SSD hard drive Vs HDD

[Viktor]

Which one is better

[Placenta Salad]

There isn't really a debate here. HDDs are an obsolete method of storage now. If you are gaming, you absolutely need to invest in an SDD for your computer and ideally, install your operating system to an SSD as well. Even if you don't need an SDD because you're only ever playing something like Terraria, you might as well buy one to play Terraria on, anyway.

A lot of modern games, such as Forza Motorsport, Cyberpunk 2077 and Starfield to give a few examples, require SSDs for them to be playable without stuttering or audio issues, etc.

You only need a large capacity HDD if you want to save your recorded 4K resolution gameplay to upload to a YouTube channel that nobody really knows about, or just for miscellaneous programs and apps that don't need to be taking up space on your main operating system drive or your gaming drive.

Even with all of my video games on my Steam library, I see very little point to buying a cheap 4TB+ HDD to install games onto. A 2TB SSD dedicated for gaming purposes should be more than enough for anybody, as how many video games do you really need installed at once?

[Mad Scientist]

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

There isn't really a debate here. HDDs are an obsolete method of storage now.

There's a massive difference for 6TB+ HDDs and SSDs for price, and for the most part tons of games work perfectly on HDDs where SSDs are not necessary. The pure volume of storage of HDDs is a huge advantage especially for the cost.

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

If you are gaming, you absolutely need to invest in an SDD for your computer

Strictly depends on the games the user wants to play.
Even RUST loads quickly on HDDs with good to great specs.

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

and ideally, install your operating system to an SSD as well.

SSD or NVME for the OS is highly preferable, that part is true.

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

A lot of modern games, such as Forza Motorsport, Cyberpunk 2077 and Starfield to give a few examples, require SSDs for them to be playable without stuttering or audio issues, etc.

Most of the games that "required" an SSD I ran flawlessly on HDDs, except for Starfield, that absolutely required an SSD which I put on an NVME due to the highly unusual read demands.

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

You only need a large capacity HDD if you want to save your recorded 4K resolution gameplay to upload to a YouTube channel that nobody really knows about, or just for miscellaneous programs and apps that don't need to be taking up space on your main operating system drive or your gaming drive.

Multi-Purpose, and a lot of games are fine with HDDs. Helps when people don't run FX-6300 - FX-8350 CPUs

[Eagle_of_Fire]

As a person who built his computer to last a long time due to budget constraints (at the time anyways), it is running toward 8 years old now and still going strong and showing zero sign of stopping any time soon. I guarantee you that an SSD trying to do the same thing would not have lasted this long. Not when I bought everything in this computer about 8 years ago, anyways.

I also have a deep hatred for the memes of just laughing at the thought of downloading 200 gigs for a game every other day just because you delete one to get a new one installed. All it does is increase the need for more internet infrastructure globally, and I was thinking this way way before environmental concerns were a thing. The more servers you need, the higher the effects on global warming (or whatever you want to call it these days) for extremely low yields IMHO. I download the game once, it stay there more than likely forever. End of story.

So I'm not going to try to force you to do anything... But it is not like HDD don't work anymore, like it was previously mentioned in this thread. If anything it work very well. You just need to evaluate your needs and pick the right tool for what you want to do.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

There isn't really a debate here. HDDs are an obsolete method of storage now. If you are gaming, you absolutely need to invest in an SDD for your computer and ideally, install your operating system to an SSD as well. Even if you don't need an SDD because you're only ever playing something like Terraria, you might as well buy one to play Terraria on, anyway.

That depends. Very few devs tie anything but loading to disk transfers.
Its why very few games actually list SSD's as a requirement. But you know what modern games ARE requiring a tonne of ? Storage space. and dollar for dollar you'll get more storage capacity from HDDs than SSDs. and the speed isn't terrible. You wait maybe an extra 1-=20 seconds here and there.

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

A lot of modern games, such as Forza Motorsport, Cyberpunk 2077 and Starfield to give a few examples, require SSDs for them to be playable without stuttering or audio issues, etc.

And most would call that shoddy or lazy coding on the developer's part.

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

You only need a large capacity HDD if you want to save your recorded 4K resolution gameplay to upload to a YouTube channel that nobody really knows about, or just for miscellaneous programs and apps that don't need to be taking up space on your main operating system drive or your gaming drive.

Ironically recording is one of the applications , where you want and pretty much need to use SSDs. For archivuing recordings.. yeah you want HDD's.

Publicado originalmente por Placenta Salad:

Even with all of my video games on my Steam library, I see very little point to buying a cheap 4TB+ HDD to install games onto. A 2TB SSD dedicated for gaming purposes should be more than enough for anybody, as how many video games do you really need installed at once?

COst...
People on tight budgets have to make tough decisions when building rigs.

[Administration]

im running 3 2TB Gen 4 NVME drives in RAID0 single volume and im getting read speeds of 22.5gb a second. regardless of what game it is, everything loads close to instantly.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Administration:

im running 3 2TB Gen 4 NVME drives in RAID0 single volume and im getting read speeds of 22.5gb a second. regardless of what game it is, everything loads close to instantly.

Not surprising. ABout the only thing faster would be a Ramdrive

[Administration]

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

Publicado originalmente por Administration:

im running 3 2TB Gen 4 NVME drives in RAID0 single volume and im getting read speeds of 22.5gb a second. regardless of what game it is, everything loads close to instantly.

Not surprising. ABout the only thing faster would be a Ramdrive

whos got 6TB of RAM these days? asking for a friend. ;)

[Shinoskay]

Publicado originalmente por Administration:

im running 3 2TB Gen 4 NVME drives in RAID0 single volume and im getting read speeds of 22.5gb a second. regardless of what game it is, everything loads close to instantly.

why raid 0?

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Administration:

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

Not surprising. ABout the only thing faster would be a Ramdrive

whos got 6TB of RAM these days? asking for a friend. ;)

Network Data centres and mainframes/servers

[Administration]

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

Publicado originalmente por Administration:

im running 3 2TB Gen 4 NVME drives in RAID0 single volume and im getting read speeds of 22.5gb a second. regardless of what game it is, everything loads close to instantly.

why raid 0?

RAID0 is the fastest and best configuration for raw performance as it allows combining multiple storage devices to function collectively as one single super volume.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Administration:

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

why raid 0?

RAID0 is the fastest and best configuration for raw performance as it allows combining multiple storage devices to function collectively as one single super volume.

The downside being that it has next to zero error tolerance, and 0 redundancy or fault tolerance.

Basically if one drive gets borked. all the drives get borked. since no drive will have a complete copy of any file.

This why most prefer something like Raid1 which is where the data is mirrored as opposed to striped. You don't get quite the raw performance but you have much more data security and if something borks one drive you can basically just continue using the other drive.

[Administration]

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

Publicado originalmente por Administration:

RAID0 is the fastest and best configuration for raw performance as it allows combining multiple storage devices to function collectively as one single super volume.

The downside being that it has next to zero error tolerance, and 0 redundancy or fault tolerance.

Basically if one drive gets borked. all the drives get borked. since no drive will have a complete copy of any file.

This why most prefer something like Raid1 which is where the data is mirrored as opposed to striped. You don't get quite the raw performance but you have much more data security and if something borks one drive you can basically just continue using the other drive.

raid1 is better suited for high density hdd arrays where speed is not its shining point.

raid0 is better suited for high speed nvme/ssd arrays where anything other than raid0 would be sub-optimal in my opinion.

[ReBoot]

We've long moved past RAID. Software-driven storage arrays are more flexible & supported by every OS worth its salt.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Administration:

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

The downside being that it has next to zero error tolerance, and 0 redundancy or fault tolerance.

Basically if one drive gets borked. all the drives get borked. since no drive will have a complete copy of any file.

This why most prefer something like Raid1 which is where the data is mirrored as opposed to striped. You don't get quite the raw performance but you have much more data security and if something borks one drive you can basically just continue using the other drive.

raid1 is better suited for high density hdd arrays where speed is not its shining point.

raid0 is better suited for high speed nvme/ssd arrays where anything other than raid0 would be sub-optimal in my opinion.

In which case you pray nothing does wrong with any of the drives.

Raid1 is more whenwhen the data is important.
There's also Raid 3 and 4 that more error correction and fault tolerance while being a bit faster than raid1.

Raid1 offers speedboost Plus data security, ease of modification and ease of recovery. I m4ean it's easy to add a new drive to a raid1...not so muchfor a raid0.

or if you're reall have drives to spare you can go witha Raid01

[Administration]

Publicado originalmente por ReBoot:

We've long moved past RAID. Software-driven storage arrays are more flexible & supported by every OS worth its salt.

what do you mean by more flexible?

i tried doing a search for "software-driven storage arrays" and nothing came up matching that word for word in google. can you show me an example of what you are talking about?