but still can't beat the HDD especially price/capacity

micropage7but still can't beat the HDD especially price/capacity

ONLY in price/capacity does the HDD win. If you are using this to transfer large 4k video files, or several hundred GBs of small files, or loading games, or loading much of ANYTHING, the speed will pay for itself after a single use.

Once you go SSD, you cant go back. I just upgraded my storage SSD from 1TB to 2TB. The fact that I could transfer a whole drive worth of data in the time it took me to make a sandwich is a godsend.

Atm big capacity ssd is reserved for people who can afford it, hdd is for low income ones.

SL500 960GB cost $102.5 here. 2TB should come close to $200.

TheinsanegamerNONLY in price/capacity does the HDD win. If you are using this to transfer large 4k video files, or several hundred GBs of small files, or loading games, or loading much of ANYTHING, the speed will pay for itself after a single use.

That is completely untrue. I have SSD's and HDD's in the same system and file transfers are not that arduous/time-consuming.

TheinsanegamerNOnce you go SSD, you cant go back.

Also untrue. Modern 7200rpm HDD's are very good performers. While there are a few trade off's(boot times) once the OS is loaded the differences are hard to notice in everyday use.

TheinsanegamerNI just upgraded my storage SSD from 1TB to 2TB. The fact that I could transfer a whole drive worth of data in the time it took me to make a sandwich is a godsend.

Not buying that either. The SATA3 bus is limited to 600MBps. Let's do the short math.
1000000000000 / 600000000 = 1666.6 seconds / 60 seconds per minute = 27.7 minutes. And that assumes perfect SATA bus optimization, which never happens in real life.
So you either take your sweet angus time making a sandwich or you're exaggerating wildly.

Still a realistic 35 to 40 minutes for such a transfer is better than the 60 to 70 minutes it would take for a transfer from HDD to an SSD.
But at what cost? A hybrid SSD boot drive + HDD mass storage is still the most cost effective hardware configuration.

Judging by some of the bigger HD's the transfer rates are about half that of an SSD (I say about, 250Mb/sec compared to 500Mb+/sec) but sadly the big capacities are just not there yet for the SSDs. I would love to have a few 2Tb SSDs for games and such, the bigger HDs are going in the server for storage as they should be.

The only issue really are the SATA based SSDs are seemingly stuck at 500Mb/sec read/write speeds but the M.2 drives are over the 3000Mb/sec read/write but sadly they cost a fair bit more and use PCIe lanes up which might eventually slow other things down a bit (depending on configurations etc I'm sure) Plus the M.2 drives only have a select number of slots on a board. SATA you have at least 6 to 10 depending on the model and age of the board.

I hope that 4Tb SSDs come down in price in months to come and maybe even then we'd hopefully see a few faster models. As I understand it, there are SAS 12Gb drives which I'd have hoped some of which are SSD based as well....
All in all though, things are moving forward as I'm sure everyone wishes they would and should be :)

lexluthermiesterThat is completely untrue. I have SSD's and HDD's in the same system and file transfers are not that arduous/time-consuming.

Simply because you do not have long file transfers does not debunk anything I have said.

Also untrue. Modern 7200rpm HDD's are very good performers. While there are a few trade off's(boot times) once the OS is loaded the differences are hard to notice in everyday use.

This is entirely subjective. I personally have both machines with SSDs and HDDs in them at work, both of which I support, and those 7200RPM machines are molasses by comparison. Having to wait after the desktop loads for another 10-15 seconds before the system responds, having to wait 30-45 second between clicking on chrome and it being actually usable, these things are normal on a HDD system, and unheard of on SSDs, where the wait times are in the single digit second category. If you never turn your system off, thats another story, but if you do, or if you install updates or regularly install windows on systems to recover from drive failure or OS corruption, the difference between a WD black and a run of the mill SSD is night and day, to say nothing of a higher end SSD that can actually saturate the SATA III connection or a M.2 NVMe drive. By the time the WD black system is done installing the core OS in our deployment process, the SSD system has already rebooted, configured drivers, rebooted AGAIN, and installed out standard software and joined the domain, ready for deployment. The speed difference and responsiveness of a SSD is easily noticeable, and when you are working with 15-20 systems at a time, that difference is very pronounced.

Not buying that either. The SATA3 bus is limited to 600MBps. Let's do the short math.
1000000000000 / 600000000 = 1666.6 seconds / 60 seconds per minute = 27.7 minutes. And that assumes perfect SATA bus optimization, which never happens in real life.
So you either take your sweet angus time making a sandwich or you're exaggerating wildly.

Still a realistic 35 to 40 minutes for such a transfer is better than the 60 to 70 minutes it would take for a transfer from HDD to an SSD.
But at what cost? A hybrid SSD boot drive + HDD mass storage is still the most cost effective hardware configuration.

Firstly, the drive was not 100% full. That's just silly to assume. And, at best, that drive could hold 969GB of data after formatting, not a full 1000GB. So your short math is already wrong.

Second, A western digital black HDD under sustained file transfer usually hits about 150MB/s at best, assuming you dont have too many smaller files. In my experience, when backing up games, 110MB/s is more realistic, but lets run with 150 to keep the math simple. If it takes 27.7 minutes to back up that data via SSD to SSD, it would take 110.8 minutes to do the same thing from HDD-->SSD, not 60 to 70 minutes. That is damn near 2 hours, and that is assuming the HDD keeps up 150MB/s the entire way through. In my experience, hard drives do NOT do this, and batch of small files will tank transfer speeds.

If you are going to criticize my math, do it right. So lets do it right here. The drive had 769 GB of data on it. That is 769,000 MB (no idea why you went full KB on your math, needless complication). Divided by ~540MB/s that the system was able to keep up, that is ~1424 seconds, or 23.7 minutes. While a bit longer then it technically takes to make a sandwich, that is still DAMN fast for a backup of that size. Assuming I was being 100% literal is just silly, especially as context does not work through the internet. BTW, off of a WD black 1TB drive, that same backup would, assuming 0 slowdowns in magic pixie land keeping up 110MB/s constant, take 6990.9 seconds, or 116.51 minutes, to do the same thing. You may feel different, but to me, 1 hour 56 minutes is a LOT longer then 23.7 minutes. Extrapolate that out to double the size, or 1.538TB, and you are talking 47 and a half minutes versus 3 HOURS 52 minutes. So I stand by my point, if you regularly work with large video files or large data files, the SSD will quite quickly pay for itself in shorter transfer times. And having worked with extremely large photos in photoshop and 4k video files, the difference in responsiveness between the two is, again, night and day. The HDDs make sense as long term backup, but not much else.

Third, a hybrid is NOT the most cost effective solution, a pure HDD system is. hybrid is the best COMPROMISE solution, assuming you can put up with long load times and texture pop-in on games like DOOM and skyrim. A pure SSD system is for best performance, and given how much cheaper SSD storage has become, and how much faster backing up and loading programs goes on SSDs, and how long it can take to load textures from that 50GB video game off a HDD takes, it is worth the cash for many buyers. The case for saving money on HDDs has been growing a LOT weaker this last year, with 2TB drives going for as low as $270 now, as opposed to the $500 they were two years ago.

Promoting it as the most cost effective is hilariously wrong.

TheinsanegamerNSimply because you do not have long file transfers does not debunk anything I have said.

This is entirely subjective. I personally have both machines with SSDs and HDDs in them at work, both of which I support, and those 7200RPM machines are molasses by comparison. Having to wait after the desktop loads for another 10-15 seconds before the system responds, having to wait 30-45 second between clicking on chrome and it being actually usable, these things are normal on a HDD system, and unheard of on SSDs, where the wait times are in the single digit second category. If you never turn your system off, thats another story, but if you do, or if you install updates or regularly install windows on systems to recover from drive failure or OS corruption, the difference between a WD black and a run of the mill SSD is night and day, to say nothing of a higher end SSD that can actually saturate the SATA III connection or a M.2 NVMe drive. By the time the WD black system is done installing the core OS in our deployment process, the SSD system has already rebooted, configured drivers, rebooted AGAIN, and installed out standard software and joined the domain, ready for deployment. The speed difference and responsiveness of a SSD is easily noticeable, and when you are working with 15-20 systems at a time, that difference is very pronounced.

Firstly, the drive was not 100% full. That's just silly to assume. And, at best, that drive could hold 969GB of data after formatting, not a full 1000GB. So your short math is already wrong.

Second, A western digital black HDD under sustained file transfer usually hits about 150MB/s at best, assuming you dont have too many smaller files. In my experience, when backing up games, 110MB/s is more realistic, but lets run with 150 to keep the math simple. If it takes 27.7 minutes to back up that data via SSD to SSD, it would take 110.8 minutes to do the same thing from HDD-->SSD, not 60 to 70 minutes. That is damn near 2 hours, and that is assuming the HDD keeps up 150MB/s the entire way through. In my experience, hard drives do NOT do this, and batch of small files will tank transfer speeds.

If you are going to criticize my math, do it right. So lets do it right here. The drive had 769 GB of data on it. That is 769,000 MB (no idea why you went full KB on your math, needless complication). Divided by ~540MB/s that the system was able to keep up, that is ~1424 seconds, or 23.7 minutes. While a bit longer then it technically takes to make a sandwich, that is still DAMN fast for a backup of that size. Assuming I was being 100% literal is just silly, especially as context does not work through the internet. BTW, off of a WD black 1TB drive, that same backup would, assuming 0 slowdowns in magic pixie land keeping up 110MB/s constant, take 6990.9 seconds, or 116.51 minutes, to do the same thing. You may feel different, but to me, 1 hour 56 minutes is a LOT longer then 23.7 minutes. Extrapolate that out to double the size, or 1.538TB, and you are talking 47 and a half minutes versus 3 HOURS 52 minutes. So I stand by my point, if you regularly work with large video files or large data files, the SSD will quite quickly pay for itself in shorter transfer times. And having worked with extremely large photos in photoshop and 4k video files, the difference in responsiveness between the two is, again, night and day. The HDDs make sense as long term backup, but not much else.

Third, a hybrid is NOT the most cost effective solution, a pure HDD system is. hybrid is the best COMPROMISE solution, assuming you can put up with long load times and texture pop-in on games like DOOM and skyrim. A pure SSD system is for best performance, and given how much cheaper SSD storage has become, and how much faster backing up and loading programs goes on SSDs, and how long it can take to load textures from that 50GB video game off a HDD takes, it is worth the cash for many buyers. The case for saving money on HDDs has been growing a LOT weaker this last year, with 2TB drives going for as low as $270 now, as opposed to the $500 they were two years ago.

Promoting it as the most cost effective is hilariously wrong.

Speaking of backups, I used a 5tb toshiba in a build recently. Holy hell that HDD is fast for mechanical. A system image was done in a fraction of the time of older HDDs. In raid, they'd be unstoppable lol

TheinsanegamerNSimply because you do not have long file transfers does not debunk anything I have said.

That is an assumption on your part and is not correct. I do full drive data transfer regularly professionally and the time number you suggested are only possible between SATA SSD's to NVME drives. SATA to SATA drives are limited by the SATA bus at all times. Your conclusion patently incorrect as it would literally break the laws of physics.

TheinsanegamerNSo your short math is already wrong.

My short math was an example which is why it was qualified as such. Even if the drive in question were half full, that still just shy of 14 minutes does it really take you that long to make a sandwich? Regardless, the types of drives in question would take A LOT longer to copy files, even using a bit-by-bit or sector-by-sector copy utility. Your claim is bunk and premise for logic is flawed. Any techy who can count knows this.

TheinsanegamerNThird, a hybrid is NOT the most cost effective solution, a pure HDD system is. hybrid is the best COMPROMISE solution

A quality 256GB SSD can be had for $50. Quality 4TB drives can be had for $65. I'd hardly call that a compromise.