Have a chance to buy a good used teribyte Samsung but it is a 2.5 size and I think I need a 3.5 for a desktop. Would the 2.5 be ok for a desktop and what am I losing by going to the smaller size?
If its a Samsung SSD then 2.5" is what your going to get. Majority if not all SSD's come in 2.5" sizes. 3.5" is mainly your normal mechanical hard drives and hybrid drives (that is part HDD and part SSD). Normal mechanical HDD's come in 2.5" sizes too these are normally for laptops and small desktops where space is limited. These drives are also normally limited in speed as they normally only spin up 5200rpm as opposed by the larger 3.5" HDD's that spin up to 7200rpm meaning faster write speeds. They also have larger cache sizes too generally around 32MB - 64MB again leading to quicker read and writes. If your getting an SSD then you will more than likely (almost certainly) be getting a 2.5" size no matter what. They will still work in a desktop, if you don't have a bay to fit it you can just tuck it away somewhere or use Velcro to stick it somewhere. Unlike HDD's they dont have any moving parts so you can basically just leave them sitting anywhere in a case and it will be fine.
you can get 2.5 to 3.5 adapters http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantek-Mou...r=1-2-spons&keywords=2.5+to+3.5+adapter&psc=1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Icy-Box-IB-...1445898481&sr=1-5&keywords=2.5+to+3.5+adapter I use this http://www.amazon.co.uk/computers/d...445898481&sr=1-18&keywords=2.5+to+3.5+adapter
Hi there Personally I would go with SSD,normal HDD are great for storage,I'm using for storage Toshiba 3TB which I've 3 and other 3 I've are WD,Toshiba is faster like in read and write and its very similar in speeds like Seagate SSHD And regarding SSHD,just don't get it,they're slow as for boot drive and for anything else I'm not sure,I've two one is used as boot drive for PC which I'm currently on and using this disk for boot,its lot slower than my older SSD I will be switching to SSD this month as I wanted to test SSHD,those two SSHD I will be using as again my storage or scratch disc for Photoshop/Cubase etc And as above you can get those 3.5" to 2.5" adapters,they cost around £5-£10 Hope this helps Thanks,Jura
I hate it when people buy an SSHD and bash them out of pure ignorance.... SSHDs are not slow drives. They are purpose built drives. For their intended usage scenario, they are more than fast enough. They are intended for systems where the usage case is predictable. They have 8GB of NAND, where the most commonly accessed files are stored. Only the most commonly accessed files will benefit from the 8GB of NAND. They are not intended for gaming systems. The mechanical portion of the drive is only 5400rpm. The SSHD's are also marketed as laptop drives where 5400rpm is the standard spindle speed. You really should research a product and understand exactly how it works prior to buying it.....or posting thoughts on it. I actually own a 500GB Seagate SSHD and know for a fact that the 8GB NAND does improve performance under the conditions the drive was designed for.
Hi there I didn't bought the SSHD to switch from SSD to SSHD,I bought them,because I sold my PC and I wanted to create mirror image of my OS(Clonezilla) and I went with them for one reason,they're been offered to me for very good price(2 SSHD 2TB for £70) and that time SSD which I wanted they're been out of stock and I'm not willing pay over the odds for SSD,if they can be bought for lot cheaper elsewhere(my brother flying every month to Japan or US and there he will be buying for me SSD) SSHD(Seagate 2TB and I think those are 7200RPM) are very similar to my 3TB Toshiba which I'm using for storage,read speed and write speeds are very similar,SSHD on second straight run will be bit faster(+/-10mbps) than normal HDD I've done my research and I bought them only to wanted to test them in real life situation and how they fare against the normal HDD,those drives are not bad,but high failure rate of them saying something very different there and recommendations on this,hard to recommend and say something positive,yes they're lot quieter than old Seagate and speed over WD Green 5400RPM is noticeable Yes you have one,if you are happy,please enjoy it,but don't recommend them over SSD,yes size is better with the SSHD,but performance on them,that's different story Thanks,Jura
Nobody is recommending an SSHD over an SSD. SSHD is a compromise drive, intended for a specific usage case.
All ssd's i seen came in 2.5" and now the new m.2 is on it's way in. The nice thing with 2.5" ssd's, is that you do not need to use the hdd's cages. Remove any hdd cages you do not need for better airflow and just duck tape the ssd anywhere you want. A favorite is just the backplate of the structure holding the mb, or just put in on top of a bd/dvd drive. It is so light that you can mount it anywhere and do not produce much heat.
With that in mind, wouldn't one reach the same goal better by getting a small SSD, say 64 GB and actually physically put these commonly accessed files on them? I mean, no disrespect, it basically serves the same purpose but much more efficient. I really don't think a SSHD is worth it, unless you're strapped for cash.
I'm running a 1TB as my system drive and a 64GB SSD as a cache drive. This is an ideal solution for me. However, for a laptop or a "slimline" PC where you only have room for 1 drive, an SSHD is better than a small SSD. The ideal solution for a hybrid drive would be a 64GB "cache" (since 8GB is really too small to be practical for most applications anyway) paired with 1TB or more for storage with a 7200rpm spindle speed. An SSHD really isn't a financially viable solution...lol. It would be cheaper to buy a 60GB Sandisk "ReadyCache" drive and pair it with whatever harddrive you already have. But, for laptops and "slimline" PC's where there are space constraints they do provide a degree of benefit. They're niche drives. That's why we don't see WD trying to compete with Seagate directly. WD's "hybrid drive" is 2 separate drives sharing 1 physical container and connector (and requiring a special driver to function properly). Even I'm getting ready to ditch the cache drive. While Intel's SRT does in fact work, and very well, it creates it's own challenges. At some point over the next few days, my 256GB Crucial M4 will be getting reinstalled as my system drive and my 1TB Seagate will become a storage drive. I'm not doing it due to performance. My system is just as responsive using a 64GB "cache" drive through Intel's SRT as it was running an SSD as the system drive. I'm doing it because it's a PITA every time Intel updates the RST driver.