Should spend more and get a large SSD or a small SSD + a HDD ?

Discussion in 'SSDs & Data Storage' started by Subzerok11, Sep 14, 2015.

  1. Subzerok11

    Subzerok11 Gawd

    Messages:
    543
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    Are most people who are getting new builds getting a small SSD & say like a 2B HDD ?

    I'm currently rocking just a 2TB HDD. I'm kinda want to move to a SSD completely. I know there's samsung $750 2TB SDD but to expensive. I'd have to settle for a 1tb like this one for $350:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147374&ignorebbr=1

    With a 1tb could get probably get away with not having to use my current 2tb as a backup/for whatever.

    It seems the most popular size is around the 500GB's probably due to half the price of the 1tb. There's no disadvantage in getting a larger SSD over a small one other then price correct ?

    Should I just buy the 1tb and just use that or get the 500gb and use my 2tb HDD also ? It would be nice to just have the SSD in the tower.
     
  2. zaniix

    zaniix Gawd

    Messages:
    895
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that data recovery from an SSD is quite expensive, I tend to use a 500GB boot drive(SSD) and then a 4TB data drive HDD.

    When an SSD dies it just dies there is no warning or errors and that is my reasoning for keeping a data drive separate from my boot/game and software drive
    up to you
     
  3. Subzerok11

    Subzerok11 Gawd

    Messages:
    543
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    Well important stuff I have on a external so it don't matter. By the way you make it seem like SSD's die prematurely or have a worst reputation of dying then a traditional HDD. I thought SSD's were more durable then HDD's ?
     
  4. drescherjm

    drescherjm [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,522
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    In general SSDs are significantly less likely to fail than hard drives however if a SSD fails you are less likely to be able to get your data back if you do not have a backup ( which you should regardless of your storage methods). Also a SSD tend to fail without warning.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2015
  5. Trimlock

    Trimlock [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    15,163
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    To be fair I've had quite a few HDDs fail without warning too.

    I do small hdd + large hdd as well, it works great.
     
  6. Subzerok11

    Subzerok11 Gawd

    Messages:
    543
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    I know that a SSD won't necessarily boost fps in games, but it seriously reduces the load times right ?
     
  7. iamwhoiamtoday

    iamwhoiamtoday Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    493
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    It really depends on the game. My roomie has a 256GB SSD for the OS / some apps, and a 1TB HD for games / media. We tried a number of games on the SSD vs HD, and didn't notice much of a difference. WoW was the only one where it made a noticeable difference, and that was 1-4 seconds.
    Having 32GB of memory for cache helps a lot too xD
     
  8. Subzerok11

    Subzerok11 Gawd

    Messages:
    543
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    OS wise though it's way more zippy, desktop boots much faster and programs start up faster right ?

    Well if games dont really load faster then there's not much of a point get a larger SSD then, might as well use a separate HDD.
     
  9. SomeGuy133

    SomeGuy133 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,447
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    it depends the game but it is always nice to use an SSD for everything.
     
  10. FnordMan

    FnordMan [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,727
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    As a previous poster said: It really depends on the game. Some games benefit greatly with an SSD. Half-Life 2's load times go to almost nothing. Similar with Fallout: New Vegas, not much for load times on the SSD.
    I've gone SSD only on my desktop, was totally worth the cost.
     
  11. zaniix

    zaniix Gawd

    Messages:
    895
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    I guess it depends on your use case, 500GB is large enough for all my games and programs to be loaded on the SSD and then any actual Data is on my hard drive. It just isn't cost effective for me to buy a large enough SSD to run everything.

    WD Black 4TB HDD was under $200 when I bought it on sale

    So for around the cost of an additional 500GB in SSD I got 4TBs.
     
  12. FnordMan

    FnordMan [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,727
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Well, in my case i've got a separate server for bulk storage. (forgot to mention that) Anything in permanent storage gets burned to disk and moved to the server.
     
  13. travbrad

    travbrad [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,253
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    I think the ideal setup is actually a SSD for OS/applications/games, then at least 2 HDDs for data that doesn't require speed (music, movies, documents, etc) with one of those HDDs synching to the other one as a backup. Hard drive failures are only a question of WHEN not IF. Of course if you want a truly secure backup you would also want an off-site backup (which many online services now offer).

    Of course you could probably get away with a large SSD and copying everything onto a HDD too. It's just a question of whether that SSD is big enough to have everything you want backed up on it. Having 2 drives isn't a backup if you don't have 2 copies of the same data.

    It makes a big difference in Battlefield games too. I've had BF4 on both my 7200rpm HDD and my SSD and it loads probably 4x faster on the SSD.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2015
  14. AlienTech

    AlienTech Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    286
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    New hard drives are fast, as fast as SSD's only their latency is higer.. My 2-5TB hard drives have transfer rates of 180mb to 225mb.. While my SSD is a from 250-500MB.. The only time I see a boost is like at times when a bunch of small files are loaded.. When the windows desktop comes up the hard drive takes like 5 seconds to show all the icons while with the SSD it is like a second.

    I tried a JBOD card which turns the SSD into the first part of the hard drive.. So frequently used directories are placed on the SSD and all the rest fits on the hard drive. It shows up as a single drive and the card software moves the files around. I place some directories I want speeded up in the list so the card copies it to the SSD. Like the temp directory.. For large file copy, I abrely notice any difference in speeds.. hard drives will copy files as fast as SSD's.. You are talking about copying the entire SSD of 250GB or 500GB where you will notice like a 5-10 minute time difference.. But for like a 1GB file a difference of 1-5 seconds is not much...

    The page file seems to be the one that takes up those annoying pauses that people notice.. Even if we dont use all the memory, windows seems to swap unused stuff into the file and there is a pause before the window comes up. Placing this file on the SSD still causes a pause but it is like a second or so faster.
     
  15. Aesma

    Aesma [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,844
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    1 year since I went from a 256GB to a 1TB SSD and that was a great move. I still have a HDD as a second drive though (a 6TB Red), only for media.
     
  16. chimera991

    chimera991 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,099
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    I had an OCZ ssd bought in November 2014 (they were acquired by toshiba Jan 2014). It was Vertex 460 480gb, die on me after 3 months of usage (probably no more than 100 hours on time, used MAYBE 150gb). If you value your data, dont go cheap on an SSD. Fuck ocz, even if its now owned by Toshiba.

    That and like everyone else said, important data should be backed up to a hard drive or maybe even two if you have storage ocd.
     
  17. doug_7506

    doug_7506 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,223
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    It's really a cost thing for me. 3.5TB of SSD would destroy my personal computer expenditure budget. I much rather put the savings to other areas.