Can an SSD be part of HDD

[nasttcar]

Just got a new desktop from Lenovo. The specs said 2TB HDD + 8gb SSD. I got the computer and do not see an SSD mounted anywhere and do not see it in Device Manager. Are there hybrid hard drives that have a SSD integrated somehow.

The computer doesn't boot really any faster than my old Celeron laptop and the new computer is an i7.

Lenovo says my computer was not supposed to come with SSD, yet my bill of sale shows SSD.

Confused, Please Help

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Just got a new desktop from Lenovo. The specs said 2TB HDD + 8gb SSD. I got the computer and do not see an SSD mounted anywhere and do not see it in Device Manager. Are there hybrid hard drives that have a SSD integrated somehow.

The computer doesn't boot really any faster than my old Celeron laptop and the new computer is an i7.

Lenovo says my computer was not supposed to come with SSD, yet my bill of sale shows SSD.

Confused, Please Help

It sounds to me like sales-hype about a hybrid HDD with an 8GB NAND cache. For caching an HDD, 8GB is diddly-squat, and hybrid HDDs aren't exactly way out ahead of the pack.

If you want to cache a 2TB HDD with a paired SSD, a 60GB SSD would be adequate to show serious performance enhancement, which had been measured some few years ago at 80% of SSD speed -- provided that AT LEAST the SSD is connected to an SATA_III controller port.

Whether there would be any complications for adding such an SSD to a hybrid drive -- I can't say. But I DO KNOW you can get a decent 1TB 2.5" HDD laptop drive for about $50, and a 60GB SSD for about $40-to-$50.

You would obviously need two SATA ports available on the laptop, and at least one would have to be SATA-III.

 

[shabby]

Probably one of these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178380

 

[KingFatty]

Yes, can you identify the specific brand/model number of the hard drive the laptop came with?

Other than a hybrid hard drive, there is a slight possibility you have the SSD caching thing someone else mentioned above.

But I think it's incorrect to charge you for both a hard drive and SSD if it turns out you merely have a hybrid hard drive.

 

[dbcooper1]

It sounds to me like sales-hype about a hybrid HDD with an 8GB NAND cache. For caching an HDD, 8GB is diddly-squat, and hybrid HDDs aren't exactly way out ahead of the pack.

If you want to cache a 2TB HDD with a paired SSD, a 60GB SSD would be adequate to show serious performance enhancement, which had been measured some few years ago at 80% of SSD speed -- provided that AT LEAST the SSD is connected to an SATA_III controller port.

Whether there would be any complications for adding such an SSD to a hybrid drive -- I can't say. But I DO KNOW you can get a decent 1TB 2.5" HDD laptop drive for about $50, and a 60GB SSD for about $40-to-$50.

You would obviously need two SATA ports available on the laptop, and at least one would have to be SATA-III.

Here's a solution I've been using for the past few months; works well and only requires a single SATA port. It's not the fastest, but seems a good compromise so far in the laptops I've installed. Paid $99 for the most recent one- new.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...236642&cm_re=wd_hybrid-_-22-236-642-_-Product

The problem with the Seagate implementation is twofold in my experience- not enough SSD to be effective, and I think most of the drives are 5400 RPM with the exception of the earlier ones up to 500GB I believe. Not sure about the most recent ones as I haven't used them since going with the WD, but if it doesn't say it's 7200 RPM, it probably isn't.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Here's a solution I've been using for the past few months; works well and only requires a single SATA port. It's not the fastest, but seems a good compromise so far in the laptops I've installed. Paid $99 for the most recent one- new.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...236642&cm_re=wd_hybrid-_-22-236-642-_-Product

The problem with the Seagate implementation is twofold in my experience- not enough SSD to be effective, and I think most of the drives are 5400 RPM with the exception of the earlier ones up to 500GB I believe. Not sure about the most recent ones as I haven't used them since going with the WD, but if it doesn't say it's 7200 RPM, it probably isn't.

Wow. I might not have come across that "Black" drive incarnation unless you'd posted the link. I would say that is DEFINITELY the better choice against either a separate SSD and HDD configuration or a so-called "hybrid."

I assume that the entirety of it is in the sealed unit pictured in the Egg display -- no indication otherwise. Of course, one might want to look at the benchies for it and see if it's in a class with other SSD caching/HDD-acceleration options.

A BIT LATER: Now I'm look at the customer reviews and WD tech-support responses for that unit. It may be a hybrid drive, but does it actually "cache" anything from the larger data portion? The tech responses suggest that OS installation must fit a partition the size of the SSD portion. The sorts of trouble described by the customer-review "whiners" doesn't seem in any way indicative of what I'd come to expect from the ISRT or other SSD-caching solutions.

It could be a good solution for a laptop -- but take care with the installation, I say.

 

[ArisVer]

Run a program like Speccy to tell us the disk you have.

http://www.piriform.com/speccy

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Run a program like Speccy to tell us the disk you have.

http://www.piriform.com/speccy

The ol' Bob D'Niro line from "Taxi Driver:" "You talkin' to ME?! You talkin' . . . to ME?!"

Below is the speccy text from the sig-rig. The 2700K rig has a similar HDD (SATA-II) cached to a Blaze 60GB SSD (SATA-III), with 840 EVO boot-disk cached with RAPID. Speccy isn't installed there. the sig-rig only has RAPID caching. Is it important to you?

I've also got an old 2007 Centrino Duo lappie with SATA-II controller and an SSD cached to RAM. Don't know what relevance that has.

Summary
Operating System
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1
CPU
Intel Core i7 2600K @ 3.40GHz 35 °C
Sandy Bridge 32nm Technology
RAM
16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 933MHz (9-9-9-24)
Motherboard
ASUSTeK Computer INC. P8Z68-V PRO (LGA1155) 28 °C
Graphics
BenQ XL2420Z (1920x1080@60Hz)
TX-NR616 (1920x1080@60Hz)
3071MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (ASUStek Computer Inc) 36 °C
Storage
476GB Crucial_CT512MX100SSD1 ATA Device (SSD) 30 °C
931GB Western Digital WDC WD10EZEX-00RKKA0 ATA Device (SATA) 30 °C
476GB Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series ATA Device (SSD) 28 °C
Optical Drives
CD-ROM Drive
Audio
High Definition Audio Device

===
Oh. Just to clarify, because I was puzzled at how the linked WD Black HDD-SSD-combo unit actually works. I've used ISRT and Primo-Cache (the lappie drive) for caching (RAM or HDD_to-SSD respectively) and never had a problem with BSODs or instability with those solutions. I don't think I ever came across anyone with such instabilities or difficulties if their ISRT or other caching solution was properly configured.

 

[dbcooper1]

Wow. I might not have come across that "Black" drive incarnation unless you'd posted the link. I would say that is DEFINITELY the better choice against either a separate SSD and HDD configuration or a so-called "hybrid."

I assume that the entirety of it is in the sealed unit pictured in the Egg display -- no indication otherwise. Of course, one might want to look at the benchies for it and see if it's in a class with other SSD caching/HDD-acceleration options.

A BIT LATER: Now I'm look at the customer reviews and WD tech-support responses for that unit. It may be a hybrid drive, but does it actually "cache" anything from the larger data portion? The tech responses suggest that OS installation must fit a partition the size of the SSD portion. The sorts of trouble described by the customer-review "whiners" doesn't seem in any way indicative of what I'd come to expect from the ISRT or other SSD-caching solutions.

It could be a good solution for a laptop -- but take care with the installation, I say.

It's an SSD and a hard drive in standard laptop format. Some form of SATA port multiplier of sorts allow both to share the one SATA port. Install (or image/clone) O/S and apps to the 120GB SSD and then run a WD linked partitioning app to enable the 1TB HD for data and you have most of the best of both. You'd have to really try or ignore instructions to mess up the installation because the 1TB space is not available until the final step of enabling it through the partitioning app. It doesn't benchmark in the top 10% of either but for the price and relative performance, it's a really good compromise, especially for a laptop like you pointed out. The only downside is that you still have a spinner in a mobile device- oh well.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

It's an SSD and a hard drive in standard laptop format. Some form of SATA port multiplier of sorts allow both to share the one SATA port. Install (or image/clone) O/S and apps to the 120GB SSD and then run a WD linked partitioning app to enable the 1TB HD for data and you have most of the best of both. You'd have to really try or ignore instructions to mess up the installation because the 1TB space is not available until the final step of enabling it through the partitioning app. It doesn't benchmark in the top 10% of either but for the price and relative performance, it's a really good compromise, especially for a laptop like you pointed out. The only downside is that you still have a spinner in a mobile device- oh well.

How are the two components revealed in Device Manager and Windows Explorer? One device? One drive volume or two?

I spent a lot more on refurbing my Centrino-2-Duo lappie than most people -- mainstreamers who want the latest for the least trouble -- would permit. I'd like to free up the Crucial SSD I swapped into it and put it in one of my desktop systems. Either way, the laptop is only equipped with an SATA-II controller. I can cache either an HDD or the current SSD to RAM, and the benchmarks increase from 200-something to 1,200 MB/s -- whether or not that reflects anything of real-world performance.

But I'm not sure it's worth ~$100 or even something less to do that, although there's the "opportunity cost" of the existing SSD. I'd actually PREFER swapping in a smaller SSD I already have handy -- and already paid for -- to free up the Crucial.

 

[ArisVer]

Run a program like Speccy to tell us the disk you have.

http://www.piriform.com/speccy

^ That was meant for the OP.

 

[dbcooper1]

How are the two components revealed in Device Manager and Windows Explorer? One device? One drive volume or two?

I spent a lot more on refurbing my Centrino-2-Duo lappie than most people -- mainstreamers who want the latest for the least trouble -- would permit. I'd like to free up the Crucial SSD I swapped into it and put it in one of my desktop systems. Either way, the laptop is only equipped with an SATA-II controller. I can cache either an HDD or the current SSD to RAM, and the benchmarks increase from 200-something to 1,200 MB/s -- whether or not that reflects anything of real-world performance.

But I'm not sure it's worth ~$100 or even something less to do that, although there's the "opportunity cost" of the existing SSD. I'd actually PREFER swapping in a smaller SSD I already have handy -- and already paid for -- to free up the Crucial.

One in device manager and two drives in Explorer. If I go to storage management, I see the hidden 100MB partition, the balance of the SSD for the O/S and then a partition containing the 1TB HD. Coincidentally, this last one was installed in a Centrino-2 also for a friend who was trying to delay an upgrade and just needed a bit quicker performance and more storage.

I put one in an unspectacular Dell i3 E-series for myself and have been happy with it for several months. It allowed me to store media I used to keep in various formats, on the drive, replace the DVD with an additional battery and travel lighter and run longer without needing an outlet. I haven't run benchmarks on it, but day to day operations are such that I don't intend to upgrade anytime soon although my uses may be more modest than many since I'm retired.

 

[piasabird]

They are selling hybrid drives now but they call the drives SSHD.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178381&cm_re=SSHD-_-22-178-381-_-Product

Not as fast as a separate SSD. Faster than a standard HD.

They make both desktop and laptop versions.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

One in device manager and two drives in Explorer. If I go to storage management, I see the hidden 100MB partition, the balance of the SSD for the O/S and then a partition containing the 1TB HD. Coincidentally, this last one was installed in a Centrino-2 also for a friend who was trying to delay an upgrade and just needed a bit quicker performance and more storage.

I put one in an unspectacular Dell i3 E-series for myself and have been happy with it for several months. It allowed me to store media I used to keep in various formats, on the drive, replace the DVD with an additional battery and travel lighter and run longer without needing an outlet. I haven't run benchmarks on it, but day to day operations are such that I don't intend to upgrade anytime soon although my uses may be more modest than many since I'm retired.

I think my dilemma for the Centrino-duo is as follows.

The SSD likely has more than ~120GB on it already. So I can't just clone it to the WD Black drive you linked. In all probability, it would result in the kinds of frustrations that some of the cus-reviews show. I'd either have to uninstall software and files to the point where I'd be sure the clone wouldn't require more than maybe 80GB in the shrinking that Acronis would provide, or simply re-install the whole enchilada from scratch.

Maybe I said I'd seen some WD 1TB laptop drives for maybe $50. Then, I'd revert to a slower disk, implement RAM-caching for it. Too much trouble. But interesting to see this WD product.

Now, pertaining to piasabird's link, you can only expect so much from that -- an 8GB cache of "MLC." Looking at the first page of cus-reviews, there are some happy people, and some p***ed-off one-eggers. I'd only suspect that a lot of the happy people either didn't run benchtests, or only compared the benchies they got with conventional HDD results.

But I'd be sure that the performance of the Seagate drive doesn't come close to pairing a 60GB SATA_III SSD to a Barracuda, a WD Blue, or a (conventional) WD Black. In the latter case, the only drawback is the $40-$50 price of the caching SSD, and -- for some older chipsets -- the limitation of two SATA-III ports on the older motherboards.

But the newer boards? One's first inclination is to expunge the use of HDD's altogether. And that's basically going to make more sense as the price-per-GB of SSD storage drops to a point that's much closer to an equivalent-sized HDD. By that time, they may be selling 10 TB HDDs to mainstreamers, though!

 

[nasttcar]

Many thanks to all of you guys. I used the little program to detail what is actually inside of the desktop unit. Turns out the 2TB drive is a Seagate that has 8gb of cache. I think it is very misleading by Lenovo to advertise this in their specs as a SSD.

I had read before buying that you could strip Win 8 down such that it would boot and run from an 8gb SSD and figured they had done such.

This desktop replaces a 6 year old desktop that had ASUS PS5 MB I had built. The MB finally died and I just did not have the time build another unit. The Lenovo unit seems to be a good build, but if I had built a unit I would not have put Seagate in it. There are not many slots for adding much of anything. But, the unit is pretty fast for my needs.

 

[MongGrel]

You can even make a SSD/HDD RAID setup besides a Hybrid.

I tried one out for awhile for grins and giggles, with a 500 WD Black and a couple small Sammy EVO's on a SATA 3 add in card, it actually worked well, but split them up again.