't seem to exist) would work just fine along with the hard drive for files only.

 

[lvt]

Good thoughts! I've been using a 120GB SSD as a boot/programs drive on my current computer for the past several years. But yes, it does need a good cleanup every once in a while.

Still, a 250GB SSD goes for around $33.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion!

I've heard that cached SSD's are better than cache-less SSD's. I've also heard that having an SSD that's twice as big as what you need it for is also better. But I didn't understand exactly why.

So from what I can tell a 250GB cache-less SSD or 120GB cached SSD (the latter don't seem to exist) would work just fine along with the hard drive for files only.

A 250GB Dramless SSD should be fine for boot drive for home/office computer.

 

[USAFRet]

From my year-long observation, Windows 10 uses less than 50GB (all included).

So using a 128GB for boot drive is OK, 256GB makes you feel comfortable, 512GB is a waste.

If you have "only Windows" on the C drive, that is a waste.
You want applications on it as well.

Given that one of my applications consumes ~150GB....a 500GB C drive is not 'a waste'.

 

[lvt]

If you have "only Windows" on the C drive, that is a waste.
You want applications on it as well.

Given that one of my applications consumes ~150GB....a 500GB C drive is not 'a waste'.

I have twice the number of apps that an average user might have (mostly development and diasnogtic tools).

The SQL Database alone contains several GB of data.

All that for less than 50GB of data on C.

The backup image of the C drive is compressed to more than 20GB.

 

[USAFRet]

I have twice the number of apps that an average user might have (mostly development and diasnogtic tools).

The SQL Database alone contains several GB of data.

All that for less than 50GB of data on C.

The backup image of the C drive is compressed to more than 20GB.

Well...whatever works for you.
Certainly would not work for me.