SSDs vs. Seagate SSHD (Momentus XT) - a discussion

[demonix]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That was a neat video, but I didn't like two things about it. All tasks were back to back, meaning that as certain drives fell behind it became difficult to make comparisons with the speed differences.

That's probably why the application that is used to conduct the test spits out the result of how long each part of the test takes, so when doing side by side comparison tests like that one you can at least see how long it took even if one drive fell behind.

Second, running through a number of varied tasks (for the first time? I don't remember if they remarked on that in the video) doesn't allow the Momentus XT's SSD advantages to come through.

They would have had to install the operating system, all the programs used in the test and the application used to conduct the test before running it so there might have been a chance for some caching to take place before the test was started although they might have run the programs a few times before conducting the test to show the advantages of the momentus XT (they didn't mention that the programs were being run for the first time, so they might have done that).

[synaesthetic]

I suspect eventually all hard drives will eventually have an eMMC-alike cache like the Momentus XT.

It's not actually a "hybrid drive" as the NAND portion is not being used to permanently store information, but rather being used to cache frequently-accessed information. This will up your random read and write performance (which speeds up your whole system) but it'll always be slower than an SSD by virtue of the fact that data has to be moved from the spinning platters to the cache.

[Random32]

Isn't eMMC phone/tablet memory? Usually a lot slower than "real" SSDs.

[Alchemist007]

I ordered the 840 pro just the other day, was going to go for the cheaper non-pro but when it comes to computer parts, I want my shit to last. The extra write speed will be great too.

[Vexx]

I've been going "lalalalala" for this whole thread. I give up. Ordering something like what Alchemist007 just ordered. Time for C: to enter the 21st Century.

[Alchemist007]

I know people have been talking performance increase, but my current drive hasn't even properly reformatted in 5 years. Old Vista upgraded to Win7, and carried over to a new completely new build (from what I heard, I lucked out even with the driver installations because this usually doesn't end well). Even in this custom rig, I could go from boot to launching Firefox in 30 seconds (I did free up 50% of the drive and defrag to help). Now it's got 32% free space but takes about a minute to do the same, that's after the spyware and malware sweeps.

I would probably be able to get the same 30 seconds back if I reformatted anew (fuckin MFT's probably like...50TB in size by now ), but why do 30 when I can do <15?

[Random32]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Time for C: to enter the 21st Century.

Welcome to the cool kids club.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Random32

Isn't eMMC phone/tablet memory? Usually a lot slower than "real" SSDs.

Still faster than spinning discs for the most part and the integrated controller (what causes the speed difference) is much cheaper than the expensive ones on dedicated SSDs.

None of the hybrid drives actually have real full-blown SSDs attached to them. They use something like eMMC, faster than your average spinny platter and sdcard, but still going to be a lot slower than the real deal.

[TheFluff]

The Momentus XT is not a replacement for a SSD, it's a HDD with some extended read caching. It compares quite unfavorably with an actual SSD when it comes to the things you buy an SSD for: random reads and writes. If you don't actually do anything demanding with your computer, the Momentus XT might give you a decent performance boost for things you actually notice, but again, in terms of actual performance, it's a lot worse than an actual SSD.

Decently sized SSD's are also pretty cheap now (they'll run you about $0.70 per GB) so there's really not much of a reason not to get one. HDD's are also cheaper than ever, so if you have a billion gigabytes of anime you absolutely need to keep around, get a big, fat and slow HDD to put that on.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

It compares quite unfavorably with an actual SSD when it comes to the things you buy an SSD for: random reads and writes.

That's why I made this thread, I'm not noticing a huge difference. That's surprising to me. It could be that the Samsung 840 is a poorer performer relative to other SSDs, although benchmarks don't seem to support that. It could also be that my Samsung 840 is flawed in some way, although I've benchmarked it and it doesn't seem to be operating any slower compared with benchmarks from other 840 owners. It could also be that SSDs are overhyped, which I'm starting to wonder about. I know I'm not the first or only person to say that they were a bit underwhelmed by SSD performance, given all of the claims and proclamations of how good SSDs are.

[creb]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That's why I made this thread, I'm not noticing a huge difference. That's surprising to me. It could be that the Samsung 840 is a poorer performer relative to other SSDs, although benchmarks don't seem to support that. It could also be that my Samsung 840 is flawed in some way, although I've benchmarked it and it doesn't seem to be operating any slower compared with benchmarks from other 840 owners. It could also be that SSDs are overhyped, which I'm starting to wonder about. I know I'm not the first or only person to say that they were a bit underwhelmed by SSD performance, given all of the claims and proclamations of how good SSDs are.

But, I thought we've already put to rest why you're not seeing any real performance increase, and that in your case, yes, it makes little sense.

[larethian]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That's why I made this thread, I'm not noticing a huge difference. That's surprising to me. It could be that the Samsung 840 is a poorer performer relative to other SSDs, although benchmarks don't seem to support that. It could also be that my Samsung 840 is flawed in some way, although I've benchmarked it and it doesn't seem to be operating any slower compared with benchmarks from other 840 owners. It could also be that SSDs are overhyped, which I'm starting to wonder about. I know I'm not the first or only person to say that they were a bit underwhelmed by SSD performance, given all of the claims and proclamations of how good SSDs are.

Probably because of your usage patterns + the state of your drive. Try getting it heavily fragmented. The seek times will probably increase significantly *shrug*.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That's why I made this thread, I'm not noticing a huge difference. That's surprising to me.

As I said, if you don't actually use your computer for anything demanding I/O-wise, then of course you're not going to notice much of a difference. That doesn't mean that SSD's are "overhyped", it means that you're not utilizing their strengths. Upgrading from a dual core to a quad core CPU isn't going to give you any noticeable performance boosts in a lot of cases either, and yet the quad core indisputably has twice the computing power. It's the same with the Momentus XT versus a real SSD; in a lot of noticeable cases (i.e. starting commonly used applications) you won't be able to tell a huge difference, and yet the SSD indisputably has a huge performance advantage. If you don't need that performance advantage, then obviously you shouldn't be paying a premium for it, but I'd say a lot of people actually do things with their computers and have a use for that performance.

If you want to notice a difference, try compiling a big C++ project or working with a few 250MB .psd's or something. Or play Eve Online. Trying to judge a drive's performance by how many times app icons bounce in the OS X dock when starting is not a very accurate method of measuring, nor is it a particularly demanding use case.

edit: I hope you bought an 840 pro and not a plain 840, brah

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

As I said, if you don't actually use your computer for anything demanding I/O-wise, then of course you're not going to notice much of a difference. That doesn't mean that SSD's are "overhyped", it means that you're not utilizing their strengths.

Their strengths are essentially in all drive metrics: sustained read/write speeds and random read/write performance. Sure, when I run a drive benchmark I come up with impressive numbers that easily beat out the Momentus XT, but in terms of day-to-day usage I'm not seeing it.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

but I'd say a lot of people actually do things with their computers and have a use for that performance.

The whole "if you're not seeing it then you're not using your computer" argument works for some things, but it doesn't work here. Most people aren't straining their processors, so the CPU upgrade you cited makes sense. Everyone works their hard drives. An increased random read speed should be massively noticeable in theory, and in practice many people claim that a computer will feel much more responsive with a SSD. Compared with a 5400 RPM drive they're certainly right, but compared to the hybrid drives I'm not so sure in practice. In theory the SSD should still be far superior.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

If you want to notice a difference, try compiling a big C++ project or working with a few 250MB .psd's or something. Or play Eve Online. Trying to judge a drive's performance by how many times app icons bounce in the OS X dock when starting is not a very accurate method of measuring, nor is it a particularly demanding use case.

"Dock bounces" isn't a great way to measure speed increase, which I think I mentioned before, but it proves a point based on a metric that everyone goes through multiple times per day. As far as more demanding uses go, I recently recoded the audio from a few hours' worth of video. I've done this before with the Momentus XT. Loading the video sources into the program takes a little while but doesn't strain the processor at all; I assume it's reading through the file. Maybe the program is poorly coded, but loading the files for encoding was barely any faster. Once again, I was surprised and a bit disappointed.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

edit: I hope you bought an 840 pro and not a plain 840, brah

This is an 840. According to benchmarks the 840 Pro has a faster write speed, but the read speeds are pretty much equal. It has lower durability, but I just offload some tasks to my external HDDs (torrents, writing encoded videos, etc.). However, another part of the reason I created this thread is because I'm curious as to whether the 840 truly is worse off than other drives (despite its benchmarking results), and if so, by how much. I've compared notes with another 840 owner who had a Momentus XT and he feels that the 840 is still much faster, but he was also pretty big on the benchmarking results (he also had a Corsair Neutron in the mix).

[synaesthetic]

Just from reading what you wrote there I'd say that much of your use cases are going to be sequential reads and writes. Fluff's pretty dead-on when he says your use case doesn't really fit an SSD (unless you're one of the "just have to have it" folks, which you don't appear to be).

I have a small 120GB Intel 320 SSD and most of the time I don't really know the difference between it and a hard drive. But when I do something that SSDs excel at--building stuff from source, compiling code for my classes, editing giant images--that it really starts to shine.

Of course, there's also the whole "boots in 12 seconds from cold shutdown" which is nice at least for bragging rights since I usually just let my desktop sleep.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Loading the video sources into the program takes a little while but doesn't strain the processor at all; I assume it's reading through the file. Maybe the program is poorly coded, but loading the files for encoding was barely any faster. Once again, I was surprised and a bit disappointed.

That's a linear read right there. You'll probably never notice a difference between an SSD and a decent HDD in linear read performance, both are so fast that even programs that do fairly trivial things with the data will slow the operation down. Many laptops are also limited to SATA-150 for power saving reasons, which means you might very well be maxing out the bus. Not sure if the Macbooks do this, though.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

This is an 840. According to benchmarks the 840 Pro has a faster write speed, but the read speeds are pretty much equal. It has lower durability, but I just offload some tasks to my external HDDs (torrents, writing encoded videos, etc.).

Benchmarking SSD speeds is sort of academic for most desktop users, you're never going to notice a difference versus another SSD unless you're running something like a heavily loaded database server on it. However, the non-pro 840 uses a different (cheaper per bit stored) flash type than everything else, which is why it's got a predicted shorter lifetime and lower write speeds than most other SSD's. Have fun with your new and not-yet-tested-in-real-usecases technology, and let me know in two years or so how it worked out for you.

The 840 Pro on the other hand is pretty much the best SSD you can buy right now, excluding insanely expensive ricer models. Of course, most users would do just as well with whatever Sandforce-based thing that happens to be cheapest this week, but if you're spending $200+ USD you might as well get the best.


I reiterate: if you're not seeing a difference between the Momentus XT and a real SSD, it's because you're not actually doing anything demanding.

[Vexx]

Given the other recommendations on this thread and that, for me, TheFluff is 2 for 2 on prior recommendations (headphones and mike), I'm calling my research done at this point (waits for the next contract check to arrive).

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

That's a linear read right there. You'll probably never notice a difference between an SSD and a decent HDD in linear read performance, both are so fast that even programs that do fairly trivial things with the data will slow the operation down.

Why wouldn't you notice a difference? Based on benchmarking the maximum read speed for the SSD is around 450 MB/s (on my system), whereas the XT is something like 60 MB/s. That's a huge difference.

How about a different usage scenario: my email database. At 11 GB it's not huge, but it is sizable. Was it wrong to expect a large speed increase there?

Originally Posted by TheFluff

Many laptops are also limited to SATA-150 for power saving reasons, which means you might very well be maxing out the bus. Not sure if the Macbooks do this, though.

I'm not sure. I'm about 100 MB/s short compared with Samsung's specifications, as are other MacBook Pro users running similar or newer machines. However, the link is established at 6 gbps, and there's a clear speed difference compared with the older systems that were only SATA II (3 gbps) and SATA (1.5 gbps) capable.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

Have fun with your new and not-yet-tested-in-real-usecases technology, and let me know in two years or so how it worked out for you.

The warranty is three years; if there's an issue, Samsung will hear about it first

Originally Posted by TheFluff

I reiterate: if you're not seeing a difference between the Momentus XT and a real SSD, it's because you're not actually doing anything demanding.

If this is true, then I say again that SSDs are overhyped. In theory and benchmarks, SSDs offer much faster sequential read/write and much faster random read/write performance compared with HDDs, which means that everyone should see a benefit in practically everything that they do. Yet based on what you've said so far, it sounds as if the only people who should benefit are servers or people who utilize large databases. That sounds pretty specialized. Even though many people are parroting the claim that a SSD is the best upgrade you can do for your computer, I would have to disappointedly conclude that SSDs offer little benefit to the average consumer over a SSHD.

My hope is that the 840 is just inferior to the 840 Pro and that higher-end SSDs offer a much faster experience. But again, going by the benchmark numbers, the 840 essentially matches the 840 Pro for everything except for sequential write speed (which is about half the speed of the 840 Pro) and random write speed (which is about two thirds the speed of the 840 Pro) - write speeds not being particularly important for average use.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Why wouldn't you notice a difference? Based on benchmarking the maximum read speed for the SSD is around 450 MB/s (on my system), whereas the XT is something like 60 MB/s. That's a huge difference.

60 MB/s is a lot of data. You're not going to do anything nontrivial with that kind of I/O unless you have an extremely optimized program. Unpacking a RAR archive for example is hard to do at over 80-100MB/s even on a ramdisk; the disk read speed isn't the bottleneck at that point.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

How about a different usage scenario: my email database. At 11 GB it's not huge, but it is sizable. Was it wrong to expect a large speed increase there?

Expecting a speed increase in what, exactly? Searching in it should definitely be faster, but it depends on what you're searching for. Subject lines and senders etc are probably kept indexed and might not be noticeably affected. Full email bodies probably aren't indexed though.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'm not sure. I'm about 100 MB/s short compared with Samsung's specifications, as are other MacBook Pro users running similar or newer machines. However, the link is established at 6 gbps, and there's a clear speed difference compared with the older systems that were only SATA II (3 gbps) and SATA (1.5 gbps) capable.

Even if the controller itself is capable of SATA600, it might be "throttled" for power saving reasons.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

If this is true, then I say again that SSDs are overhyped. In theory and benchmarks, SSDs offer much faster sequential read/write and much faster random read/write performance compared with HDDs, which means that everyone should see a benefit in practically everything that they do. Yet based on what you've said so far, it sounds as if the only people who should benefit are servers or people who utilize large databases. That sounds pretty specialized. Even though many people are parroting the claim that a SSD is the best upgrade you can do for your computer, I would have to disappointedly conclude that SSDs offer little benefit to the average consumer over a SSHD.

Way to not read my posts, I guess, because that's not at all what I said. Your stated use cases (which pretty much boil down to opening office-type desktop applications) basically involve nothing I/O-heavy at all. Of course an SSD isn't going to be that huge for you!

People that tend to see a huge benefit from SSD's include, but are not limited to:
- players of certain games that do a lot of loading/unloading of levels etc or just take a long time to load (EVE Online is a particularly offensive example)
- software developers of all kinds (especially ones that work on C/C++ projects or web developers working on database-heavy applications)
- graphic designers (try loading a 250MB psd into Photoshop CS5 and you will understand)
- video and sound producers (although this depends on what kind of work they're doing)

Basically, people who normally have to wait for their computers. If you don't feel like you have to wait for your computer in your day-to-day usage of it, congratulations: you have a computer that's Fast Enough and you don't need to upgrade.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

My hope is that the 840 is just inferior to the 840 Pro and that higher-end SSDs offer a much faster experience.

It's inferior allright, but probably not noticeably so. At least not to you.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

60 MB/s is a lot of data. You're not going to do anything nontrivial with that kind of I/O unless you have an extremely optimized program. Unpacking a RAR archive for example is hard to do at over 80-100MB/s even on a ramdisk; the disk read speed isn't the bottleneck at that point.

So what is the bottleneck? Monitoring normal disk read rates outside of benchmarking programs, the XT wouldn't go much over 5 MB/s; I've seen the 840 go to 18 MB/s. I'm not disputing the notion that a program's sloppy coding can create a bottleneck of its own, but faster base resources should result in a speed boost regardless.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

Expecting a speed increase in what, exactly? Searching in it should definitely be faster, but it depends on what you're searching for. Subject lines and senders etc are probably kept indexed and might not be noticeably affected. Full email bodies probably aren't indexed though.

I'm referring to program loading, not searching.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

Even if the controller itself is capable of SATA600, it might be "throttled" for power saving reasons.

Interesting, but shouldn't the fact that my benchmark speeds aren't terribly far off from Samsung's advertised speeds indicate that this isn't the case?

Originally Posted by TheFluff

Way to not read my posts, I guess, because that's not at all what I said. Your stated use cases (which pretty much boil down to opening office-type desktop applications) basically involve nothing I/O-heavy at all. Of course an SSD isn't going to be that huge for you!

I'm reading your posts, and I'm saying again that SSDs over overhyped for the average user and in light of the existence of SSHDs if that's the case. Look, a SSD should theoretically theoretically beat out anything with mechanical parts, period. I'm not just talking about sustained read/write speeds (which seems to be the focus of your points), but "seek times" (random read/write) and overall responsiveness. And for all of those laptop users upgrading from a 5400 RPM drive, it is huge. It might even be pretty big for users coming from a 7200 RPM drive.

The issue I'm bringing up is that, despite benchmark results and common opinion, it doesn't seem to be that much faster than a SSHD. Given that the cheapest SSDs are close to triple the price of a SSHD with equivalent storage space, that is huge.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

Basically, people who normally have to wait for their computers. If you don't feel like you have to wait for your computer in your day-to-day usage of it, congratulations: you have a computer that's Fast Enough and you don't need to upgrade.

I am waiting for my computer. In cases where I have to wait for minutes to hours I can see where the bottleneck is (usually the processor or poor coding as a program begins to hang). In cases where the wait is seconds to a minute I can't easily see where the bottleneck is, but this usually relates to program loading and hence should be a disk access issue. An SSD should speed that up. And again, compared to a 5400 RPM drive, it does. Compared to a Momentus XT, the difference is surprisingly small.

Even though your choice of wording sounds like disagreement, what you're saying is in agreement with me. SSDs are faster overall? Yep. How about for the average user? You seem to be saying that they're not. That goes against benchmarks and conventional wisdom of flash memory vs. magnetic and mechanical storage, but that's fine. It matches up with what I'm seeing. So then I suppose you'd agree that a SSHD is the better choice for an average user, at least given current costs and performance. This isn't about bashing SSDs (although grounding them to reality is part of it), but about pointing out just how good SSHDs seem to be.