CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › IT › Hardware › Desktops › SSD + HDD combo

SSD + HDD combo

Started by Douglas Fisher78 · · 👁 4 views · 21 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Douglas Fisher78swiftfalcon89crimsonstag84Grace KernKimberly Gomez34Robert Rodriguez2
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#1 ·
Greetings. I have a question regarding my current setup:

Intel Core i7 with NVIDIA GeForce
SAPPHIRE R9 380X NITRO 4GB
FORTRON HYPER 600W
GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3P
Corsair Vengeance 8GB 1866MHZ RAM

I recently assembled this system, but I migrated a 1TB drive from an aging PC that is starting to fail. What would you recommend for a new HDD and SSD? My usage is light—mostly gaming and the occasional movie. Which specific models should I consider for storage?

EDIT: If there are any necessary component upgrades, please suggest them.$333
swiftfalcon89 swiftfalcon89 Active Member
85 messages
joined Aug 2013
#2 ·
So, what kind of budget are we looking at for those two components?
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#3 ·
My apologies. I am looking for the most budget-friendly option possible. I would like to spend no more than $333 max.
swiftfalcon89 swiftfalcon89 Active Member
85 messages
joined Aug 2013
#4 ·
Seagate BarraCuda 1 TB, 3.5", 7200RPM, 32MB Cache, SATA3
Kingston 128GB SSD, 2.5” 7mm, SATA 6 Gbit/s, Read/Write: 540 MB/s / 340 MB/s

If you don't mind spending $67 a little extra, just go for the Kingston 256GB instead.
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#5 ·
I find this price quite reasonable. 😁 Tell me, what is your take on the Kingston SSDNow 300V 2406GB SSD? I noticed it listed at a bargain on eBay, and since there are new units available with a receipt, I wonder if it might actually outperform the 250GB model you mentioned earlier.
crimsonstag84 crimsonstag84 Regular
518 messages
joined Jun 2010
#6 ·
It’s honestly pretty garbage 🙂
swiftfalcon89 swiftfalcon89 Active Member
85 messages
joined Aug 2013
#7 ·
I wouldn't touch that Crucial MX500 if I were you; it's honestly one of the weaker 🙂
The SanDisk is a much better bet, plus it comes with a solid 5-year warranty
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#8 ·
Fair enough. I noticed quite a few listings on Craigslist, so I figured I’d take a look. 😁
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#9 ·
I have been browsing online and these caught my eye. Should I stick to yesterday's list or pivot? These are under consideration:

SSD:
Western Digital Green 1TB – $133
Seagate BarraCuda 1 TB – $131
Seagate Barracuda 1 TB – $126
Western Digital Blue 1TB – $135
Western Digital Blue 1TB – $112

SSD:
Crucial bx200 240gb – $175
SanDisk z400S - $175
NVIDIA GeForce r3 240 GB – $183
Corsair Vengeance 240GB SHFS37A – $174
Radeon RX 256GB – $195

The names listed reflect the lowest prices currently available.
Grace Kern Grace Kern Member
19 messages
joined Apr 2014
#10 ·
Seagate BarraCuda 1 TB + Radeon RX
swiftfalcon89 swiftfalcon89 Active Member
85 messages
joined Aug 2013
#11 ·
Go with either the Seagate BarraCuda or the Seagate Barracuda 1 TB—just make sure you grab the 7200rpm version, because those slower 5200rpm drives can be a real drag. Pair that with a 256GB SanDisk SSD rather than a Radeon RX.
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#12 ·
swiftfalcon89 said:Seagate BarraCuda or Seagate BarraCuda (just ensure it's 7200rpm, since they make a slower 5200rpm version), plus a SanDisk SSD 256GB

I checked both; they're both 7200 rpm.
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#13 ·
I stopped by a Best Buy today and they were out of the Radeon RX 256 GB. It got me thinking—since I mainly use my PC for gaming and nothing else, would it be smarter to just grab the Radeon RX 128 GB? I could load macOS, drivers, essential programs, and maybe one or two games onto it.

Right now, I have 51GB occupied on my C drive with everything excluding games. The clerk suggested this route, but I can't tell if it’s actually sound advice or just a sales pitch.😁
Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#14 ·
A 120GB drive is just way too small if you’re planning to install even a single massive game—say, 30 to 50GB—down the road. Sure, you get faster loading times and fewer FPS drops in certain genres, but once you install one big title, you'll be hitting your capacity limit almost immediately. You never actually have the full 120GB available anyway, and you need to leave some breathing room for the system.

Plus, getting a 240-256GB drive is much more cost-effective in the long run.

Kingston SP550 series:

120GB - $0.02 per GB ($100)
240GB - $0.017 per GB ($166)
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#15 ·
I was planning on installing Horizon Zero Dawn, though I might add a few more if necessary—not that I’d stick with them once they're finished. I heard it isn't particularly wise to put MMOs on an SSD since there's no real benefit, so I'll just stick to single-player titles. Apparently, I'm not the brightest.
Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#16 ·
Douglas Fisher78 said:I figured it wasn't worth putting MMOs on an HDD since I don't see much difference, so I'd just stick to single-player games. Guess I'm not the smartest guy here.

Actually, it’s quite the opposite. In many titles like Call of Duty, you get faster loading times—the map loads quickly once, and then everything else stays consistent.

MMORPG players say:

I experienced the most dramatic difference about two years ago when Star Wars: The Old Republic went free-to-play. I had just sold my desktop and was waiting for a new laptop, so I was playing on this ancient Dell Latitude (C2D 2.0GHz, x1600 mobility, 3GB RAM, some old HDD). It was a decent enough laptop, even though it sat well below the game's minimum specs, but while the levels were loading, everything ran above 24FPS at 1024x768. Since I had an SSD lying around, I thought I'd try installing macOS on it to see how it would perform on an NVMe setup with such an old machine.

To my absolute surprise, everything ended up running significantly better. My FPS hovered around 30 at 1280x800; sure, there were drops below 20, but I also saw spikes up to 40. Regarding questing in open areas where the game is constantly streaming in extra textures, NPCs, and other background assets—whenever I moved from one zone to another—FPS drops were inevitable on an HDD while things loaded, but with the SSD, they were almost non-existent.

Since I've spent a lot of time playing World of Warcraft—both on a mechanical drive and an SSD—I can tell you there is a massive difference. This is especially noticeable during raids when a phase changes, a big bad boss casts a spell that covers the whole raid, or teammates trigger spells they haven't used yet during the fight. Or even when you use Fast Travel to land in a city and everything starts rendering. Of course, you still see some FPS drops even with an SSD, but they are drastically smaller—barely noticeable compared to the struggle on a mechanical drive.

The specific example I remember best from WoW, back when I was raiding heavily and made the switch from an HDD to an SSD (CPU: i5 760 @ 3.8GHz, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 @ 950MHz), was fighting Sauron on Epic Games difficulty. When the AOE phase started with all those little effects, the HDD would struggle to keep up with all the AOE spells and animations the boss threw at us, causing my FPS to tank to nearly unplayable levels of 15 FPS (otherwise, it rarely dipped below 30 in similar scenarios). Once I switched to the SSD, the drops only went down to 30 FPS, and situations that previously hit 30 FPS were now holding steady around 45-50.

Even in some single-player games, there's a benefit; for instance, in an open-world game like Stalker, you won't experience stutters in certain areas unless you're running on an SSD.
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#17 ·
Timothy Kim60 said:Quite the opposite. In titles like Call of Duty, you really just get faster loading times—the map pops up quicker once, and that's about it. Everything else remains unchanged.

MMORPG players would argue:

Even in certain single-player games, there's an advantage. Take an open-world game like Stalker; item drops might actually fail to trigger in certain zones if you aren't running on an SSD.

In that case, it might be worth the investment for Elder Scrolls Online, given how items drop when entering new cities. It could certainly help with Player vs Player. Thanks again; I think I'll stick with the 250GB model for now.
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#18 ·
Timothy Kim60 said:Besides, the 240-256GB range offers better value per gigabyte.

Kingston SP550 Centro:

120GB - $2.49 per GB ($100)
240GB - $2.07 per GB ($166)

Kingston? What would you suggest, the Kingston or the Radeon RX 256 GB?
swiftfalcon89 swiftfalcon89 Active Member
85 messages
joined Aug 2013
#19 ·
Honestly, you're better off grabbing the Radeon RX. For a tiny difference in price, you end up with an extra two years of warranty—getting five years instead of just three. It's a no-brainer if you ask me.
Douglas Fisher78 Douglas Fisher78 Active MemberOP
54 messages
joined Feb 2016
#20 ·
swiftfalcon89 said:you're better off going with the Radeon RX since you get an extra two years of warranty for a negligible price difference (5 years instead of 3)

Which one actually beats these two?

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/product-details/example1

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/product-details/example2

The only distinction I see is M.2 versus 2.5''—but what does that actually change?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads