Solved Hybrid HDD - opinions?

February 16, 2016 at 11:04:47
Specs: Win 7 SP1, FX6300 4.5GHz/16Gigs
Hi,

I'am looking for some improvement with loading times(OS boot+game loadings), and don't want to bother with ssd+hdd combination, and ssd drives are still quite expensive comparing to hybrid drives.

What do you think of Hybrid Harddrives?? There is still not much reviews of them, and with 2TB size there is only one(!!) drive type available(seagate) within my favourite seller.

Any experiences??

Thanks

message edited by Diwiak


See More: Hybrid HDD - opinions?

Report •


✔ Best Answer
February 17, 2016 at 15:25:42
Diwiak: Are you sure about OS suport?
If you want OS hinting, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybri...

Diwiak: 64GB SSD is too small for OS and my games folder
Not disagreeing with what you're saying, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. The 64GB drive is $0.67 per GB. The hybrids I've seen in the 2TB range is roughly $20 more than normal 2TB HDDs, and the hybrids seem to have standardized on 8GB of NAND. That's $2.50 per GB.

I picked 64GB because it was the closest to 8GB I could find. If I used a more popular size, the comparison becomes $0.30 per GB. (A Samsung 850 EVO 2.5" 500GB SATA III is running $150.)

That said, I've got my game installs split over an SSD and a HDD. Most games don't do enough loading to really make it an issue for me. I do keep Windows on the SDD, though.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way



#1
February 16, 2016 at 18:04:08
You're paying, what, $20 extra for 8GB of SSD to go along with your 2TB of HDD, and you can't control what goes on the fast 8GB? Whereas the smallest SSD I could find was 64GB for $43?

I'm not a fan of hybrids, and if you're expecting Windows to support it you'll need to have Win8.1 or Win10.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

message edited by Razor2.3


Report •

#2
February 17, 2016 at 09:39:35
Are you sure about OS suport? Afaik it works as any other HDD, works on Mac, Linux, Win https://www.alza.sk/seagate-desktop...

64GB SSD is too small for OS and my games folder(I will need at least some 300Gigs), and use it only for OS is pointless.


Report •

#3
February 17, 2016 at 10:34:38
"use it only for OS is pointless"

As I understand it, using a SSD for games is pretty much pointless. While it will help loading times, it will do nothing to improve gaming performance or FPS. Put the OS & your most often used apps as well as Steam Client on the SSD; put your games, your lesser used apps & all your other files (word docs, photos, videos, etc) on the HDD. Maybe use a Hybrid HDD or a fast standard HDD (ex., WDC Black)?

I'm not up on what's currently the best technology for SSDs, but here's a Kingston 120GB for $40:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
February 17, 2016 at 11:16:15
I have around 350Gigs of system+games, putting steam client alone is useless, you need to move whole game data onto "fast" drive-and that still means at least 500Gigs SSD

I dont need to improve fps, I want to improve loading times,


Report •

#5
February 17, 2016 at 13:38:22
"I want to improve loading times"

I read an interesting response in another forum. In a discussion about SSDs & loading times, one person asked - how much is one minute of your life is worth? He said he probably saved 2-3 hours (so far) by having a SSD. But he immediately spent the time saved by playing his games longer. His point was - wasted time is wasted time, whether you waste it waiting or waste it playing, it's still a waste.


Report •

#6
February 17, 2016 at 15:25:42
✔ Best Answer
Diwiak: Are you sure about OS suport?
If you want OS hinting, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybri...

Diwiak: 64GB SSD is too small for OS and my games folder
Not disagreeing with what you're saying, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. The 64GB drive is $0.67 per GB. The hybrids I've seen in the 2TB range is roughly $20 more than normal 2TB HDDs, and the hybrids seem to have standardized on 8GB of NAND. That's $2.50 per GB.

I picked 64GB because it was the closest to 8GB I could find. If I used a more popular size, the comparison becomes $0.30 per GB. (A Samsung 850 EVO 2.5" 500GB SATA III is running $150.)

That said, I've got my game installs split over an SSD and a HDD. Most games don't do enough loading to really make it an issue for me. I do keep Windows on the SDD, though.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way


Report •

#7
February 18, 2016 at 09:28:19
riider> :-D great pov, but Iam afraid I'll spent entire life watching at "Loading" screen :-D and dont play loved games at all :-D and last philosophical question: what is NOT wasted time?

Razor 2.3> hard to say if os hinting is worth it, or let drive do the job, but let this be for now.

as conclusion must say SSHD (hybrid) is BAD idea at all (thats probably why its not expanded so much),

solution is to buy smaller SSD and use that for frequently used data (for me at least 500GB which is still quite expensive),

OR buy small ssd and set it as cache(BUT only with specific drive / chipset)

great answer thanks!

last one thing. with modern games like FarCry4 or Dragon Age Inquisition loading times does matter

message edited by Diwiak


Report •

#8
February 18, 2016 at 09:58:26
*shrug* I don't bother with the FarCry series, since they can't manage to do key binding correctly, and I haven't gotten in to the Dragon Age series at all. XCOM 2 is a fun game, though. Long load times, but I don't see much HDD activity beyond launching it.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way


Report •


Ask Question