Seagate Hybrid 1TB HDD

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Wicked1, May 2, 2013.

  1. Wicked1 macrumors 68040

    Wicked1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #1
  2. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
  3. Wicked1 thread starter macrumors 68040

    Wicked1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #3
    Because right now I am still using my Optical Drive
     
  4. chrisvee macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Location:
    Winnipeg, Canada
    #4
    I use the 750GB Hybrid in my 2010 13" as my primary drive. It runs pretty well. Although, everything runs better than the stock 5400RPM drive that I had beforehand. Did notice my battery take quite a hit though.
     
  5. Zeov macrumors 6502a

    Zeov

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Location:
    Odense
    #5
    for what? surely in 2013 there must be a way around.
     
  6. hellfire88 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    #6
    The newer 1TB Hybrid drive spins slower at 5400RPM yet has the same 8GB SSD as the older 750GB (7200RPM) version, so it may be slower than the older 750GB version?. But I think the 1TB hybrid drive has 2x 500GB platters (higher areal density) so not sure if that compensate for the slower rpm speed.
     
  7. Wicked1 thread starter macrumors 68040

    Wicked1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #7
    Yeah I was wondering that myself, seeing as thought the new drive dropped to 5400rpm, but I wonder why Seagate did this, only because I have the 500GB SSHD with 4GB NAND and 7200 RPM, then they made the 750GB with 8GB and 7200, then dropped to 5400 on the 1TB but kept 8GB NAND, there is no specific explanation on their site either.
     
  8. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #8
    The new drive is cheaper than the XTs, while the increased density should just make up for the decrease in RPM.

    Seagate will stop making 2.5" 7200RPM hard drives by the end of the year, because they think people prefer hybrids, but that is a fallacy because it does not necessarily apply when the hybrid's RPM is lower.

    It is not clear if they will also stop making 2.5" 7200RPM hybrids.

    After owning both generations of Momentus XT, I am now using a normal Travelstar 7K1000 because I think it's better for the important stuff than a 5400RPM hybrid in my case.
     
  9. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #9
    After barely a couple months, I already almost run out of space on my 7K1000.

    Given my previous experience with a horrible regular 5400RPM 1TB, I'm not keen on going for the Aquarius.

    I will take a bigger 7200RPM or even a bigger hybrid at only 5400RPM with at least 500GB platters, whichever comes first. 12.5mm is OK.

    I will be skipping the 1TB WD Black hybrid because I should already be upgrading to more capacity.

    And I would have filled a 960GB SSD. It was a good call not getting one.
     
  10. Mr MM macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #10
    I would go for the 750gb xt models, they are faster. the platter density cant off set the difference
     
  11. Higney85 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    #11
    From a first hand account in a 750GB "standard" HD, 16GB ram, early 2011 MBP.


    I upgraded the ram (4->16GB) and have to run parallels for work (need W7 for some applications). It was a bit slow. I went to the seagate 750 XT. I had an obvious speed increase when using just Mac (10.8.3) but when W7 was also running I found even MORE beach balls and slower performance than the stock (standard) HD. So, just Mac is a definite improvement, but with a second OS I have issues. I think the HD is moving the "common" programs from both OS's and its just not big enough. I'm now waiting for an M500 @ 960GB SSD to combat the issue. I'm not a gamer or heavy user, but it would seem (at least from my uses) that the "hybrid" isn't ideal for common apps that are massive is size.

    If you are just using Mac, the hybrid is an upgrade, if using multiple OS's or massive programs, not so much.

    Personal opinion only. As a disclaimer, I also still need the optical drive. A large SSD seems to be the ticket. I need more than 480/512GB offerings so the large SSD will be the ticket.
     
  12. Mr MM macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #12
    you described the main flaw with those hybrid drives, not enough cache. The 1st series was plagued with issues, the controller didnt work properly and so forth.

    In the end for me a SSD is much more worth the trouble, currently the m500 960gb is impossible to find, I know some people that got in the 1st and only available day, they are very happy

    Also never fill up a SSD, it becomes as sluggish as a HDD, if you can leave unallocated space, its also a plus
     
  13. cube, May 3, 2013
    Last edited: May 3, 2013

    cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #13
    It is enough cache to be useful, even when 4GB. But I don't think it's enough cache for virtualisation at lower RPM.

    The first generation had some small firmware issues that were resolved after a few months. It is a great drive.

    I don't trust SSDs. I think they are more trouble than hard drives in reality.
     
  14. Mr MM macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #14
    its not a matter of trust or not, its MTBF ratings are much lower than HDD, its all about the controllers and who makes a good one

    Still the cache as I said and as you said is too low, its not worth the expanse, if 1tb is needed go with the travelstar, if not the 750gb xt is faster
     
  15. Higney85 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    #15
    True and true. @ 520ish GB I'm a happy camper (just installed). A "fusion drive" setup could work great, but if you need an optical drive (while mobile) the price rises a digit. My wife's MBP suffered the issue of maxing out at SSD with a result of mass texts (evidently i'm household IT)and a 256GB vs 128 calmed the issue. It's all about price per space. SSD is where it's at IF you can match the price.

    Hybrid= bandaid.
     
  16. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #16
    There's a lot of infant mortality with SSDs, not good.

    There's quite a bit of crappy firmware. It's not just about the controller.

    We don't know what happens when the flash part of a hybrid fails, but everything is written to the platters in any case.

    When an SSD is dead, it is dead.

    I will eventually put in an SSD when they prove to be reliable, but I will NEVER want Fusion or SRT.
     
  17. Higney85 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    #17
    Go full steam (SSD), you can keep a backup (old HD) for the if/when of things going south. A cloned HD (bad news scenario) plus a TM backup should work well. Regular HD's fail too.
     
  18. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #18
    There are no affordable SSDs with the needed capacity.

    I want to avoid the trouble of restoring a backup. I know hard disks fail, but I see too many people with SSD troubles to reach the same level of trust as for a hard disk.

    Theory and reality are not the same.
     
  19. Higney85 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    #19
    All I read from this is a risk/reward decision, and that's all yours.

    Disclaimer, I'm a "go big or go home" guy, so I'm a horrible judge.
     
  20. Mr MM macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #20
    again actually it all depends on the controller, if its inherently flawed like sandforce, which takes about 80% of market in terms of products launched its not going to go well.

    if you are going for the m500, samsung 840 pro or the intel sc3700 thats a very different story, the m4 was other venerable and with long life span, much better than any crap that sandforce made, very low failure rate, or get the 470, there are several SSDs out there that are good.

    I had my SSD fail 3 times, and had lost the count of how many HDDs I lost. In the same time period I think there were 2 or 3. Cost for the SSD? shipping it was RMAed. Cost of the HDD? price of new ones.

    You should read storage review more, simple those write figures are usually at lower part of the curve, they have a 470 that has been hammered way beyond the nand endurance point

    and btw if the SSD is dead, you actually can remove the files that are dead, specially in the case of nand endurance
     
  21. cube, May 3, 2013
    Last edited: May 4, 2013

    cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #21
    I think right now, the only consumer SSDs I might trust are Intel with an Intel controller.

    Not so sure about the other 2 candidates.

    There's another potential candidate I never looked at.

    I would also have to check about Intel SSD with Marvell controller and Intel firmware.
     
  22. Mr MM macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #22
    there are no consumer intel ssds with intel controllers.
     
  23. tmanto02 macrumors 65816

    tmanto02

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #23
    I'm surprised you can fill such large drives so quickly. Is it all movies?

    I went from 870gb on my old computer to 256gb on the new. I just became smarter with my data management and it is enough on board storage for me.
     
  24. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #24
    I have no movies or music on my hard drive.

    ----------

    At some point there were.
     
  25. Mr MM macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #25
    the last one was the 320 2 years ago, but nothing happens in 2 years. It also was a derivative design of the x25-m and still sata 2
     

Share This Page