Resolved SSD for all data vs. SSD for Windows partition only

I have a laptop that is 500 gb ssd, and it has made things much faster than RAM upgrades, or even the jump to dual and quad core cpus, from my limited experience. I run windows and a partition for my files, on this same drive.

I am shopping for a desktop for wifey, and most of them in my price range have 1 tb hdd. I am seeing in the HP configure your own computer section, that getting a 128 gb SSD with a 1 tb hdd as a second drive, would only be an extra $55.

Now my question is--is putting Windows on a smaller SSD, and the data on an HDD, simply going to create a bottleneck that will not be noticeably faster than just using a 1 TB hdd for everything? I am envisioning the data files on the 1 TB HDD (wife needs a lot more than 128 gigs for data). So I can imagine that opening up and saving files to that hdd would still be the slower pace, but doing things like surfing the next (Windows & browser would be on the SSD) would be a lot faster.

Thoughts?

 

Hi Paul, This laptop is a HP 14S with Intel i5 CPU and 16GB's RAM and the storage is the same as you have stated except my SSD is 120GB C: with 1TB HDD D:
It runs plenty quick enough for me.

 

IMO, 128GB for the boot drive is too small. Yes, technically it will work but operating systems like lots of room to operate in. For example, every time you start Windows, many temporary files are created. That takes up space. The Page File takes up space. Windows Update will temporarily save many files on the drive. Drivers and driver updates consume space. Plus SSD maintenance features (TRIM and wear leveling) use free space to extend the life of the SSD. So I always recommend 250 - 256GB as minimum.

And speaking of Page Files, SSDs and Page Files are ideally suited for each other.

Huh? The wording there is confusing. Bottlenecks slow systems down, not make them "noticeably faster".

Using a hard drive for your data will create a bottleneck. Period. Whether it will be that noticeable or not depends on the data as well as how much RAM is installed AND how much space (specifically, virtual memory) the OS has to operate in. Virtual memory is RAM + Page file.

If you only have 4GB of RAM, for example, that will be a bottleneck. I recommend 8GB minimum. With larger chunks of RAM, the OS will be able to stuff more high priority data into RAM. With less RAM, the OS will be forced to put more higher priority data in the Page File. And even fast SSDs are slower than RAM.

In fact, if the budget allows, I would even go with 16GB. More than 16GB is likely overkill and a waste of your money - unless she is into serious CAD/CAE or something equally demanding.

Ideally, going all SSD is the way to go. If the budget does not allow, then I recommend at least 250-256GB as your boot drive and use that for Windows, all your drivers and all your applications too. If she is not a serious gamer, 256GB will likely and easily hold all her programs. As an example, I have 64-bit W10 Pro, all my drivers, Office 2016 with Outlook 2016, all my security and utility programs, plus all my personal Word documents and Excel spreadsheets too on my 256GB SSD C drive and I still have 138GB free. This is more than enough to let Windows manage my page file (recommended) on that drive too.

You need to determine how much space your wife will truly need. Perhaps a single 500GB SSD is plenty. On this machine I have the aforementioned 256GB SSD as my C drive, and a 500GB SSD as my secondary drive. That secondary drive is used to backup the primary, but it also holds over 3,700 songs I copied from my 600 CD collection. And I still have 165GB of free space left.

Since this will be a desktop, you can always add a hard drive later, or use an external drive.

If budget or data storage space demands dictate getting a HD as your secondary drive, then so be it. But if me, and it was just a budget issue, I would wait until I could build up the budget enough to go all SSD with a healthy chunk of RAM.

As a side note, if this new computer was to be a notebook, there are other significant advantages to going all SSD. SSDs consume less power resulting in longer battery run times. SSDs generate less heat - always a factor in notebooks. And SSDs weigh significantly less - also a factor when lugging around a mobile device. This on top of the fact, even the slowest SSD can run circles around the fastest hard drive - in total silence.

 

Thanks for the feedback. So far, nobody is saying that the SSD for Windows + 1 tb HDD for files, would eliminate the benefit/speed of using all SSD, so I think we'll go with that.

As far as RAM, we'll start out with stock amounts, 8-12 gigs, but the units I'm looking at are upgradable to 16 or even 32. So as time moves on I might upgrade there.

Bill, as far as my comment goes, I'm not sure what is confusing about it:
Now my question is--is putting Windows on a smaller SSD, and the data on an HDD, simply going to create a bottleneck that will not be noticeably faster than just using a 1 TB hdd for everything?

Will just windows on an SSD, and files on the 1 tb hdd, be any faster than just everything on the 1 tb hdd? A bottleneck is "not noticeably faster" at all, as my language indicates. Would using a hdd for my data files eliminate the benefit of using the SSD for windows?

If you don't understand my question there, don't sweat it. It's already been answered. Thanks to all three of you for your responses.

 

Just for the record I did mark it as solved, although if anyone else has any input I'd love to hear it.

 

I did not say it would "eliminate" the benefit. But I did say the hard drive would create a bottleneck. And it will - especially if her data files are big, like large Word documents or spreadsheets, or PowerPoint presentations. True, we are just talking seconds, but is that the point here?

 

It had to - or else you never updated it since new. But as I noted in the text you quoted, Windows will create a bunch of "temporary" files during normal use. As you noted, during major updates, it will create a windows.old file that takes up many GB of space. But it is still temporary and will automatically be deleted after 30 days - if not done manually earlier. The point is, free space is still needed.

Plus, TRIM and wear leveling will take advantage of the extra free space to keep the SSD optimized longer. All good things.

As I said, 128GB will technically work (64GB will), but I say why not have all your applications on the SSD too? I like having Word "pop" open, for example.

The ONLY thing that makes hard drives still practical is their price. Beyond that, they are slower, heavier, consume more power, not as quick, generate more heat, vibrate, make noise, have poorer performance, take up more space, and are less reliable. Did I mention they are not as fast as SSDs?

I think it is also important to factor in time over the long run too. Yes, SSDs cost more initially, but if you factor in and spread those costs out over the life of the computer, that extra cost is pretty marginalized. If you factor in the savings in lower energy costs, lower cooling demands, and even increased productivity (granted these are small but do add up), then I feel SSDs become even more attractive. And then there's that better performance thing!

I've been using SSDs only in all our builds for the last 5 years. I know I will never go back to hard drives.

 

Okay. But it still nearly doubled, right? That's all I'm saying - and that was with you actively keeping things trim and tidy. Most users don't.

True, except it initially does NOT completely replace it. To ensure the system can recover in case something goes wrong during the upgrade, many old and new versions of the same files are saved to that disk at the same time. And then there is that windows.old file. And of course cookies and temporary internet files can quickly add up to many 1000s of files. Not all are automatically cleaned out.

Also, you are talking about the OS only. Not all programs behave the same way. Many will download the upgrade, then run the upgrade without deleting the download.

People download and install programs. Not all let you install them on secondary disks. Belarc Advisor I believe insists on being being installed on the boot drive. And many programs fail to completely remove all traces of themselves when uninstalled.

As I noted, Windows will run in 128GB and even 64GB. In fact, on tablets, in 32GB. But Windows likes and will run better when it has lots of free space. And to the point of this topic, SSDs like lots of free space too - above and beyond the over-provisioning done at the factory. Even hard drives like plenty of free space to make the weekly automatic defragging more efficient.

I am not suggesting regardless your disk size, you will eventually run out of room. But I am saying additional space will be consumed as time marches on.