Buying a Seagate SSHD for my laptop?

Hi there
to anybody reading this -- SSD'S ARE PERFECTLY RELIABLE -- I don't know wherever that stupid Old Wives tale came from -- ALL the current models are not only decently cheap but perfectly reliable. They are just as good as (or better than) spinners and are much more rugged too -- no moving parts etc -- but as with all sensitive equipment don't deliberately drop them on the floor.

Samsung 840's will do just fine. They can be partitioned and formatted via standard windows commands -- no defrag necessary - and in any case don't do it.

There's so many advantages to using SSD's especially for the OS and applications that once you've started using them you'll wonder why you never switched before.

@alphanumeric -- heat isn't always less with solid state devices -- especially with the higher capacity devices -- if it were true ask yourself why a CPU - also a solid state device - needs a Heat sink and often a sizeable one at that.

An SSD does actually use less power but it can get warm too -- I've got a Windows to Go (W8) system installed on an external SSD which I boot up from a USB 3 slot. After a bit of use the disk will get slightly warm and that's normal -- just basic physics.

A small laptop HDD has a bit of "Self cooling" since it's got rotating parts so the amount of heat generated by both these devices *could* be about the same -- depends on how much Disk usage is being continuously required by your OS and what you are running on it.

Cheers
jimbo

My SSD is always 5-10* cooler than my hard drives. I'm pretty sure the moving parts cause more heat than nand chips, especially since the power consumption is on average much lower. The "time active" for an SSD is far shorter than a hard drive so it will get done with a task much quicker and can go into a non-active state, where a hard drive will work longer and will have a much shorter non-active state. Just my thoughts.

kbrady1979 said:

No decent SSD will be slower than a hard drive. You all need to brush up on SSD's vs hdd's. If he is looking at a hybrid SSD/HDD, he obviously wants better performance. Not even the fastest 10k RPM will compare to an SSD.

+10

Big difference between nanoseconds (SSD) and milliseconds (HHD).

SSD's are mainstream, reliable and becoming more affordable everyday.

jimbo45 said:

Hi there
to anybody reading this -- SSD'S ARE PERFECTLY RELIABLE -- I don't know wherever that stupid Old Wives tale came from -- ALL the current models are not only decently cheap but perfectly reliable. They are just as good as (or better than) spinners and are much more rugged too -- no moving parts etc -- but as with all sensitive equipment don't deliberately drop them on the floor.

Samsung 840's will do just fine. They can be partitioned and formatted via standard windows commands -- no defrag necessary - and in any case don't do it.

There's so many advantages to using SSD's especially for the OS and applications that once you've started using them you'll wonder why you never switched before.

@alphanumeric -- heat isn't always less with solid state devices -- especially with the higher capacity devices -- if it were true ask yourself why a CPU - also a solid state device - needs a Heat sink and often a sizeable one at that.

An SSD does actually use less power but it can get warm too -- I've got a Windows to Go (W8) system installed on an external SSD which I boot up from a USB 3 slot. After a bit of use the disk will get slightly warm and that's normal -- just basic physics.

A small laptop HDD has a bit of "Self cooling" since it's got rotating parts so the amount of heat generated by both these devices *could* be about the same -- depends on how much Disk usage is being continuously required by your OS and what you are running on it.

Cheers
jimbo

I'm an Electronic Technician by trade, I know why IC,s need heat sinks. The platter in your typical hard drive will be spinning most of the time. Even when the drive is not being accessed. The motor spinning the platters will draw current and generate heat. The only time it will cool down is if the platter stops spinning. Why do you think most laptop drives are 5400 RPM drives instead of 7200 RPM. They don't get as hot and don't draw as much power. Your SSD will generate some heat but not near as much as the spinner drive. If it's in an inactive state it will cool down. This will happen a lot more often than a typical spinner drive. It will run a lot cooler for the average user.

jimbo45 said:

...heat isn't always less with solid state devices -- especially with the higher capacity devices -- if it were true ask yourself why a CPU - also a solid state device - needs a Heat sink and often a sizeable one at that...

You are comparing apples and kumquats. CPUs get hotter because they draw far more power than SSDs. An SSD will never run hotter than a spinner unless it's defective. My desktop's CPU runs a bit hotter—12°C over ambient—than I care for (though less than my notebook), despite a decent cooler yet the SSD never runs over ambient. SSDs' considerably lower power requirements, compared to a spinner, is why they are so much cooler and why, once prices drop enough, they will eventually take over as the sole drive in single drive laptops (that, and increased resistance to physical shock).

Forget the past guys! sandforce based ssds especially the new trend of SSDs are the ones which are highly reliable & highly compatible too! I have been using Kingston hyperx 128GB SSD which is ofcourse sandforce based & is super reliable till date. I just dont think it is fair to flag "unreliable" tag to a brand which is well renowed for its quality worldwide

Johnnycash said:

Forget the past guys! sandforce based ssds especially the new trend of SSDs are the ones which are highly reliable & highly compatible too! I have been using Kingston hyperx 128GB SSD which is ofcourse sandforce based & is super reliable till date. I just dont think it is fair to flag "unreliable" tag to a brand which is well renowed for its quality worldwide

That is true, I will give you that. I have had a few SSD's and the only one that went bad(two actually) were the ones with a Sandforce controller. Not just any Sandforce controller, but the SF controller Intel spent over a year tweaking for reliability. As recent as the Intel 520 drives, Sandforce still has issues. I've heard good things about the Kingston and the Adata SSD's which also have Sandforce controllers. The issue now is, SSD's without a SF controller are fast enough that there is NO advantage to having a Sandforce based SSD. To be honest, Sandforce based drives were ONLY faster in compressible data on sequential reads/writes. Something that is worthless to 99.9% of SSD users. There are too many SSD's that are better options that don't have a Sandforce controller.

Layback Bear said:

whs said:

BigTabs said:

Ssd's are not that reliable

From where did you get that story ??

I still waiting for the answer to this question.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

I have a doubt: is Samsung 840 120GB SSD a mid-end product?