SSD VS Hybrid.

Hi everyone its me again with more questions! YAY!

I've been messing around with configurations on the P151HM models (my optimum config was around 1950 but I've managed to shave it down to 1660 + 100 dollars off discount yay!)

I was wondering what everyone's experiences of SSD vs Hybrid drives were? If I were to get an SSD Drive I'd primarily use it as a boot drive + Adobe CS5 + Guild Wars 2 and Maybe Diablo 3. I was originally planning on getting a 120GB SSD with a 500 7200RPM Sata in the Optical.

However I started reading about Hybrid drives (money saving me!) and saw that in some cases they can offer "SSD-like" performance in some areas. I mostly just want my load times to be better (Guild Wars 2 for loading things as I explore new areas on the fly and faster Application booting times for windows and photoshop/illustrator/fireworks) Beyond that if I had bought an SSD I would've stored the bulk of my files and other applications onto regular old HDD anyways.

From what I've read about SSD flash on a hybrid drive it really applies to your "most used applications and files" and for what I want out of it this seems appropriate.

Also anyone know what kind of Hybrid drives the various resellers of Sager/Clevo sell with their models? I've read Revo is one of the good ones.

 

SSDs are fantastic, when READING from disk is of utmost importance. Booting, reading apps and app data from disk are prime examples where the speed of SSDs really pay off. WRITING is also fantastic when compared to platter based drives.

However, this comes at a premium:
a) Space vs. Cost - the price/GB ratio will be much, much higher than that of traditional platter based drives

b) Lifetime - With today's NAND MLC flash, each cell can take about ~5,000 writes before they cannot be written to. For the average user, you won't come anywhere near hitting that limit.

With that said, you'll be looking at the Seagate Momentus XT as I believe they're the only one to have a Hybrid drive available for a laptop. From what I've seen, the RevoDrive is a desktop piece which requires room for a full size PCI based card.

If you will be booting from this drive, I'd make sure you get the 2nd Generation Momentus XT (the one with the 8GB of SSD Cache / 750GB total space). This drive has two modes which will cache reads. The 1st mode will cache boot/OS startup files ensuring boot times remain cached and are invalidated by only new bootup processes. The 2nd mode will cache normal files used day in/ day out by users. Also note, the SSD cache on this drive is SLC based, which has 10 to 20 times writing capability of MLC based SSDs.

If you have only one drive, the Momentus XT Hybrid is definitely the way to go. If your lappy is capable of multiple drives, then I would recommend a primary SSD, and then you can decide on the hybrid/platter based HDD for that secondary drive.

HTH

 

I got the 500GB Hybrid with 4GB Nand, basically I notice boot up is much faster if i turn off, then back on it takes like 8-12 seconds for it to be totally up, and logged into the desktop. On my old lappy a full bootup would take close to 20.

 

From personal experience I don't see much of a difference between a Momentus XT and a good 10k RPM HD on my desktop. The XT was supposed to learn through your data access patterns and decide which program should launch quicker than the others, this makes some program launch fast, not SSD fast, while others will launch at a 7200rpm or even 5400rpm hd speed. If I had a choice of the two I would go with a regular 10k RPM HD for my desktop, a 10k rpm hd is very limited on a laptop however. Not only that but the GB/$ ratio ended up being higher than SSD. I ended up returning the Momentus XT and got myself a nice Intel 320 SSD. You can't really go wrong with Intel, stay away from Sandforce though it will save you the headache.

 

There are very few games that an SSD will make a difference in. If all you're concerned about is boot time, I would stick with the Hybrid drive as it's going to boot faster every time, and will even make your regular games load faster as well.

You're better off spending that money on a better VGA or CPU.

 

The only issue you might run into with the hybrid drive is the relatively small flash cache. Since it loads your most recently used programs into the flash memory, if those programs happen to be large, then they might push out all of the other stuff that was already there. That's the major tradeoff with having the hybrid drive (plus the fact that you have no direct input over what is cached versus what isn't). An SSD+HDD combo is the best in terms performance, as you can run a relatively small SSD with a decently sized HDD for storage and not have to spend too much more.

 

A follow up. This might be Seagate propaganda, but is worth watching nonetheless (particularly the second part regarding apps start/load, which you seem to have questions about) - Momentus XT 750GB vs. the 10K SATA Drive - YouTube

Also, note this video is a head to head against a 10K RPM based drive, but last time I checked no one yet makes a 10K drive that will fit in a a laptop's drive bay or can disperse the heat generated from a 10K RPM drive. I believe the best you can do is 7200RPM for a lappy drive bay. If I'm mistaken on this, someone please post make/model.

 

Simply put, the Seagate Momentus XT 750gig hybrid will give you SSD performance. Your Op system will boot up fast, and your programs will too in reality. Great drive. But if you get one, make sure its the 750gig one.

 

Highly recommend an SSD over an XT drive if you compare them as I did the difference is noticeable and I returned my XT for an SSD and will never look back.

As explained above the 4GB Flash will take note of what you are doing to store the data that you use the most for instance booting faster and loading your most commonly used programs faster, an SSD will just make everything faster full stop from booting to programs to moving files and data and the responsiveness is instant. The biggest difference IMO is the 0 noise, mechanical drive noise does my nut and even more important relating to my angry English ways is the fact that it is shock proof no more broken hard drives from punching the mouse area.

Considering the price of an XT unless you require the additional space you are better of going SSD.

 

I disagree. If you compared a 500gig Seagate hybrid to an SSD, then yep there is a noticeable difference since it has half the NAND of the new 2nd gen. 750gig hybrid that has 8gigs of NAND. Between my Samsung 830's and the 750gig Momentus XT I have, there isnt really any noticeable difference in booting up or loading apps. The 750gig hybrid is a very fast drive and well designed. And for about $175 bucks now its priced reasonably too and is now a bit cheaper than a good Sata III 128gig SSD.

If someone has a choice to only have one due to budget or drive bay limitations, I would take the 750gig hybrid in a heartbeat over the small storage SSD.

 

My 2 cents SSD + HDD is better then Hybrid
I have an SSD (OCZ Vertex 3) in my desktop and Hybrid (Momentus XT 500GB w/4GB SSD) in my notebook and believe it or not you notice difference in read speeds. Programs like Photoshop CS5 start much faster on a SSD, especially if you have alot of addon filters.

 

Thanks for the input everyone. I think due to budget constraints I'll go with the Momentus XT 750GB and then in a year's time see what prices of SSD's are going for then I'll make the switcheroo. (Hurray for upgrading!)

 

Benches have shown though that the 500gig hybrid with 4gigs of RAM is considerably slower at read speads than SSD's and the new 750gig hybrid with 8gigs of NAND. The 500gig Hybrid is also a Sata II interface I believe, not the newer Sata III interface that the 750gig hybrid is. I think for someone wanting a drive that has storage of a traditional platter with SSD like performance the 750gig XT is a really good choice. Its a hell of alot better than a traditional HD, especially when booting up windows and common apps that are used frequently.

 

HTML:

There are numerous other reasons why an SSD is better than a mechanical drive noise and shock resistance as I mention which you ignored. If you intend to copy large amount of data as well it will beat a hybrid drive hands down because it does not have the read and write speeds to that of an SSD.

An SSD + HDD remains the best way to go. As the OP wants the best of both worlds in one drive sure its best he goes for a hybrid but it is not the better choice in all circumstances.

 

Connecting Momentus XT to SATA III is like going on the highway with a tractor.

Anyhow although the hybrids are slower than SSDs they still offer a nice speed boost over the HDDs while keeping the capacity you find in HDDs

There are tons of tests done with both devices, so you can easily find out what the differences are

Examples:
Seagate Momentus XT 750GB Hybrid Drive Review (ST750LX003) - PC Mark 7 & Real World Tests - Legit Reviews
Seagate Momentus XT 750GB Hybrid Hard Drive Review - Page 9

 

You should also consider that SSDs are more error proof because their errors are at WRITE not at READ as in the case of the traditional HDDs. WRITE errors will be recovered automatically by the SSD, they will write on different NAND cell, while the HDD READ errors are said to be catastrophic (data is lost).
However, all this advantage matters only for the data kept on the SSD which is inherently small.

 

I think with the budgetary constraints you're facing, you'll be happy with the purchase. It won't be SSD fast, but most people don't seem to worry about a 1-2 second difference if those start up apps are cached.

In any case, if you have more questions or want to post experience take a look here - http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...eagate-momentus-xt-750gb-w-8gb-nand-more.html

 

A. I mentioned the hybrid(Specifically the 750gig 2nd gen version) gives SSD performance, specifically on READS(that relates to BOOT UPS, program file LOADS etc etc). 99% of the time your HD is used to READ files, not write em. Write times to LARGE FILES I of course will agree that a pure SSD is faster. But for one time writes like your main op system, a new game or program that is larger than a gig in size of course the SSD will be faster, but beyond that..................see what Im saying? Aside from one time large file loads the performance is similiar, even on small writes(And even the majority of writes are measured in KBs or MBs, not GBs!) under a gig in size performance is going to be very similiar. See what you failed to replay to correctly and in proper context? Benchmarks are fine and dandy, but what really matters is the real world use and application, and 99% of the time, your not writing large multigig files. I like reading and basing decisions not on just benchmarks, but real world use for needs at hand. And too many people get caught up in benchmarks, and/or fail how to correctly interpret benchmarks and how they relate to real world usage.

B. Sure I will also agree the hybrid or traditional mechanical platter drives are more suspect to shock and damage. But punching your laptop, or the mose/keyboard area? Really? Same with accidental falls. If you dropped your laptop, Id be actually more worried about other aspects of laptop damage, not just the HD itself. No laptop should be subject to any kind of hard hit period. Ive seen alot of damage occur to other aspects of the laptop from physical abuse while the HD survived just fine. Were not on the battlefield here with our electronics.

C. Of course I know that an SSD+HD combo is the best, this is already known and agreed upon many times over. Im sure the OP knows this too, but he has a BUDGET, and wants a good quick drive that will give him the best of both worlds. He wants storage space and speed.......and simply put, the 750gig Momentus XT is the best thing going right now, plenty of storage and its very fast on reads. Later when he gets the funds or inclination, he can add an SSD later and regulate the 750gig XT to secondary storage, but in the meantime, this hybrid drive will give him SSD performance for daily use until that time comes.

The OP made a SOLID and SMART choice based on HIS NEEDS and BUDGET. You need to learn to focus on these important things when you post to threads like this seriously.

 

I've removed a series of posts in this thread. Let's cut the pointless bickering and personal insults. If you have a point to make, make it using facts, not trash talk.

If there are any more member reports of either of you (you know who you are) hurling insults around again, you will receive formal infractions--both of you have been warned multiple times already.

Thank you, and carry on.

 

Does anyone consider the extra user-maintenance of the SSD+HD combo as a factor?

It was personally rather inconvenient for me to have Windows on the SSD. You always want as little space on the SSD as possible, but programs would automatically install there, the links to Documents, Pictures, etc would go to the SSD, I would have to deal with lots of syslinks, it takes a little longer to find things, etc. All of this stuff is, of course, fixable but I tend to feel like the SSD+HD combo takes up much of my time just trying to keep a good balance between the two drives. Now I think the SSD is lightning fast, but I also think the time I saved in read/writes is rather offset by the extra things I have to do for it.

There was also an issue with programs like iTunes where the program would be on the SSD and load real fast, but the content itself (like the music) on the HD would lag behind.

 

WCFire,

I didn't find the maintenance a nuisance at all. Just running 4 different junction points - %SystemDrive%\Users, %SystemDrive%\Temp, %SystemRoot%\Logs, and %SystemRoot%\Temp. It was a one time thing, and I haven't had to revisit the issue in over 2 years. I still have about 100GB of drive space used, and the Crucial C300 seems to be running swimmingly.

Note, the Windows Side by Side stuff is starting to eat up some more space, so I'm also tempted to move %SystemRoot%\Installer at some point, but we'll see if that directory keeps growing (even after I applied the remove SP fix - for those who have looked into the growth of this directory.)

In regards to the iTunes remark, guess what, with most use mp3s living on the XTs in my lappy, everything seems to load pretty fast. As I took my own advice - SSD system drive and Moment XT as a data / library drive.

 

I just bought my first SSD a 120GB Kingston Sata 3, but I installed it into an older laptop. Actually a Dell XPS 1710 and I must say its no faster than the stock 7200 RPM drive was. I dont plan to keep it in that computer, but I am just saying. I was pretty shocked by the utter lack of difference. I will report back when I test it in a more modern Sata 3 equipped laptop.

 

I usually put all my games in the 500GB XT, all of my music, movies, files is in the 750GB. My only problems is that I'm running out of space because my music collection, all in FLAC, is already at ~500GB. The SSD is just for photoshop.

 

Thanks again everyone I'm not anyone who "needs" the latest and greatest.
I just want to be able to run Guild Wars 2, Diablo 3, and Creative Suite 5 comfortably.

560GTX should be able to do the graphics part, and I figure the Hybrid drive will give me comfortably improved loading times without having to break the bank

I have a 4 year old macbook pro that I plan to keep as a media hub/server at home. (I spent way more then I should have on it 4 years ago and never really used it to its fullest. Little did I know that Macbook Pros + overheating= terrible gaming machine)

These days I'm looking for functionality at a decent cost

 

If you installed the new Sata III SSD into an older laptop, the big question will be if your older laptop has a Sata III interface, if it doesnt, you basically wasted money on that drive.

 

I went with the 750GB XT with my P150HM. Tried it for a few days and was really dissapointed with its performance. Once you are used to the speed and responsiveness of a system with a proper SSD you wont be able to settle for anything less... Ive been spoiled in the past already - even the SATA II SSDs i had prior to the XT (Intel X25-M G1 & G2, Crucial m225, etc.) were much faster than what the XT cached in its SSD partition (boot and frequently used programs). No need to mention the Samsung in my sig tops them all.

 

One of the cons with a hybrid is that it needs to learn certain patterns before you get the SSD speed. Which means whenever you do something new, which isn`t rare with computers, you get an awful speed compared to an SSD. SSDs are instant fast at any time

You can see that from the links I posted earlier in this thread

 

This is correct, but for most users on a budget the Momentus XT 750gig is still a nice go between if an SSD+platter drive combo isnt an option. And the nice thing is that the OP can always relegate the XT drive as a secondary HD if he has more funds down the road for a dedicated primary SSD. And as a secondary storage drive the XT is VERY NICE to have.

 

It won't make a huge difference as a secondary drive. If you already had one and push it to secondary, that's one thing (since otherwise you're wasting a drive), but I would never recommend anyone to buy one as a secondary drive. The flash cache won't work the same if it's not the primary drive and you're unlikely to see any real speed improvements (if any).

 

The flash cache uses 2 gigs dedicated to the Op system boot up on the 750gig, the other 6gigs are dedicated to file apps. There was a debate on this a few months back on Anadtech I believe. Using it as a secondary drive still gains the benefits of fast app file loads. Also I believe there is now a new FW(or will it will be out very soon) that allows fast writes to cache as well.

 

It would just be a waste to use it as a secondary drive - its damn expensive compared to regular HDDs.
I doubt many people would choose to install anything on a secondary HDD even if it is an XT if they had a real SSD as a primary. Just having the XT for data storage would give you no real benefit. Lets say you opened a DVD movie most often and that would take up pretty much the entire cache, not to mention for something like that you wont notice any speed improvement.

 

For the average user, perhaps.

But, this doesn't apply in so many other use cases, especially if you use libraries over and over again:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...s-xt-750gb-w-8gb-nand-more-9.html#post8115119
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...-xt-vs-samsung-spinpoint-1tb.html#post8359287

Some other cases where the XT has paid off is my Thunderbird repository loads /reads from this drive as well, and is lightening fast compared on the 7200 RPM drive it replaced, as well as often used files in my %SystemRoot%\Users\ directory which has been junctioned over to the XT. Also, I need to mention this is the location of 100s of GBs of virtual machines I keep handy at a moments notice - again, this vastly outperforms the previous drive when booting two often used virtual machines.

So, even though I have 100GB free remaining on the SSD, depending on size, I may need to make room for a 300GB database, and the XT works perfect when I work on something like that over a two to three week period.

 

SSD has higher reading and writing speed while Hybrid has cheaper price...

 

Sorry for the OT but just wanted to inquire how fast the performance gain you're getting loading up VMs? I tried to move one of my mostly used VMs to my SSD and got a minimal increase in performance and boot time.

 

Nor would I expect that you would, as I would think the SSD would always win this battle.

In the post, it was a comparison of a VM where it existed previously - a lappy w/ platter based HDD compared to the VM on the machine in my sig residing on the Momentus XTs. On average, I'd say boot times are somwhere to 1/2 to 2/3 faster on the Momentus XTs.