After a recent rebuild several months ago, I chose the Samsung 250gig EVO SSD as a dedicated FSX/P3D drive. The performance was exceptional UNTIL I began to run out of disk space because of the duplicity in addons for FSX and P3D. I considered upgrading to a 500gig SSD, but the cost just didn't justify it. I recently read an article on SSHD's Hybrid in a computer mag so thought I'd give it a try - $A98 for a 1TB Seagate SSHD wasn't going to break me. I bought a 2.5 inch size for my desktop, with the reasoning that if it didn't work I could always update my Laptop hardrive.

 

After installing, in the now vacant Samsung SSD bay I copied over my FSX and P3D Folders, added several more addons that were on hold because of disk space. I have flown about 10 hours on the new drive with FSX and P3D and have to say they the performance loss is negligible, I am more that happy with the performance. Any future disk upgrades will now include  the 2.5" SSHD.

 

I thought others who were considering the SSHD Hybrid for FSX/P3D might be interested in my experience.

Thanks for the info, Steve. I was looking to get an SSHD. My 2TB HDD is running out of room  . How's performance compared to a 7200RPM HDD? 

Thanks for the info, Steve. I was looking to get an SSHD. My 2TB HDD is running out of room  . How's performance compared to a 7200RPM HDD? 

The Seagate is only 5400rpm but benchmark figures say it beats the stock 7200 and then some, after using it I'm inclined to agree, although it only offers 8gb SSD it  allocates data to  programs  to improve read/write when they begin to choke the system. There are some 128ssd 1Tb hybrids available, but they are priced accordingly. I'll keep this until pure SSD's  increase capacity and come down in price.  Here's a good read on the Seagate

 

http://www.pcgameware.co.uk/reviews/storage-hddssd/toshiba-mq01abd100h-2-5-1tb-hybrid-sshd-review/

Thanks for that article! Just what I was looking for.

It doesn't really affect performance that much, it's more down to loading times

 

 

The Seagate is only 5400rpm but benchmark figures say it beats the stock 7200 and then some, after using it I'm inclined to agree, although it only offers 8gb SSD

 

Two observations - RPM is almost meaningless these days, and certainly so when comparing different drive models or generations. Areal density has substantially increased so a drive rotating at "only" 5400 rpm can beat a less dense 10K in transfer speed.

 

Second, if it's only got 8GB of flash storage as a cache and you're not noticing much of a difference, then you're likely serving most things out of the Windows cache. You might as well just get a decent hard drive.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Great news thanks for the review and I'm placing an order for one in the coming weeks

Im in Thailand where seagate is manufactured and they have a 2TB SSHD

 

http://www.lazada.co.th/seagate-hybrid-sshd-hdi-20-tb-gb-sataiii-7200-64mb-313465.html

 

7200 3.5

$135

Two observations - RPM is almost meaningless these days, and certainly so when comparing different drive models or generations. Areal density has substantially increased so a drive rotating at "only" 5400 rpm can beat a less dense 10K in transfer speed.

 

Second, if it's only got 8GB of flash storage as a cache and you're not noticing much of a difference, then you're likely serving most things out of the Windows cache. You might as well just get a decent hard drive.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

Thanks Luke,

 

Whatever causes it - I'm happy with. Perhaps others will consider your post when they read mine, only passing on my experience.

 

steve

I have flown about 10 hours on the new drive with FSX and P3D and have to say they the performance loss is negligible

Performance loss in what way if I may ask?

 

I'd pick SSHD over HDD any day of the week. It improves initial load time loads vs HDD. As long as it's dedicated for FSX addons only and not the OS. But still SSD over both. For photo scenery texture loading at high LOD mainly and the even quicker initial load time secondary. And SSD for Main FSX install (+OS) all the time. To avoid stutter when some sound files are loading. (Not gonna explain why you want the OS on a SSD)

 

FPS wise there's NO difference. 10 year old HDD Vs fastest SSD today wont make a scoobydoo to FPS. But if you have OS or main FSX install on the 10 year old HDD you'd get more stutters.

Here's some disk performance tests in FSX:

and

An SSHD can at worst case act like a lousy HDD. At best case scenario (all you want from it is in the SSD cache) it will act like a lousy SSD. Normally it's somewhere between.

 

Edit: 3rd I'd pick SSD due to no defragging necessary. 

Performance loss in what way if I may ask?

 

I'd pick SSHD over HDD any day of the week. It improves initial load time loads vs HDD. As long as it's dedicated for FSX addons only and not the OS. But still SSD over both. For photo scenery texture loading at high LOD mainly and the even quicker initial load time secondary. And SSD for Main FSX install (+OS) all the time. To avoid stutter when some sound files are loading. (Not gonna explain why you want the OS on a SSD)

 

FPS wise there's NO difference. 10 year old HDD Vs fastest SSD today wont make a scoobydoo to FPS. But if you have OS or main FSX install on the 10 year old HDD you'd get more stutters.

Here's some disk performance tests in FSX:

and

An SSHD can at worst case act like a lousy HDD. At best case scenario (all you want from it is in the SSD cache) it will act like a lousy SSD. Normally it's somewhere between.

 

Edit: 3rd I'd pick SSD due to no defragging necessary. 

 

 

There's always someone who has to rain on the parade. I am happy with the results I am getting YES it is diminished over the pure SSD. Was I not aware that this would occur? Yes I was. Am I happy with what I have done? Yes I am. Did I make this post for others to judge for themselves? Yes I did. Am I sorry I wanted to share this with others. No I'm not.

 

I would like to thank you for posting these performance  comparison figures so that others   have further information to decide on whether it's a viable consideration.