Cheapest HDD/SSD

vbimport

#1

I need a new drive around the 500GB mark. What’s the best and cheapest place to buy from in the UK. I don’t really want to spend much more than £100, it’s for gaming so needs to be reasonably fast.

Thanks


#2

That’s a strange question. A cheap 500GB drive has to be extremely slow. There’s no cheap “reasonably fast” 500GB drive on the market yet. You either need to spend far more, or get a 120GB drive instead if your priority is speed for gaming.


#3

We can always count on Ken for hyperbole… Please define extremely slow.


#4

Will this replacement drive be the only one in the PC?
If so then you may want to consider a Hybrid drive.
A Hybrid drive is an HDD with an amount of NAND (Flash Memory) as a cache for speeding up frequently used files.

This works very well for the OS, but I doubt it will make a huge difference if this was to be used as a second drive for installing games to.

Check out this UK retailer for prices and availability. There are many such drives within your budget.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=14&subid=1894


#5

[QUOTE=Stereodude;2704431]We can always count on Ken for hyperbole… Please define extremely slow.[/QUOTE]

Based on reviews of the leading storage websites.


#6

Toshiba has a Q series that is 149.99USD for a 256gb SSD. That’s cheap.:wink:


#7

[QUOTE=alan1476;2704523]Toshiba has a Q series that is 149.99USD for a 256gb SSD. That’s cheap.;)[/QUOTE]

Right, 250GB or 256GB SSDs can be good replacements for high-performance HDDs.

Though I think 120-128GB SSD makes far more sense for people accustomed to HDD prices. US$50 lower would mean little to rich people and those who buy Corsair case and spend thousands on multiple liquid coolers (and that includes me as well), but 2x more space means so much less than 1000x faster IOPS at about the same cost.


#8

Maybe the better compromise would be to spend a little bit more and get a 240-256Gb SSD for OS and gaming(which would fall around 100 pounds if UK prices are similar to US), and get a 500Gb green/blue drive for backup(roughly another 30-37 pounds).


#9

SSHD makes sense when there is one bay for HDD/SSD only or when the user wants to buy and manage only one drive. It’s always cheaper and faster to have one HDD plus one SSD than to have SSHD. Comparison is difficult because what SSHD has inside for buffer or SSD is very tiny compared to the amount of NAND SSD has.

Prices vary wildly among countries. Samsung 1TB EVO price in South Korea with 10% VAT included is US$800. US-based newegg.com’s price is at least US$200 lower. UK computer part prices tend to be much higher, but most Western European nations force too much VAT-like tax on computer parts. Most other English-language countries have similar price structures - including Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Malta, British Caribbean islands, etc., but excluding Hong Kong. That’s why it’s good to add “UK” or “US” or “Russia” in the thread title.


#10

[QUOTE=Kenshin;2704519]Based on reviews of the leading storage websites.[/QUOTE]No, how many MB/sec STR is “extremely slow”?


#11

[QUOTE=Stereodude;2704572]No, how many MB/sec STR is “extremely slow”?[/QUOTE]

The same leading review websites typically claimed “extremely fast” speeds when speed differences between the fastest drives and the slowest drives tested for comparison were something like 5% or 10%. Most of those adjectives were added not necessarily because they were fast, but because they were 10x more expensive.

By “extremely slow”, I tend to mean something like 1,000% or 1,000,000%.

New, unfragmented SSHD and HDD drives of the newest generation are able to read and write at under 1,000 IOPS.

I can quote literally thousands of examples where reviewers from each of the very popular tech websites chose to use 1,000 times bigger hyperboles of mine, but that will require hundreds of separate posts.

Here’s the specification of Seagate 500GB SSHD.

â—¦MLC NAND 8GB
â—¦Capacity 500GB at 5,400 RPM
â—¦DRAM Cache 64MB
â—¦SATA 6Gb/s
â—¦Average Data Throughput 100 MB/s
â—¦PC Mark Vantage Average HDD Score: 19,838
â—¦Average Windows 8 Boot Time <10secs
â—¦Seek Average, Read <12ms
â—¦Seek Average, Write <14ms

Here’s MyCE Toshiba 1TB SSHD review published two months ago.

SSHD works like HDD, not SSD, though a little faster than conventional HDD. A Toshiba 1TB SSHD for US$130 may sound cheaper when a Samsung 1TB SSD costs US$580, but a deal on MyCE mentions 3TB conventional HDD for US$100 even including a USB 3.0 case and shipping cost. Since it’s easy to buy 120GB SSD for under US$100, that makes 120GB SSD plus 3TB USB 3.0 HDD for under US$200, a bit higher than £100 (about US$160), but a lot faster and a lot bigger.

Benchmark test speed of unfragmented sequential write speeds of 10GB video files does not really count when the user wants to have one drive only in one system for both booting and storage of data files.


#12

So, you won’t answer the question. Typical… I should have expected nothing less.

I’m pretty sure I’ve figured out your MO on this forum. Make exaggerated and dubious claims with little to no backup or support. Got it…


#13

[QUOTE=Stereodude;2704591]So, you won’t answer the question. Typical… I should have expected nothing less.

I’m pretty sure I’ve figured out your MO on this forum. Make exaggerated and dubious claims with little to no backup or support. Got it…[/QUOTE]

I thought you wanted to read evidences. I can encourage you to read more, and more, for there are unlimited sources and there are going to be even more.

Most of what I said were actually understatements of what SSD could do. Adjecives like “extremely fast” for SSD compared to HDD simply can’t do. Numbers are far more accurate.

I don’t believe one has to be kind towards big established HDD manufacturers just because they have proven methods of marketing and propaganda to distort reality and there are billions of proud users of them.

So I am asking this: Why do reviewers of the largest and most influential websites and magazines use sequential write and read speeds of large files to compare the performances of different SSD and HDD products while they used access times and seek times to compare the performances of different IDE/SATA HDD and Cheetah SCSI HDD drives?


#14

[QUOTE=Kenshin;2704599]Numbers are far more accurate.[/QUOTE]Which must be exactly why you haven’t given any.

Telling me to go read is a total cop out. I’ve read the reviews. I don’t agree with your summary that a hybrid drive is extremely slow. Heck, I wouldn’t call a modern 3.5" 7200RPM HDD extremely slow. Are either as fast as a SSD? nope… Does that make them extremely slow? nope…

You gave a subjective statement and when asked for objective numbers that define your subjective statement you can’t give any… For example, if a SSD booted into Windows 7 in 15 seconds and a HDD took 5 minutes I might also consider the HDD extremely slow. However, there isn’t anywhere near that sort of performance delta in real world usage.


#15

[QUOTE=Stereodude;2704621]Which must be exactly why you haven’t given any.

Telling me to go read is a total cop out. I’ve read the reviews. I don’t agree with your summary that a hybrid drive is extremely slow. Heck, I wouldn’t call a modern 3.5" 7200RPM HDD extremely slow. Are either as fast as a SSD? nope… Does that make them extremely slow? nope…

You gave a subjective statement and when asked for objective numbers that define your subjective statement you can’t give any… For example, if a SSD booted into Windows 7 in 15 seconds and a HDD took 5 minutes I might also consider the HDD extremely slow. However, there isn’t anywhere near that sort of performance delta in real world usage.[/QUOTE]

Alright, you said it yourself. There have been enough, thousands, millions of real-world examples where booting time for SSD was under 10 seconds, under 15 seconds, where booting time for HDD was 10 minutes, 20 minutes, or forever. You are lying if you say you do not know of such “extremely slow” cases for HDD.

What do you call 100 IOPS as compared to 100,000 IOPS? Reasonably slow? Ordinarily slow?

Here’s a typical graph comparing IOPS results:

http://www.8088.net/images/IOps/IOps_mean_comparison_EN.gif

That graph compares the speed of an SSD 1,000% slower than today’s cheapest SSDs (like 840 EVO) against the fastest HDDs.


#16

Show me one such benchmark done by a reputable website, just one where the delta is >10x… Referencing a mythical, anecdotal, extreme corner case where the HDD is 99% fragmented with just about every possible piece of crapware loading at start-up to a clean install on a SSD isn’t exactly apples to apples.

What do you call 100 IOPS as compared to 100,000 IOPS? Reasonably slow? Ordinarily slow?

Here’s a typical graph comparing IOPS results:

http://www.8088.net/images/IOps/IOps_mean_comparison_EN.gif

That graph compares the speed of an SSD 1,000% slower than today’s cheapest SSDs (like 840 EVO) against the fastest HDDs.
Sorry, but IOPs aren’t real world usage for home or enthusiast users. They’re complete synthetic and close to irrelevant in any real world home or enthusiast user’s usage pattern.

Lets try this instead: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/momentus-xt-750gb-review,3223-6.html

Wow! That hybrid drive sure is extremely slow. :rolleyes:


#17

Knock it off guys.
IOPS are calculated from the MB/s and block size. IOPS is not synthetic, IOPS is the amount of transactions that can take place over a period of one second at a given block size, and are 100% relevant.

If you take it that an SSD is fast, then a HDD is slow in comparison.
An SSD can access data more than 100 times faster than an HDD, and throughput at low block sizes (the ones that matter) for a state of art consumer SSD, such as the Samsung 840 EVO or OCZ Vector, then they have over 300 times the throughput. And I do have figures and results to prove it. :wink:

None of this matters in this thread in any case.
The thread creator stated he wanted a capacity of around 500GB and has a budget of £100. He’s not going to get a 500GB SSD for £100.


#18

[QUOTE=Dee;2704644]…
The thread creator stated he wanted a capacity of around 500GB and has a budget of £100. He’s not going to get a 500GB SSD for £100.[/QUOTE]

I implied from some of my previous posts it’s possible to have a 60GB SSD plus a 500GB HDD for £100.

2TB HDD for 66 pounds including VAT, 55 pounds excluding VAT:

64GB SSD for 42 pounds including VAT, 35 pounds excluding VAT:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-019-CR&groupid=701&catid=2104

60GB SSD for 51 pounds including VAT, 42.5 excluding VAT:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-048-CS&groupid=701&catid=2104

500GB HDD costs a little less than 2TB HDD, but there’s no £10 500GB HDD.

Of course, that needs two connectors, two cables, two bays, two times more bolts, and maybe even a little more electricity.


#19

[QUOTE=Dee;2704644]IOPS are calculated from the MB/s and block size. IOPS is not synthetic, IOPS is the amount of transactions that can take place over a period of one second at a given block size, and are 100% relevant.[/quote]Sorry, but IOPS are a 100% synthetic benchmark. They’re like MIPS on a processor, or vertices per second on a graphics card. Sure, they’re actually measured and the IOPS results mean something, but they have limited correlation to how the drive actually performs in actual real world use.

If you take it that an SSD is fast, then a HDD is slow in comparison.
An SSD can access data more than 100 times faster than an HDD, and throughput at low block sizes (the ones that matter) for a state of art consumer SSD, such as the Samsung 840 EVO or OCZ Vector, then they have over 300 times the throughput. And I do have figures and results to prove it. :wink:
And yet the SSD isn’t 300x faster in any real world use. It doesn’t boot into Windows 300x faster. It doesn’t start applications 300x faster. Using IOPS solely as the metric to pick winners and losers or determine “slow” and “fast” is erroneous.

I provided a link to a real world benchmark that shows a hybrid drive is right on the heals of a pure SSD in real world things a user would notice, and is not “extremely slow” as some would try to mislead the OP. And, you can get a 500GB one (or larger) within the OP’s budget.


#20

[QUOTE=Stereodude;2704691]Sorry, but IOPS are a 100% synthetic benchmark. They’re like MIPS on a processor, or vertices per second on a graphics card. Sure, they’re actually measured and the IOPS results mean something, but they have limited correlation to how the drive actually performs in actual real world use.

And yet the SSD isn’t 300x faster in any real world use. It doesn’t boot into Windows 300x faster. It doesn’t start applications 300x faster. Using IOPS solely as the metric to pick winners and losers or determine “slow” and “fast” is erroneous.

I provided a link to a real world benchmark that shows a hybrid drive is right on the heals of a pure SSD in real world things a user would notice, and is not “extremely slow” as some would try to mislead the OP. And, you can get a 500GB one (or larger) within the OP’s budget.[/QUOTE]oh dear :slight_smile:
[B]IOPS = Input/output operations per second[/B]
IOPS is only a measurement.
When you measure a metric, some tools will give you the result in MB/s and IOPS.
Here at Myce we choose to give the MB/s value, as it’s the one that most folks are familiar with. There is nothing synthetic about it, its only an obtained value from a result, regardless if that’s real world or a synthetic benchmark.

The Myce Reality Suite is real world, measured on some special hardware. It gives the result in IOPS and MB/s. As I said, we prefer to show MB/s.