Is there any legitimate reason to choose a HDD over an SSD besides value?

>tfw no big titty goth gf

moot is a summerfag now thats when he probably goes on sabbatical from his google tech job

Goths died off a decade ago user.

>goth
more like instathoth
...ha

Well look into store MI and decide for yourself. Intel Optane promise to upgrade a HDD, so for entry level people. AMD store MI optimize whatever system layout you have, so i see it as promising for mid and high end too.

AdoredTV confirmed this, look at the chart how AMD state the utilize both a SSD and RAM for cache for the whole system.

Attached: 2018-04-19-08-49-55.png (602x320, 148K)

And he found a few instances where it was faster than on the SSD only. Not by devastating marks, but more than margin of error.

Attached: storeMI_AdoredTV.png (1147x590, 133K)

Watched for 2 minutes and
> storage limit license
Lel, fuck that shit.

Also seems like it has no Linux support, and other bullshit. I think this deserves to be trashed more than even Optane, which also is a shitty idea.

more or less. SSD's have the same problem that Flash USB memory has. Eventually bits in RAM will not clearly go from 0 to 1 when power is instantiated and you end up with them wiggling between the two, spiking, etc, and it makes it unreadable at the lowest level

> uses RAM
> only is faster than SSD in a few instances
That's pretty damn silly. RAM is a LOT faster than SSD as such.

So you can't see the arguement in a single 256/512 GB SSD and a 4-8TB HDD, rather than three to four SSD's a one, maybe too HDD?

I'm going for a 512SSD and 8TB combo.

I have a 256 SSD for boot and most used programs, a 512GB for games, because they take up a lot of space and my internet connection is not good enough for downloading them "when needed". And then i have a 2TB HDD for lees important games and software, and then a 4TB for vids & stuff, and a 4TB for backup. And a 128GB old Kingston SSD in an external case.

I'm going for the exact use case that Adored propose, because I'm feed up with so many fucking drives, I'm actually looking forward to only have to manage a single drive again.

> So you can't see the arguement in a single 256/512 GB SSD and a 4-8TB HDD
No, I can't see the argument.

This is like a proprietary form of RAID with very poorly tested unknown failure/recovery properties, the requirement to purchase licenses when you want to use this or that storage arrangement, and no support for Linux.

And all of this so you can get a decision made that is pretty simple to make anyhow overall, namely what you put on your xxx GB SSD [hint, you should be good if you choose to put databases and programs there]

some laptop before 2007 are a bit funny with SSD's
a few of the systems i build didn't like SSD's

Also i don't care about HDD speed as long as its not lower than 4700rpm because its painful.

I get your freedom point.

But nothing is deleted from your hardrive. It's not like RAID, if something fails, even a catastrophic SSD failure, you can boot just fine. So if you wanted freedom security, maybe a non-corporation proprietary backup or raid for your hard drive?

>Moot
who
fuck off with your e-celebs newfag

no brah
>you need the infinity start up speed
>because NOW you need to shut down your comptuer when you're not using it
>and when you press that power button
>BAM
>you can see how blazing fucking fast your SSD is
the absolute state of Jow Forums fags who can't even come together to make a solidarity program without bitching at each other over stupid shit

>Missing out on click click vrrrr brt brt brt

HDDs are only slightly slower than SSDs if you get one's with high rpm. Don't fall for the SSD meme

So what's the argument here?