7200 rpm 1T vs 5400 rpm 1T SSHD

So reading around it seems opinions are mixed. What is going to be a better gaming experience (this will be a non-OS drive):

1TB SATA 3 7200 rpm drive Vs 1TB SATA 3 5400 rpm hybrid SSD / HD (Segate)

And also would be interested in

1TB SATA 2 7200 rpm drive Vs 1TB SATA 3 5400 rpm hybrid SSD / HD (Segate)

Not sure the difference is going to be earth shattering, but would like to understand this.

 

The hybrid drives, in both cases.

 

Sata 2 or 3 doesn't change anything for the performance of mechanical hard drives.

You also should look at the individual drives, not in general, because there are performance differences between them.

For gaming it doesn't matter, really. Your hard drive doesn't affect your FPS, just loading of the game or levels while playing the game. Also, unless you play only one game, the drive with the faster mechanical part (excluding the solid state memory) will load levels faster. The hybrid drives just have a small amount of solid state memory that speeds up loading of the most commonly used data on your drive, whatever it is.

 

I suggest hybrid since it's faster in most cases. The particular drive is 5400rpm, thus generates less heat.

 

For a non-os drive, I would probably go with this:

http://www.amazon.com/HGST-Travelstar-2-5-Inch-7200RPM-Mobile/dp/B0097LG9U8

It's only one point of failure instead of two with a SSHD, and it's one of, if not the fastest traditional hard drive in a laptop form factor, and beats most desktop hard drives as well. It's just simpler and will provide more consistent performance than an SSHD. IMO, SSHD are really only the best option when you only have one hard drive slot and need more storage than you get afford to get if you went with an SSD.

 

The 5400 RPM drive is obsolete. Consider it only for off-line shelf storage. Its not something you want to upgrade to, or buy new to put in a laptop. Its just too darn slow.

 

depends on what you are doing, if this is an OS drive and you are a creature of habit, the SSHD is far superior in terms of random performance. If it is a storage drive, then you want high sequential transfer speed (this will determine your Game/lvl load times and installation).
Now for HDD sequential performance, its not so simple as 5400RPM vs 7200RPM, you have to know the platter density of the drive. A 5400RPM drive with 500gb platters is at least equal or superior to 7200RPM drives with 320gb platters in terms of sequential performance. As I last remember, I think 500gb platters are the maximum density achieved to date on the 2.5inch format, the only drive I know of that has 7200RPM and 500gb platters is the HGST Travelstar 7K1000 (1TB capacity).

Therefore, I recommend the Travelstar 7K1000 as the storage drive for your games.

 

667GB per platter, Seagate-Samsung

 

Ah I stand corrected, 667gb platters at 5400rpm is indeed slightly superior to 500gb at 7200rpm. Samsung Spinpoint M9T Hard Drive Review | StorageReview.com - Storage Reviews
Year of release is 2013 so It may be a while though until we see these superb platters paired with a 7200RPM motor.

@OP
Given this new information, I think the M9T is better than the 7K1000 since it has equal sequential performance but has less vibration (5400rpm) and bigger capacity.

 

Now all we need are your readings?

 

So you plan to run your programs on the hard drive and your OS on an SSD.

First off, Qing Dao is correct. SATA level is not a factor in the performance of today's mechanical dives. You'd almost be better off getting a 512GB SSD for your OS, programs and games. Then go with a 500GB mechanical drive for storage. The two downsides are one cost, and two, if your notebook only has room for one drive, then you'd need to remove your optical drive and use an optical to hard drive caddy.

 

Fixed for great justice.

 

Oh, man! Not even I need that much storage space. The problem with larger drives (both SSD and hard drives), is they tend to wear out quicker than smaller ones. It's why I chose two 750GB hard drives in RAID 0 rather than getting a 2TB drive. Platter size/density on 2.5" drives are being stretched to their limits.

 

That's because you obviously don't store 4k video. I you did, you soon come to realized just how small 1TB has now become. On the other hand, for typical uses like storing photos (even raw files), 1TB is a ridiculously large amount of space.We're talking hundreds of thousands of photos.

 

They usually wear out long after being replaced with bigger ones! And you are definitely not the movie geek type.

 

True, true. I don't have any need to download a 4k video. But 1 TB is capable of holding an impressive amount of HD movies (so long as they're h.264 and not uncompressed).

And therein lies the secret of the universe!

(PS: I am somewhat a movie geek...I just don't keep them stored for very long)

 

1TB results in 931GB formatted capacity (NTFS with 512B sector size), that is ~640 movies, if we take an average size of 1.46GB per one. Not impressive at all if you store audio and shows on the same drive. If you download better quality videos and listen to flac instead of mp3, it's much-much worse.

 

That's the secret word and why I had to supplant my OD for a 1 TB HDD. Although I finding out even that isn't enough. It look like I'm still going to have to go external with another 2-4 TB to keep current with all the latest editing technology.

One of the biggest drawbacks in using raw files that most people fail to take a hard look at early on -- although I know from the start what I was getting into. I just failed to realize it would all happen so fast.

I just hope the next generation of notebooks takes all this into consideration -- especially the desktop replacements. If they're not ready for the 4k market, they will be no need to even consider an upgrade.

Fortunately, HDD/SSD and disc capacity is expanded so as to allow for a capacity and a maximum of 4 TB (if I could afford it) in some notebooks, with the sacrifice of my internal OD, which I still use and need to keep close by.

 

600 movies stored on a single 1TB rated hard drive is not impressive??

I have been updating to FLAC with many of my albums lately. So I know how quickly audio files can now take up space. And I would estimate a single mkv to be between 2-3GB.

But still.

I can't imagine 600 blu-rays. You own that many and you may as well open your own Blockbuster store. If your gonna rip and store all those, you might as well invest in a small NAS.