which is better SSD or SSHD?

[Matthew Norvell]

I know people get annoyed when posting on old posts so here you go..

SSD or SSHD?

I have games and I want them on a separate Drive (example- C: will be Windows and D: will be games).. is it more performance to use two drives or can I just partition one of them so I can spend less money.

Also do they TRULY run any higher than the top hard drives out there, or is it speeds that are barely noticeable?

 

[USAFRet]

Partitioning a single drive to be a C and D does not impact performance over having just a single C partition.
It is sort of beneficial if you have to reinstall the OS, in that whatever exists on the other partition is not toucheed (if you do it correctly).
But I prefer individual drives for that vs partitions.

SSD vs SSHD?
Well, that is mostly a budget issue.
A 1TB SSHD is far cheaper than a 1TB SSD, however the SSD is obviously faster over the whole 1TB.

 

[Martell1977]

The change from a HDD to an SSD is very noticeable, especially in Windows boot times.

An SSHD has it place but is not as fast as an SSD or SSD+HDD combo. AN SSHD uses the SSD portion as a cache and only programs you use most often gets cached. Therefore, load times for things like maps will not get any benefit unless you play the same one over and over and over.

If you only have room for a single drive but need space, the SSHD is a decent option unless you can afford a large capacity SSD.

Using a partition wont help as the data will still be on the same drive so the data is still from a single source. Having separate drives is the best route.

 

[Phillip Corcoran]

Speed is the chief driving force behind SSD sales, they are much faster than an HDD, even faster than a hybrid drive.
Cost per MB is still prohibitive though - I'm waiting till the SSD prices fall even further, which they will do over time.
I won't be buying a hybrid drive as a "stop gap" measure -- I'll wait till I can afford a proper SSD.

By "best" I assume you mean best performer?

Well that's SSD - no contest.

 

[Martell1977]

Speed is the chief driving force behind SSD sales, they are much faster than an HDD, even faster than a hybrid drive.
Cost per MB is still prohibitive though - I'm waiting till the SSD prices fall even further, which they will do over time.

It might be quite a while for that. The NAND shortage will likely delay any pricing drops. Samsung even has delayed the release of a product or 2 because of it.

 

[USAFRet]

I'm glad my main systems are already SSD only, and all the spinning platters exist in, or are attached to, the NAS box.
Where raw speed doesn't really matter.

 

[Phillip Corcoran]

Speed is the chief driving force behind SSD sales, they are much faster than an HDD, even faster than a hybrid drive.
Cost per MB is still prohibitive though - I'm waiting till the SSD prices fall even further, which they will do over time.

It might be quite a while for that. The NAND shortage will likely delay any pricing drops. Samsung even has delayed the release of a product or 2 because of it.

True, plus the weak pound with my country leaving the EU (but I still don't regret voting to leave that interfering bunch of beurocrats).

 

[Matthew Norvell]

The change from a HDD to an SSD is very noticeable, especially in Windows boot times.

An SSHD has it place but is not as fast as an SSD or SSD+HDD combo. AN SSHD uses the SSD portion as a cache and only programs you use most often gets cached. Therefore, load times for things like maps will not get any benefit unless you play the same one over and over and over.

If you only have room for a single drive but need space, the SSHD is a decent option unless you can afford a large capacity SSD.

Using a partition wont help as the data will still be on the same drive so the data is still from a single source. Having separate drives is the best route.

I was wondering why they would put two types together, never thought of that. Thanks for the info. I may find the cheapest SSHD available and compare it with my hardrive that is similar in size before buying a SSD. (which I still want pretty bad)

 

[Matthew Norvell]

Partitioning a single drive to be a C and D does not impact performance over having just a single C partition.
It is sort of beneficial if you have to reinstall the OS, in that whatever exists on the other partition is not toucheed (if you do it correctly).
But I prefer individual drives for that vs partitions.

SSD vs SSHD?
Well, that is mostly a budget issue.
A 1TB SSHD is far cheaper than a 1TB SSD, however the SSD is obviously faster over the whole 1TB.

I prefer individual drives too, I just like partitioning for some reason..
I like fast so the SSD (now that I know what an SSHD is ) will be the way I go, I will however find a SSHD similar to my hard drive I have now to compare performance and such that also has a return option in case I decide to go ahead and buy the more expensive SSD. If it doesn't hurt me too much

 

[Matthew Norvell]

When it comes to price do any of you gamers or techies know if an SSD just for the OS will be sufficient in boosting game performance?
I almost have enough for one of these although I am new to SSD and am not sure which is better in performance or if there is any noticeable difference.... I only ask cause I am a worrysome buyer, I always fear wasting money on something that is not suffiecient or turns out to be junk.
I found these:
https://shortly.im/vx2nF
https://shortly.im/1puBZ

 

[USAFRet]

I found these:

Please...no shortened links.
Post the actual link.

 

[Martell1977]

When it comes to price do any of you gamers or techies know if an SSD just for the OS will be sufficient in boosting game performance?
I almost have enough for one of these although I am new to SSD and am not sure which is better in performance or if there is any noticeable difference.... I only ask cause I am a worrysome buyer, I always fear wasting money on something that is not suffiecient or turns out to be junk.
I found these:
https://shortly.im/vx2nF
https://shortly.im/1puBZ

If you only put Windows on the SSD, then Windows will be the only thing that benefits from it, everything on the HDD will perform as it did before.

As for the 2 SSD's you linked, the Samsung 960 Evo is one of the fastest out there. However, you need to check your motherboard specs and make sure you have a M.2 drive and it is compatible with NVME SSD's.

 

[Matthew Norvell]

I found these:

Please...no shortened links.
Post the actual link.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B019H3B3P6/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LYFKJR7/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2L77EE7U53NWQ

 

[Matthew Norvell]

When it comes to price do any of you gamers or techies know if an SSD just for the OS will be sufficient in boosting game performance?
I almost have enough for one of these although I am new to SSD and am not sure which is better in performance or if there is any noticeable difference.... I only ask cause I am a worrysome buyer, I always fear wasting money on something that is not suffiecient or turns out to be junk.
I found these:

If you only put Windows on the SSD, then Windows will be the only thing that benefits from it, everything on the HDD will perform as it did before.

As for the 2 SSD's you linked, the Samsung 960 Evo is one of the fastest out there. However, you need to check your motherboard specs and make sure you have a M.2 drive and it is compatible with NVME SSD's.

Okay SO I need two SSD if I want games as well as my system to speed up since I do not want them on the same drive, I just wanted to undeniably confirm that which others have stated so thank you!

Now I looked up m.2 and it says it is PCI Express which I do have is that all that is required? My motherboard says ACER IPIMB-AR if that helps.

 

[Martell1977]

Looking at eBay and what boards like your are there, I do not see an M.2 slot. You will need a drive that is a standard internal setup, likely a 2.5" like the other you listed. I'm pretty sure the sell the 960 Evo in that format.

If you don't want Widows and your programs on the same drive, but want all sped up, you will need 2 drives, yes. Now, to save money, your could get a much smaller drive for Windows and as big as you can afford for the rest. They do sell 60gb and 120gb SSD's and even that's more than is needed for Windows alone.

 

[USAFRet]

Looking at eBay and what boards like your are there, I do not see an M.2 slot. You will need a drive that is a standard internal setup, likely a 2.5" like the other you listed. I'm pretty sure the sell the 960 Evo in that format.

If you don't want Widows and your programs on the same drive, but want all sped up, you will need 2 drives, yes. Now, to save money, your could get a much smaller drive for Windows and as big as you can afford for the rest. They do sell 60gb and 120gb SSD's and even that's more than is needed for Windows alone.

60GB? No.
120GB? Marginal.

 

[Martell1977]

60GB? No.
120GB? Marginal.

Well, my Windows 10 Home install is 21.1gb, 15.6gb is the "size on disk". So not sure why a 60gb would be enough for Windows alone.

 

[USAFRet]

60GB? No.
120GB? Marginal.

Well, my Windows 10 Home install is 21.1gb, 15.6gb is the "size on disk". So not sure why a 60gb would be enough for Windows alone.

That's just the Windows folder, right?
And then you have /Users/, Program Files, Program Files(x86)...

And the just Windows folder on my main system is 42GB.

I have a 32GB Asus Transformer.
With just the Windows 10 OS and a couple of very small utilities...it wouldn't even run the recent Creators Update. Nor the Anniversary update from last August. Not enough free space.

Can a 120GB drive work? Sure, if you're rabid about managing space.
But given that it is increasingly hard to even find a 120GB drive, much less a 64GB....and the price diff between 120GB and 250GB is not double...why go through the hassle?

 

[Martell1977]

That is just the Windows folder. I didn't include the users folders because I have them redirected to another drive so they take up nothing on my primary drive. (something i was going to suggest after the OP's next response.)

Of course is only makes sense depending on the prices, but have a 250gb SSD just seems overkill for Windows alone. Granted that getting a small SSD would limit the OP in changing their mind as to what's on there, but I don't know their full intentions of budget.

 

[USAFRet]

That is just the Windows folder. I didn't include the users folders because I have them redirected to another drive so they take up nothing on my primary drive. (something i was going to suggest after the OP's next response.)

Of course is only makes sense depending on the prices, but have a 250gb SSD just seems overkill for Windows alone. Granted that getting a small SSD would limit the OP in changing their mind as to what's on there, but I don't know their full intentions of budget.

Redirecting the Libraries is a no-brainer.
Yes, do that.

Don't redirect the entire /Users/ folder. Not recommended.

But Program Files, ProgramData....all can take up significant space, even if you have the relevant files saved elsewhere.

To each his own, though.

 

[Matthew Norvell]

My C: Drive is using 80.6 Gigabytes of whatever... I only have Audacity, CCCP, MPC-HC, Elecard MPEG-2, Steam and Nvidia stuff that came with my new card. Steam doesn't have any games installed right now... SO I will probably go with the 120GB or so depending on availability and pricing.

Definitely will try a larger SSD I can find at the right price for my games Drive.

Highest I will ever pay for something is $100 so I may be stuck and/or make a compromise.

Thanks for your answers it was definitely informative and understanding.