Seagate SSHD with 32GB NAND?

Looks like Seagate is now offering 32GB NAND in their 1TB 2.5" Laptop Thin SSHD drive. Looking for some info on these drives. Are they new? I haven't been able to find a single review on them.

http://www.seagate.com/gb/en/intern...top-solid-state-hybrid-drive/?sku=ST1000LX001

 

It`s a pity you cannot install the entire os on the nand, then games/ect installs go on the hdd, with frequent used files being stored on the nand.

John.

 

That would be ideal if it can be implemented somehow on one drive. Looks like these function the same way as the 8GB Nand model, just with 4x the Nand cache. Looks like some resellers are carrying them but no reviews yet. Here's a post from 3 weeks ago so I assuming these just came out.

https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1447348-seagate-boosts-nand-flash-to-32gb-on-laptop-sshd

 

Nice SSHD, too bad it ain't 2TB or 3TB.

 

This has been done by WD already with a separate 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD in one drive with the Black² : http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-800011.pdf

 

Still less than a tenth of what is required four years ago, let alone today.

Still Seagate.

Still 5400RPM.

No ty...

 

I have older, 8GB nand Seagate. It actually worked, cutting my boot time to less than 30 sec (from over 1 min) but then it seemed to stop working properly after 2 yrs or something. I mean HDD itself still works, but I don't see any speed up, so thinking nand is gone or run out of cycles. And the way it works, by not giving you any control of what inside cache, I don't even know how to test it properly to see if it works. The idea itself is great, especially for drives with little room for storage expansion, but implementation completely sucks IMO.

 

Yeah, this is what concerns me about these drives. Wish they had stuck with their original SLC/7200rpm formula like the Momentus XTs had. Otherwise, Tiller's probably right. I didn't know WD had a drive with a separate SSD portion on one drive with a platter, but it looks like it's been discontinued.

 

You mean this: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-800011.pdf

Thought it's still made?

 

This one actually makes more sense and it's similar to my primary setup: 256 GB msata (120 GB would be enough) and 1GB data HDD. It would be perfect for my older Dell which has no msata port, but by now it should be 2 TB or more, not just 1TB

 

That's the one. I saw it listed as "no longer available" or discontinued from most retailers.

 

It's still available: http://www.amazon.com/Black2-Dual-Drive-WD1001X06XDTL-Model/dp/B00GSJ9X4Q

$207.90. Not the cheapest, but best option if you have an older system with no mSATA slot or dual drives.

 

@HTWingNut 1TB 2.5" SSD costs ~$250, in comparison. That drive was never a good option, due to very high price.

 

At this point in time, maybe so, but 3 years ago it was a bargain.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

I am actually posting this from my laptop running on the new 32GB NAND Seagate SSHD (ST1000LX001) now.
It's a drastic improvement over any 5400rpm HDD.
Program load times are close to SSD speeds... granted I compared it to an old 128GB Crucial M4 running on SATA 2.

For the USD price of this new SSHD, one can get a 480GB or 500GB SSD.
So it really depends on your needs, whether you need more storage space than speed or more speed than storage space.

I have actually posted a review on the ST1000LX001 drive.
As direct linking is probably not allowed, just google for " Seagate 1TB (32GB NAND cache)" & click on the newest search result (it should be within the top 5 results).
Hope this helps.

 

Please, give us a link!

128GB M4 SATAII on which platform (CPU/RAM and O/S)?

What platform are you now running the Seagate on now?

I settled on the 512GB M4 because it gave a noticeable performance boost over the 256GB model in my workloads. The 128GB version was worse than a HDD for me...

What are your normal/daily workloads and workflows with the Seagate? I am almost positive it is nothing in the 'sustained' category?

 

I am using a Lenovo E430
i5-3210M @ 2.5GHz
16GB DDR3L at 1600 MT/s (dual channel)
Crucial M4 128GB with 070H firmware (on SATA 2)
1TB ST1000LX001 (On SATA 3 via drive cabbie)
500GB WD Blue 5400rpm (SATA 2)
Windows 10 for real world tests

I boot to Windows 8.1 to run synthetic tests on the SSHD.
To be honest, my tests are mostly based on light workloads.
The SSHD probably won't fare well in high IOPS scenarios, though it will be fare better than conventional hdds.
I have not tried running VMs on it yet, but it probably will not load VMs & run them as well as a 240GB /256GB SSD.

I hope I don't get banned for this, here goes:
http://en.ocworkbench.com/tech/seagate-1tb-32gb-nand-cache-sshd-review/

 

@ghanz that is to be expected. I still use SSHD as main drive for my RPi2. 7200rpm SSHD with 32GB cache is good thing itself, but took too long for Seagate to implement, while SSDs are getting cheaper and cheaper. I hope they'll find a way to squeeze 4TB in 2.5" 9.5mm form factor some time soon.

 

Thanks for the link. I would have never found it (I was actually looking for an Amazon 'review' or some such).

First, that is a potent (enough) platform (IB) you tested the M4, WD Blue and Seagate SSHD on (Intel Core i5-3210M + 16GB RAM). What this indicates to me is that there will be less differences in the 'real world' testing you did.

For your review to be fair and directly usable to people deciding between the drives tested; all testing (or comparisons) should be made on a single O/S version (latest; Win10x64Pro highly recommended).

And to get an idea of what kind of performance is left on the table, the 480GB SSD's mentioned in the article (at around the same price as the SSHD) should also be tested on the identical O/S install too.

(And with OP'ing too for good measure and while we're at it; go ahead and short-stroke the HDD's too. )

The above is what will give a basis of whether or not an SSHD is worth even $1 more than a HDD. (It's not).

For a ~60% increase in price for a mere 24GB additional nand and negligible* real world performance increase even over a HDD, SSHD's are still best left in the 'don't worry about' pile of (discarded) tech. This is especially true when compared to the over ~2x cost of a plain HDD of the same capacity...

*I say 'negligible' because unless one is constantly rebooting their system, constantly installing software or constantly 'just' launching programs; that is not real world usage (and btw, neither is PCMark 7...).

In a two to twelve hour (or more) window, I may boot up a system once or twice, launch a dozen programs (once or twice) and then settle in to do the 'actual work' I needed to do. Saving mere seconds on those steps is not worth paying 2x more for when the SSHD will not provide significantly better performance than a HDD during the remaining hours...

However, paying even 10x more for an actual SSD is worth it. Because the platform's overall effortlessness from just navigating the O/S to launching your 3rd or 30th program makes the system feel almost like you are launching and using one program at a time.

I do appreciate the time and effort you took in writing your article.

Hope you take the above (hopefully constructive) criticism to make your next one better.

 

Thanks for the constructive feedback
Both the WD & Seagate were tested as secondary storage in the Synthetic tests & PCMark test.
Windows 8.1 x64 running on my M4 SSD hosted the Synthetic tests & PCMark test.
Windows 10 x64 was used for the rest of the tests.
I actually cloned an identical Windows 10 installation onto both the WD & Seagate drives.

The review is written from the POV of laptop hdd users who may want to upgrade to a SSHD.
Adding tests with a SSD would slew the charts (we all know it's faster anyway).

For an user that often runs the same applications (Eg: browser, MS office & etc), this SSHD will speed it up after the 1st launch, and that speedup persists after a reboot (so we know that the NAND cache is not flushed on shutdown).

For workloads that do not reuse data sets, of cos the SSHD won't be effective.
This SSHD would make a lot more sense if it came out 2-3 years ago when NAND prices were much higher.
That said, it's still a big improvement over consumer mechanical hard drives, it's just that the current pricing is a tad too high over the older 8GB NAND model.