hdd help needed

hey i own a macbook pro late 2011
and iam mad about the speed of the hdd
(benchmark 74.8 write 78.7 read)
it is the stock 5200 rpm 500 gb drive
now i want to replace it with a seagate 5200 rpm 500 gb sshd
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_sshd_thin_review_gen3_500gb_st500lm000
wil this improve alot?
mater of fact when i copy and paste and watch a youtube video at the same time the video feed wil pause for a sec
and booting is a hell haha
thx for feed back
p.s i wikl buy a ssd lateron but not atm

 

@apple tech geek it will boot noticeably faster, and some programs will launch fast - but copying speed will remain the same. 256GB SSD will cost you about the same as that SSHD.

 

yea but wil think about getting a 128 gb ssd and using the 500 as external but is read speed alot higher on a sshd? since it has a 8 gb chace (just reboot like 50 times so it learns to safe these sections)

 

@apple tech geek SSHD has the same read speed as HDD except for its cache; for routine file transfer operations it will perform absolutely the same as HDD. There will probably be some improvement in r/w since your HDD is old model, but it will be hard to notice. You can get 256GB MLC SSD for $55 - while cheapest 128GB MLC will cost you $33 or so. Make sure to avoid cheap TLC SSDs - they heavily rely on caching, and once you've exceeded cache size (8GB typically, sometimes even smaller) - speeds drop to HDD levels.

 

i live in the netherlands for 128 gb it is around 60 euro

 

@apple tech geek here's 256GB MLC for $55 and 128GB MLC for $30 with free international shipping; the latter will require adapter - they start from $2-something, I recommend this one.

 

apple tech geek, Starlight5 has some excellent advice for you.

Don't settle for an SSHD - you'll be sorely disappointed (have had one too many crap out on clients and even though they're supposed to keep working without the SSD cache - they don't - well, the ones I've seen didn't).

Search for the article by Anand Lal Shimpi while he was still steering Anandtech - the one about how much SSD cache is needed for a satisfying experience - 256GB or bigger.

At that size - just do an SSD (only) setup - use the HDD in an external enclosure for those big archived projects and files.

Max out the RAM and put in the biggest SSD you can (OP it too, by 33%...) - that will make you forget about 8GB SSD 'cache' that is variable in performance, not consistent in what it accelerates and has a bad habit of dying (yeah; even SLC cache of such small capacity...) right when you'll need your system most.

Good luck.

 

Would you have it any other way? I don't know, my main desktop with a 256GB SSD doesn't feel much faster/better than my two systems with five year old 90GB SSDs.

 

I'll admit I don't know why or how you're quoting me above?

But depending on the specific 90GB and 256GB SSD's in question, and, the platforms and workloads they're used for, I could see them 'feeling' similar.

~240GB was when SSD's (with OP'ing @ 50% back then) became 'real' to me. Before that, my vRaptors (desktops, of course) were the storage kings, overall. Responsiveness (of the SSD's) in no way overshadowed the actual work the vRaptors could chew through - even while they were being loud about it...) before then. After Intel hinted in a video how they could get 10x the 'real world' performance by OP'ing... well, I've never looked back - except at the $$$$$$$$$$$ I've spent upgrading all the workstations to SSD's.