• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1 SSHD vs. 2 7200RPM/SATA3 HDs in RAID0

D

Dimicron

Junior Member
What would you rather have? 1 SSHD? or 2 HDD's in a RAID0? Why?

I'm in the process of upgrading my computer to use 1 SSD(probably going with a single 512 GB Crucial MX100) for a boot disk, and considering swapping out some hard drives for a SSHD also. Would it be worth it? This computer is mainly used for gaming.

Current hardware specs are:
AMD FX-8120 @ 3.9GHz
Asus Sabertooth 990 FX mobo
16GB DDR3-1600 memory
2 x 256GB HDD's in RAID0 (Boot drive)
2 x 1TB HDD's in RAID0 (Games)
2 x Asus GTX770 Video cards

Thanks all!
 
Few traditional HDD in RAID 0 may give you the sequential speed that very close to a single SSD or even faster. That means, it's good for handling large files (e.g. movie).

However, there is no way that a HDD RAID 0 can give you the same IOPS that a modern SSD can achieve. Which means, for small files handling (e.g. OS), a SSD will perform much much better than HDD RAID 0.

For gaming, I did try to run the whole game in RAM disk. In fact, not much difference than running the game in a RAID 0 array. So, capacity vs money will become the primary concern.

Therefore, IMO, use a single SSD as boot drive, and HDD RAID 0 for games is a better choice. Which gives a good balance between performance, capacity, and cost.
 
Last edited:
Short answer - I would prefer the single SSD to the pair of HDDs in RAID0. My main why is that I consider RAID0 to be moderate risk.
 
I agree with Cerb.

For a desktop PC, I don't think SSHD's have enough performance improvement, and on top of that, you get so little NAND for the added cost, and the NAND doesn't even scale with total capacity.

They're a reasonable choice in say, a laptop that doesn't have a 2nd 2.5'' bay, AND don't have msata/m.2 port, AND needs larger capacities at reasonable costs.
 
The SSHDs are best if you can only use one drive for everything. Since you will have a separate SSD for a boot drive, this is not the case.
SSHDs are not as fast as a single, non-green, HDD for larger, sequential file transfers. Two HDDs in RAID0 would crush a single SSHD as a "Games" drive.
 
I agree with the above posters. Get a full blown SSD.

But, to answer your original question: I'd go SSHD over raid. It's easy and you get most or all of the benefits of raid.
 
jjmIII said:
I agree with the above posters. Get a full blown SSD.

But, to answer your original question: I'd go SSHD over raid. It's easy and you get most or all of the benefits of raid.
Click to expand...
RAID 0 gives +100%/drive the bandwidth, and up to +100%/drive the IOPS. SSHD gives you like 8GB of really slow NAND. If you're going to cache a HDD, and have spare SATAs, use a fast SSD for the job.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the help all!

I'll only swap out my boot drive for an SSD. Won't bother with changing out the 2nd RAID0 with an SSHD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top