SSD speed or HDD storage

[CosmicNoodle]

Both the HHD and the SSD have upsides, so which is more usfull in your opinion?
Speed?
Or sheer storage space?

[Gamma Male]

I don't know, I mean those ssd drives are getting pretty big. 500GB is more than enough for me. Wish I could actually afford one. :lol:

[Rayquaza]

The read and write speeds of actual Hard-Disk Drives are pretty decent, whereas I find SSD's can be more procey for a good amount of space. I prefer having a HDD.

[Typhlosion]

Noone up with cloud? Cheapest and most portable.

SSD is really where the future is at. Noone uses Floppy Disks instead of CDs anymore.

[Reg_]

SSD all the way!

[Hypers]

SSDs are definitely better. They are much quicker and have lower failure rates. The prices are also getting more and more affordable. They are still expensive, but they are worth the investment.

[Rallo]

I got a 1TB harddrive with a SanDisk ReadyCache 32GB SSD, they can be picked up for 25-$30 if you're lucky..
Never had an actual SSD main drive so I can't directly compare, though I can say this is more than fast enough for all applications I use; an SSD main drive would be overkill imo after using this setup.

[CharlieHorse]

I have a samsung 840 pro 128gb SSD as my main drive with the OS.
And a samsung 840 evo 120gb for games like bf3, bf4, skyrim.
each getting 530+ MB/s sequential R/W, with blisteringly fast random R/W and iops

And a 1tb WD Black 7200rpm 64mb cache.
at about 120MB/s sequential R/W, and low latency

And a WD mybook 3tb backup disk.

I love the speed of the SSDs. For games, the load screens are quick, and the whole windows interface is smooth on an ssd.
However, i take a shit load of large pictures, and store high-bitrate large music files on my computer, so I use the 1tb drive to keep those in order. In that case, the cost of a slower but bigger drive is much more practical.

One of these days, i'm going to sell a testicle or 3 and get myself a couple of 1TB 850 pro ssds and put them in raid 0 and use them for all my games, photos, videos, music, etc. Best of both worlds, but impractically expensive.
The good news is that flash memory is becoming faster, more reliable, and easier to make. Result: cheaper faster ssds in the future :)

So my final word... why not both?

[Cognizant]

What I have on my setup is: my Boot OS is on a 120GB SSD, while extra storage space is on a 250GB HDD. That way I can have the best of both worlds. :P

[The37thElement]

I am just waiting for the day when SSD's become HDD's. They don't cost 500 dollars, and they have reasonable amounts of storage to be a real hard drive. Not this wimpy little 128 GB.

[TheMatrix]

Noone up with cloud? Cheapest and most portable.

The problem with this "cloud" is that your provider is usually under no commitment to stay around. Each new startup thinks they're the future in cloud storage, and just a few months later they've shut down.
Unreliable, slow, and you voluntarily give up your privacy.

Noone uses Floppy Disks instead of CDs anymore.
This is not altogether unsurprising given that a floppy can only hold about 1/800th of what a CR-ROM can.

and have lower failure rates.
I'm not so sure about that. Just because they have no moving parts doesn't mean they don't break. On the contrary, they might fail earlier because they use flash memory, which has a limited amount of times you can write to it.

For this reason, it is wise to put the more constant files on your SSD(on windows: \Windows and \Program Files; on Linux: all but /home and /tmp).
I forgot to do this on my setup(/tmp is on the SSD), and while fast, is not healthy for it, and I will eventually pay dearly for this.

[lemondrop]

SSD better i have it and happy,fast loading speed plus don't have to wait years,but if windows haven't reinstalled for long it may be slower

[PythonProject]

A small ssd (64/128gb would suffice) for the operating system and then a large hdd for everything else. This is what I do, I have a 128gb(Got a brilliant deal when I was building my pc) for OS and important stuff and the 3 1tb hdd for games and other less important stuff.

[just.some.random.boy]

If you want to store some random files like pictures and videos, then the SSD is not worth it, at least not yet. It's better idea a HDD. I personally prefer WD.

In the other hand, if you have your OS or a game in a SSD is totally worth it. Your PC will star up faster and you games will be quicker (of course if you have the right motherboard, GPU, etc.)

[Deiform]

I use a ssd for operating system and hdd for movies, music, and games.

[Rayquaza]

OK, so my new laptop came with a Solid-State Hybrid Drive (SSHD). It's esentially a cross between the performance of an SSD and the space of a HDD. I've had great performance with this, as well as a whole 1TB of storage and it's not as costly as an SSD. I'd definitely recommend this, most new laptops come with a SSHD anyway.

[CosmicNoodle]

OK, so my new laptop came with a Solid-State Hybrid Drive (SSHD). It's esentially a cross between the performance of an SSD and the space of a HDD. I've had great performance with this, as well as a whole 1TB of storage and it's not as costly as an SSD. I'd definitely recommend this, most new laptops come with a SSHD anyway.

The problem with them is that the sad section is always too small, its like 8GB on most drives, if they could make it 120GB then it would actually be usable. When they are as small as the currently are you can't even fit the OS on them and it gets split.

[Rayquaza]

The problem with them is that the sad section is always too small, its like 8GB on most drives, if they could make it 120GB then it would actually be usable. When they are as small as the currently are you can't even fit the OS on them and it gets split.

Well the point of the Solid-State part of it is to only cache the most frequently used files, making it probably the most efficient drive there is. If there is a SSHD with 120GB then it's better to just have a 120GB SSD rather than splitting it into SSD and HDD. The SSD section isn't really available to the user as the OS does the main work, it's not something that the user has control of. Are you sure you're thinking of SSHD and not Dual-Drive Hybrid Systems? That's where there are two seperate drives working in tandem with each other.

[CosmicNoodle]

Well the point of the Solid-State part of it is to only cache the most frequently used files, making it probably the most efficient drive there is. If there is a SSHD with 120GB then it's better to just have a 120GB SSD rather than splitting it into SSD and HDD. The SSD section isn't really available to the user as the OS does the main work, it's not something that the user has control of. Are you sure you're thinking of SSHD and not Dual-Drive Hybrid Systems? That's where there are two seperate drives working in tandem with each other.

Noooo, the problem with the sshd drives is that the cache is so small, only 8GB, I use more then 8GB worth of file frequently, I use about 50GB of files frequently. The cache is far to small in most drives in my opinion

[Rayquaza]

Noooo, the problem with the sshd drives is that the cache is so small, only 8GB, I use more then 8GB worth of file frequently, I use about 50GB of files frequently. The cache is far to small in most drives in my opinion

Well, not all SSHD's have a cache of 8GB, and for most people I would think that 8GB of data (not necesarily documents) is sufficient. My laptop's SSHD is perfect for me, considering a lot of my storage is on the cloud. You seem like someone that would be better off with a HDD seeing as you use so much.

[Ammyneac]

I prefer SSD even though they are expensive