SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best. They don't do a thing to speed up something like Photoshop.
And to be honest my SSHD experience was lackluster. I set my expectations accordingly(platter drive and it was a Seagate) and it still was bad enough to annoy me(being a Seagate didn't help). I have the 500GB version of this drive. It helps small things but if you even go past that to things like Photoshop the SSD "cache" does nothing.
It also didn't help that Seagate screwed up the [http://www.macmedics.com/blog/2009/03/07/macbook-hard-drive-failures/|7.01 laptop drives] and the [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/|7200.11] drives up at the same time. I haven't really liked Seagate for years and I am reluctant to use or recommend them. At this point I'm a WD person for platter drives since I can't stand Seagate.
The 1TB version of the drive has a 16GB cache. The 500GB is only 8GB of cache.
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both. 512GB SSD's are still expensive.
-
Personally, I like the [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236642|WD Black2] drives since they make more sense to me.
+
+
Personally, I like the [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236642|WD Black2] drives since they make more sense to me. it's still somewhat ridiculous(120GB SSD/1TB 5400rpm drive) but it gives you the best of both.
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best. They don't do a thing to speed up something like Photoshop.
And to be honest my SSHD experience was lackluster. I set my expectations accordingly(platter drive and it was a Seagate) and it still was bad enough to annoy me(being a Seagate didn't help). I have the 500GB version of this drive. It helps small things but if you even go past that to things like Photoshop the SSD "cache" does nothing.
It also didn't help that Seagate screwed up the [http://www.macmedics.com/blog/2009/03/07/macbook-hard-drive-failures/|7.01 laptop drives] and the [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/|7200.11] drives up at the same time. I haven't really liked Seagate for years and I am reluctant to use or recommend them. At this point I'm a WD person for platter drives since I can't stand Seagate.
The 1TB version of the drive has a 16GB cache. The 500GB is only 8GB of cache.
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both. 512GB SSD's are still expensive.
+
Personally, I like the [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236642|WD Black2] drives since they make more sense to me.
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best.
+
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best. They don't do a thing to speed up something like Photoshop.
-
And to be honest my SSHD experience was lackluster. I set my expectations accordingly(platter drive, Seagate) and it still disappointed me. I had the 500GB version of this drive. It helps small things but if you even go past that to things like paint.net the SSD "cache" does nothing.
+
And to be honest my SSHD experience was lackluster. I set my expectations accordingly(platter drive and it was a Seagate) and it still was bad enough to annoy me(being a Seagate didn't help). I have the 500GB version of this drive. It helps small things but if you even go past that to things like Photoshop the SSD "cache" does nothing.
-
It also didn't help that Seagate screwed up the [http://www.macmedics.com/blog/2009/03/07/macbook-hard-drive-failures/|7.01 laptop drives] and the [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/|7200.11] drives up at the same time. I haven't really liked Seagate since and I will never recommend a Seagate again. These days I'm a WD user for platter drives. Never going back to Skeetgate.
+
It also didn't help that Seagate screwed up the [http://www.macmedics.com/blog/2009/03/07/macbook-hard-drive-failures/|7.01 laptop drives] and the [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/|7200.11] drives up at the same time. I haven't really liked Seagate for years and I am reluctant to use or recommend them. At this point I'm a WD person for platter drives since I can't stand Seagate.
The 1TB version of the drive has a 16GB cache. The 500GB is only 8GB of cache.
-
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both.
-
Strike that recommendation. Mine is acting up :/
+
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both. 512GB SSD's are still expensive.
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best.
And to be honest my SSHD experience was lackluster. I set my expectations accordingly(platter drive, Seagate) and it still disappointed me. I had the 500GB version of this drive. It helps small things but if you even go past that to things like paint.net the SSD "cache" does nothing.
+
It also didn't help that Seagate screwed up the [http://www.macmedics.com/blog/2009/03/07/macbook-hard-drive-failures/|7.01 laptop drives] and the [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/|7200.11] drives up at the same time. I haven't really liked Seagate since and I will never recommend a Seagate again. These days I'm a WD user for platter drives. Never going back to Skeetgate.
The 1TB version of the drive has a 16GB cache. The 500GB is only 8GB of cache.
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both.
-
-
This is the [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148694|SSD] I own. I got mine for 90.00 on Black Friday.
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best.
+
And to be honest my SSHD experience was lackluster. I set my expectations accordingly(platter drive, Seagate) and it still disappointed me. I had the 500GB version of this drive. It helps small things but if you even go past that to things like paint.net the SSD "cache" does nothing.
+
It also didn't help that Seagate screwed up the [http://www.macmedics.com/blog/2009/03/07/macbook-hard-drive-failures/|7.01 laptop drives] and the [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/barracuda_failure_plague/|7200.11] drives up at the same time. I haven't really liked Seagate since and I will never recommend a Seagate again. These days I'm a WD user for platter drives. Never going back to Skeetgate.
The 1TB version of the drive has a 16GB cache. The 500GB is only 8GB of cache.
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both.
This is the [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148694|SSD] I own. I got mine for 90.00 on Black Friday.
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best.
+
And to be honest my SSHD experience was lackluster. I set my expectations accordingly(platter drive, Seagate) and it still disappointed me. I had the 500GB version of this drive. It helps small things but if you even go past that to things like paint.net the SSD "cache" does nothing.
The 1TB version of the drive has a 16GB cache. The 500GB is only 8GB of cache.
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both.
+
This is the [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148694|SSD] I own. I got mine for 90.00 on Black Friday.
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best.
+
The 1TB version of the drive has a 16GB cache. The 500GB is only 8GB of cache.
+
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both.
+
This is the [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148694|SSD] I own. I got mine for 90.00 on Black Friday.
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best.
-
+
The 1TB version of the drive has a 16GB cache. The 500GB is only 8GB of cache.
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both.
SSHD drives aren't much faster then a standard hard drive, because they're still reliant on platters. They'll help a little bit but won't do much and they won't help things that are large by nature because they only have 8-16GB pf SSD "cache" if you will. They only help small applications like your web browser at best.
Personally, I'd just get a 256GB SSD if you have the funds to do so. An SSD is going to run much better then a SSHD. I know this since I had both.
