![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
small ssd+large hdd or large ssd?
- Thread starter daro2096
- Start date
128GB is too small now; most of those have just one 128GB NAND die. You want 256GB or larger for the multiple NAND dies that gives you the parallelism for better speed.
256GB or 512GB SSD depending on how large your application and game libraries are. Large HDDs, either 2TB or 4TB (skip the 3TB) for music and video media which do not benefit from SSD speed.
256GB or 512GB SSD depending on how large your application and game libraries are. Large HDDs, either 2TB or 4TB (skip the 3TB) for music and video media which do not benefit from SSD speed.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,020
240/256GB OS SSD + big mech.
Even then, you can run Windows 8+ very comfortably on 128GB SSDs...it's just that the 240/256GB drives are not nosebleed price anymore. No sense in 128GB when you can step up for not much more.
Even then, you can run Windows 8+ very comfortably on 128GB SSDs...it's just that the 240/256GB drives are not nosebleed price anymore. No sense in 128GB when you can step up for not much more.
Depends on what kind of data we're storing. If you are a huge gamer then a bigger SSD trumps a small + large HDD. I'd say 480/512GB would be the starting point given games are easily 10-25GB these days. If you're just a casual user than 256GB should be the bottom barrel SSD. Anything equal to or less than 128GB doesn't really belong anymore. You're saving a couple dollars these days versus upgrading to a 256GB model.
You only bring a HDD into the mix when you have a ton of photos, videos, backups, etc. that doesn't require speed or constant access. It's always safe to keep them in a system build no matter what size SSD you get IMO, or at least as an external.
[EDIT] IMO the poll doesn't really make sense. I'd never recommend buying multiple big SSD's unless it was required. Hence I voted for small+large HDD assuming small is 480/512GB.
You only bring a HDD into the mix when you have a ton of photos, videos, backups, etc. that doesn't require speed or constant access. It's always safe to keep them in a system build no matter what size SSD you get IMO, or at least as an external.
[EDIT] IMO the poll doesn't really make sense. I'd never recommend buying multiple big SSD's unless it was required. Hence I voted for small+large HDD assuming small is 480/512GB.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
As of 2015, I'd say:
Primary Drive: 250+GB SSD
Secondary Drive: Big mechanical for storage.
It's just more economical. Sure, you could get a huge SSD. But you simply can't equal the Dollars-Per-Megabyte/Gigabyte?Terabyte rate of a spinning disk with an SSD.
Let's go for a nice drive like the Samsung Evo 850.
And pair it up with a 6TB Western Digital Red drive for storage.
$120 : SSD
$295 : HDD
$315 : Total
Okay. WAY expensive right?
Let's assume you wanted just 2TB of SSD space. How much is that going to cost you?
If you use multiple 250GB drives, 2TB will run you about $960
If you use multiple 500GB drives, 2TB will run you about $840
If you use the cheapest 1TB SSDs, 2TB will run you about $740
If you use the cheapest 2TB SSD, it'll run you around $3300
And that's for less than 1/3 of the storage space you get with a mixed solution.
It also helps you avoid single-point-of-failure.
So you load up programs and things that need speed on the SSD.
You keep your data off on a hard drive.
Actually, doing the calculations shows what a deal the 1TB SSDs are right now on a $$$-per-MB ratio level..
One aside: One thing not taken into account is the fact that you can stripe multiple smaller drives together to achive higher performance (basically anything over 4-5 drives will outperform the Intel ICH controller on a motherboard). Granted, SSDs are so performant you'll usually only notice on benchmarks..
Primary Drive: 250+GB SSD
Secondary Drive: Big mechanical for storage.
It's just more economical. Sure, you could get a huge SSD. But you simply can't equal the Dollars-Per-Megabyte/Gigabyte?Terabyte rate of a spinning disk with an SSD.
Let's go for a nice drive like the Samsung Evo 850.
And pair it up with a 6TB Western Digital Red drive for storage.
$120 : SSD
$295 : HDD
$315 : Total
Okay. WAY expensive right?
Let's assume you wanted just 2TB of SSD space. How much is that going to cost you?
If you use multiple 250GB drives, 2TB will run you about $960
If you use multiple 500GB drives, 2TB will run you about $840
If you use the cheapest 1TB SSDs, 2TB will run you about $740
If you use the cheapest 2TB SSD, it'll run you around $3300
And that's for less than 1/3 of the storage space you get with a mixed solution.
It also helps you avoid single-point-of-failure.
So you load up programs and things that need speed on the SSD.
You keep your data off on a hard drive.
Actually, doing the calculations shows what a deal the 1TB SSDs are right now on a $$$-per-MB ratio level..
One aside: One thing not taken into account is the fact that you can stripe multiple smaller drives together to achive higher performance (basically anything over 4-5 drives will outperform the Intel ICH controller on a motherboard). Granted, SSDs are so performant you'll usually only notice on benchmarks..
Last edited by a moderator:
These days mechanical drives are so cheap its makes no sense to not go the hybrid route.
I went the hybrid route a few years ago, but at the time I bought a 128gb SSD and a 1tb blue drive. I never thought to upgrade the combo since I do a majority of my storing on my server/NAS.
My 1tb is mostly for initial downloads then storage on the server. I'm actually glad I went the minimal route then as going for a 256gb SSD + a 2TB Black drive would of been expensive and almost useless to me today.
I went the hybrid route a few years ago, but at the time I bought a 128gb SSD and a 1tb blue drive. I never thought to upgrade the combo since I do a majority of my storing on my server/NAS.
My 1tb is mostly for initial downloads then storage on the server. I'm actually glad I went the minimal route then as going for a 256gb SSD + a 2TB Black drive would of been expensive and almost useless to me today.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,933
Hmm. I did not answer the pool because in practice I have done both. I mean my linux based HTPC has a 256GB SSD for the OS + HTPC database + 10 spinners. My windows based software development box / gaming rig does not have a single spinner (currently a 1TB SSD + 3 256 GB SSDs.)
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
Its not so much a matter of "prefer", its what makes the most sense for you.
If you have the money or come across a bargain, get a large or a few large SSDs.
If you cant afford or dont like spending excess, boot with an SSD and use a hard drive for mass storage.
There is also the issue of data integrity on SSDs.
I boot from a 256GB SSD and have a games partition on it for those games that get a decent benefit from SSDs load times.
Its easily enough space because I dont play more than a few games at any time.
Everything else goes on hard drive and I am not bothered one bit by this.
Its a blessing using hard drives because I've already had one SSD bite the dust without any chance of getting data off.
I use hard drives to back up my SSD, I wouldnt advise using an SSD to back up data even if they were the cheap option.