Hybrid Ssds

I'm considering replacing the 7200 RPM HDDs in my Dell Latitude E6400 with either SSDs or Hybrid SSDs (I may eventually replace my USB enclosure HDDs as well).

Any thoughts on which I should use? Brand(s)? Reliability?

I found Seagate hybrids on Amazon in the capacities I want (1 TB, 500 GB) at reasonable prices if bought used but, I'd like more information so I can make a better informed decision.

Thanks.

mdonah

 

It's a 2008/9? model so this is likely to be the final upgrade cycle, I'd opt for a 240-256GB SSD alongside a 1TB HDD, £105 ~ £120 should cover a recent Intel/Samsung/Crucial SSD with up to a 5 year warranty plus a recent model HDD.

 

What is the Windows Experience index for that laptop? What has the lowest score?

I did this on both Win 7 netbooks in the house and discovered putting in an ssd would be wasting money. On one the lowest score was the CPU and the other it was the graphics chip.

 

I don't think the added costs of a SSD should carry as much weight any more. The prices keep coming down and even SSDs from off-brand makers are extremely reliable storage devices - more so than any mechanical drive which has many moveable parts inside. And while I too am a fan of Samsung SSDs, other name brands make very reliable SSDs that are less expensive too, as seen here. But to my point, these drives can be expected to last for many years - typically considerably longer than hard drives as SSDs have no moving parts. Once you factor in the "tangible" savings in less power consumption and less heat, you have the "intangible" benefits of lighter weight (important in portable systems), longer battery runtime, and the huge benefit of better all around system performance which can increase productively potentials due to less wait times. Remember, even the slowest SSDs are many times faster than the fastest hard drives - even 10K hybrid hard drives. Spread those costs and savings over the life of the SSDs, and to me, if you think of the extra cost as an investment that pays off over time, the extra costs of a SSD are not worth mentioning - even if you opt for a more expensive SSD.

And BTW, just for the sake of clarity, they are not "Hybrid SSDs". They are hybrid "hard drives". That is, they are hard drives with spinning platters and R/W heads on moveable arms that swing back and forth across those platters - exactly like conventional hard drives. The difference between a convention HD and hybrid drive is the buffer (on board cache) used in the hybrid HD uses SSD technology memory modules vs standard RAM technologies in conventional HDs.

 

The lowest score my laptop got (3.4) WAS for thr graphics card for Windows Aero which I don't use, My display is in a modified High Contrast Black Theme which I need in order to be able to see things.

3D Gaming/Business got 5.0, Primary Disk Data Transfer Rate got 5,9, Processor got 6.3 and Memory got 6.3.

 

I watched the comparison Youtube video you posted and it seems to me that the HDD was 5400 RPM. I've got two hard drives in my laptop and I replaced my 5400 RPM drives with 7200 RPM drives and got a 400% — 500% increase in read/write speeds (the 1TB drive is a little slower).

The two Seagates I looked at on Amazon are "gaming" hybrids. I suspect that they're somewhat faster than "regular" hybrids to begin with. They both come in 8 or 32 cache. I haven't checked for Toshiba or WD, but I will. Maybe I can get an even better deal.

Checked straight SSDs in the capacities I want and they're out of my price range, even used.

My main reasons for getting the SSDs/SSHDs is even faster transfer of large files like ISOs and to speed up Windows 10. It lags behind Windows 7 and 8.1 in getting to fully a loaded Desktop.

 

I've already got a 1 TB 7200 RPM HDD and a 500 GB 7200 RPM HDD in my laptop. Between them they have 6 partitions (including System Reserved) with 5 versions of Windows installed (7, 8.1 and 10 Enterprise and 8.1 and 10 Pro). I want to clone my HDDs to the SSDs/SSHDs so, I need the same capacities. BTW, I'm in the U.S. so, prices in $US would be more.

 

(SSDs in a netbook (original Atom -based 2GB RAM/10" screen limited by Intel/MS' proposed standard) are about the only way of improving responsiveness, feeding the data to the CPU faster does help. 2009 NC10 +SSD vs the 'best' NC10 +HDD, which is probably using the USB for ReadyBoost, which would be another valid speed up for a netbook. SSD is more than 2x fast than most HDDs.)

SSHD's will hardly (if at all) boost the transfer of large files like ISO's, on the SATA II ports on my rig I can read/write 12GB files to/from my 2.5" 5.4k HDD at 87MBs/88MBs, the most recent review of a 1TB SSHD I've seen shows transfer rates of 1GB files at ~118MB/s read, 88MB/s write.

Sequential transfer speeds simply aren't what SSHDs are about, that's the preserve of the HDD section alone.

EDIT: SSHD in a multi -boot, forget it, they take multiple reboots to 'learn' your usage, each switch to a different OS and you'd be back to square one .

 

Thanks but, I'm not worried about battery life or weight. My laptop never leaves my kitchen (it's the only place I can use it) and it's never unplugged unless I'm replacing storage media or RAM.

Running cooler, of course, would be a plus but, the only time the laptop seems really warm (NOT hot) is with heavy CPU usage. The HDDs don't go above 114° F (I do monitor things).

I'm on limited, fixed income and straight SSDs in the capacities I need are simply too pricey — even used.

 

I would not put too much faith in Windows Experience Index scores. Note the way Index worked and scored changed several times over the years as various technologies came and went, and advanced. And the results were often confusing. There is a reason Microsoft chose not to include it in W8 or W10.

 

Hmm. I get better transfer rates with my Hitachi HDDs 128/108. But switching OSes on a SSHD with 32 MB cache puts me back at square one?

 

That's my interpretation, yes, take a look at the bunch of ATTO benchmarks he did in the review to get a 'decent' performance out of that SSHD, files/links cached from one OS won't bear much similarity to files/links required/used by another.

"... we will be running multiple passes of ATTO to check on the learning portion of the SSD."

 

I should have said 32 GB nand flash instead of 32 MB cache.

But, at any rate, it seems what I need is a new lappy with i7 quad-core, ddr3 RAM, 1 TB and 500 GB SSDs, USB 3 ports and devices and graphics with 2 GB dedicated RAM to have the speed I really want.

Sheesh. It seems I opened a can of worms with this thread. I'll go to my grave never having owned such a laptop.

 

Does a Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB SSD for $138US sound like a good deal? Do they support DEVSLP (device sleep)?

 

"The 850 EVO delivers significantly longer battery life on your notebook with a controller optimised for 3D V-NAND now enabling Device Sleep at a highly efficient 2 mW" Amazon UK. So it looks like it

Keep an eye on prices from sites like this, in a few months they're likely to be noticeably lower and when a new model comes out... watch out for sales!

 

Yes, that is a decent price and if you look at the specs for the EVO, yes it supports Device Sleep.

 

Thanks for the replies. I guess that takes care of my Hitachi 7200 RPM 500GB HDD — it'll go in an enclosure. Now, if I can find a 1TB Samsung for under $200...

 

Keep an eye on sales and you will see 1TB Samsungs that low. As more and more of the completion drop their prices, Samsung will follow suit.

 

Yes, I read about Samsung's aggressive pricing. I don't suppose it would be a good idea to mix brands would it? I'm considering an ADATA 980GB to go along with the Samsung 500GB.

 

Yes, I read about Samsung's aggressive pricing. I don't suppose mixing brands is recommended is it? I'm considering an ADATA 980GB to go with the Samsung 500GB.

 

Mixing brands is fine, as the System(s) drive is the one with most background activity, use the best Pro version for that, you can use a lesser ranked/consumer drive for data.

 

They'll both be System(s) drives. On the 980GB ADATA will be 3 — 326.66GB partitions — Windows 7 Enterprise x64 on one, Windows 8.1 Enterprise on the second and Windows 10 Enterprise on the third (the System Reserved partition will be cloned over as well so the Windows 7 partition will be 350MB smaller).

On the 500GB Samsung will be 2 — 250GB partitions — Windows 8.1 Pro on the first and Windows 10 Pro on the second.

The Samsung is going into a modular bay 2.5" SATA HDD caddy that currently has my Hitachi 7200 RPM 500GB HDD that I'm cloning to the Samsung SSD.

 

Sounds like you've got it all sorted then

 

Hmmm, unless I missed it, I don't see where anyone said they don't like the Hybrids. I think most just believe if replacing your hard drive, go all the way and get an SSD - if the budget allows.

And I note hybrids are not a way to sell SSDs cheaper. If you note, the SSD market is dominated by the memory makers and is taking market share away from the hard drive makers. So in an effort to hang on to as much of their market share as possible, the hard drive makers started incorporating SSD technologies into their hard drives to keep consumers buying hard drives. SSD makers are not selling hybrids.

And IMO, hybrids are a good compromise if you want to improve performance but a full SSD is not in the budget. As seen here, for only $20 more, you get a hybrid that is not only faster, but comes with a 3 year warranty vs just 1.

 

Depends on usage, Bill. SSHDs offer faster boot times and opening of frequently used programs/data than HDDs. They're not faster, perhaps noticably slower, where sequential data/large files are used.

All the claims of 3, 4, 5 times faster ignore the fact that the HDDs used in the SSHDs are actually slower (5,400RPM) than many HDDs they would like you to replace, 8-32GB SS(H)D cache isn't going to improve access times to a large media library, it's simply too small.

They're best suited to machines which are started multiple times per day, with relatively little prolonged usage outside of a fairly small number of regularly used applications. So, yes, they're a good compromise but in a limited range of usage scenarios.

 

Slower? Why? Got a link to a comparative review? There's no reason that I can see why, assuming all else is equal, any SSHD would be slower than a conventionally buffered HD that otherwise, has the same specs. Except for the buffer, everything else about the drives would be identical. So why would the SSHD be slower? That does not make sense to me.

SSHDs are faster, for every task that involves a drive's buffer, compared to conventionally buffered drives of similar specs! In tasks that don't involve the buffer, they are the same speed, but never slower. Check out DavidGP's video above.

Ummm, no. Not really true. You seem to be suggesting all hybrid drives use 5400RPM drives. That is not true. Many, particularly those used in portable devices, do use 5400 drives. But that is not because they use SSD technologies for the buffer. They use 5400 (sometimes 5200, or 5900) drives in notebooks because they consume less battery power and run cooler than 7200RPM drives - same reason they have always used slower RPM drives in notebooks.

Cost is another reason many use 5400 - that helps keep costs down. So notebook makers can put a 5400 SSHD drive in a notebook that competes with a 7200 conventional drive in performance, while keeping costs, power consumption and heat in check. But that is a cost and marketing decision, not a technical one.

So the biggest reason they often use slower RPM drives in SSHDs is because they can and still have superior performance to conventionally buffered drives. Check out this Seagate report, Choosing High Performance Storage Is Not About RPM Anymore.

Nevertheless, there are hybrid drives for PCs that have 7200 drives. In fact, if you look at this Seagate Product Manual, it clearly shows on page 6 that this particular line of hybrids uses 7200RPM drives in their 1TB and 2TB hybrid drives.

 

Recent 3.5" WD SSHD, similar 5.400 rpm WD HDD benchmark results. I'd guess that most 7,200 rpm drives would have a greater sequential throughput and lower access times cf. the HDD here.

Don't bring the reduction in power consumption into play, a plain old HDD doesn't have an SSD to run as well. Above models, 7.5W SsHD 6.3W HDD.

 

You're right there. My mistake.

 

This is exactly what I do with older systems. If you still have an old XP system you can't bare to part with, turning it into a NAS (network attached storage) is a good way to repurpose it for now and keep it out of landfills. I would just urge you block Internet access to it in your router. Note this system can be used to stream music through your network too.

 

Yep, done that too!

 

Well, it seems this thread took on a life of it's own!

I'm posting back here to say my Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB SSD is now installed and replacing my Hitachi 7200 RPM HDD.

The two screenshots of Crystal Disk Mark are 1.) taken in Windows 8.1 and 2.) taken in Windows 10.

Are the measurements typical or could it do better with a firmware upgrade (if available)?

 

Up against my mSATA Plextor 256M5M data drive on W7x64 and SATA II, your W8 bench looks right on the money. The W10 dip in the Q4 might just be down to the extra overheads, Windows needs a little tweaking?

I'd not worry too much about a firmware update unless there's a significant drop that affects both installs.

Ensure that Trim is enabled and working, I use HD Sentinel, and don't benchmark it too much

First impressions?

 

I turned on Rapid Mode in Samsung Magician.



Zoom! Zoom!

 

LOL, now check your RAM count!

 

I'm using about 1 GB more and I have 8 GB installed. I don't do much with graphics, video or music so, I think I'll be OK.

There was only one time, when I had only 4 GB of RAM, that there was something that went awry in Firefox and all of the RAM was consumed and I mean ALL of it. It hasn't happened since.

Along with Samsung Magician, I got the Samsung Data Migration Tool but, I couldn't use it because I cloned multiple partitions and multiple versions of Windows. AOMEI Backupper's cloning feature did the trick though.

 

12% RAM set aside for something useful is fine, runaway memory leaks aren't but they're 'fun' to track down

Macrium Reflect Free might have been my suggestion but I know next to nothing about cloning software

 

I stopped using Samsung Magician. It bogged down my system and also, would not let my computer go to sleep. After uninstalling, I didn't notice any drop in performance. Since Windows already knows how to properly use SSDs, and all SSDs need to conform to industry standard protocols, I see Samsung Magician as just another one of those extras manufacturers want to foist on your systems we don't really need.

I've used Macrium to clone my drives for backups. And I did a restore once years ago to see if it worked. But fortunately, I have never needed to use it to recover from a disk failure. So I don't have much experience there either.

 

Yes Bill, Magician can make a complete mess of the power saving settings, at least with the version where I tested the 'OS Optimisation'. Things may have changed in the two years since then, I don't know and I'm not testing it

 

The CD came with version 4.5.1 of Magician but, I've got version 4.9.5. I've had no problems after Enabling Rapid Mode and there WAS an increase in performance afterward. My laptop still goes to sleep when I close the lid and much more quickly than it did with an HDD. I can't wait to get a 1 TB SSD.

IF there are firmware updates for the drive, Magician is the only way to acquire them. Fortunately, my SSD came with the latest version.

As far as memory leaks, the only program I run with known memory leaks (at least it used to be) is Firefox.

 

Oh dear, did we forget to warn you that exposure to SSDs was highly addictive?!

 

Well, now that i finally have one and have seen the last performance boost I can give to "old" Bessie in action...

 

I turned off Rapid Mode on both "drives" (partitions). Noticed that RAM "creep" so, I'll leave it off. I still have 10x the file transfer speed. I should have my 1TB SSD in 2 — 3 weeks!

 

I just spent a few days with Rapid Mode enabled, I felt no benefit so I've removed it already. That'll be 2-3 weeks on a rice and beans diet to save up, right?

 

Nope. First purchase with a new credit card. I can afford to make monthly payments just not lump sum payments.

 

lol Reminds of the old saying/bumper sticker, “I can’t be overdrawn — I still have checks left!”