SSHD is somewhat faster than standard HDD, but given it would be used for file access, the general performance would not be considerably impacted. Maybe slightly faster file access times, particularly for large files.
The idea of SSHD is to improve performance on reading SMALL files (because of the reduced latency).
Even that's for data storage. It can still speed up a lot if dealing with something like thousands of photos.
On the other hand, it's pretty meaningless to go SSHD if the storage are for large files (e.g. Video)
I mainly use it to house project files and data I access on a daily basis. Anyone recommend a good 1tb SSHD?
My personal choice is the Seagate Firecuda.
[doublepost=1504722896][/doublepost]
AJA Tests I ran:
1. SM951 on PCIe card
2. 840 Pro on PCIe card
3. 840 EVO in SATA slot
4. Seagate SSHD in SATA slot
5. WD Black HDD in SATA slot
View attachment 716108 View attachment 716110 View attachment 716111 View attachment 716112 View attachment 716113
Lou
SSHD is mainly to improve the cached files reading time. However, the user has no control of which files is being cached. AFAIK, the logic is usually to keep the most accessed data in the cache (SSD), and small files has priority. Since benchmark is writing new data onto the SSHD, I believe it's pretty hard to show the real world benefit of using it. Even it does, max sequential speed should not be the focus on "why" we can benefit from HDD to SSHD.
IMO, this link shows a more proper way to benchmark SSHD.
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_desktop_sshd_review
To OP:
This chart explain more what can happen in real world.
When the data is "new", the SSHD won't perform better than a good HDD. In this case, the SSHD require 72s on the 1st boot. But the reference 7200RPM HDD only need 49s (refer to the chart below). However, when you keep accessing the same data. The firmware will start to copy the frequent accessed data onto the cache (SSD). The end result, after 10 boot, it's boot time reduce to 28s. which is at the SSD level.
So, if you have some regular access user data. Those data most likely will be copied onto the SSHD's cache. And give you SSD like performance. However, the remaining data most likely will perform at HDD level. I recommend the Firecuda 3.5" because it has a 7200 RPM HDD inside. So, apart from 8GB fast data access. The remaining will still perform at a reasonable level. A SSHD like the above example has a 5400 RPM HDD (this is the 2.5" Firecuda, not 3.5"), and you can see, the non-cached performance drops a lot compare to a "good" HDD.
