I have a NEW SHINY EIGHT (8) TERA BYTE 7200 RPM HDD Games RUN LIQUIDY SMOOTH on it it's drive F: I am still DLing GOG games and UPLAY with it

it is DEFRAGGED to DEATH and my games save on C: drive so DEFRAGGING is not so bad!

IT FEELS LIQUIDY no HICCUPS in GAMES NO SLOWDOWN!

what Really Pisses me off is it's not really 8192 GB only 8000 GB

FCKN HDD makers

This is a false dilemma. Every computer can and should have both SSD and HDD. SSD for OS and applications. HDD for temp files and documents and media.

Temp files should be on a secondary drive regardless for increased speed (both primary drive and secondary drive working together in unison). If you really care about speed, your computer should have two drives anyways.

Until you run into a huge game that is not optimized for HDD usage (though for that I could blame the developers; there is no excuse for not testing running the game from an HDD except maybe if you are a solo developer, and in that case it's unlikely that the game would get that big).

Also, one advantage to two drives is that access to one don't bottleneck the other. Playing a game off a HDD when the OS is on an SSD will get better load times than if everything were on the same HDD because the OS and game can access their drives simultaneously.
Having a second drive makes the computer heavier, which is not good if the computer is one you expect to carry around a lot (for example, if it's a laptop). Plus, there's also power consumption considerations.

Also, on Linux, you can easily put temporary files on a tmpfs filesystem; this is faster than saving them to disk (assuming temp files don't get too big to fit in RAM) and avoids the write to the disk in the first place (good for SSDs and cases like running the OS off an SD card (Raspberry Pi)).

I can testify to this. When I first played Bioshock / Bioshock 2 on my old laptop (2014... damn if I know what HDD it was), load times peaked at nearly a minute. Playing Bioshock Remastered last month, load times rarely reached more than 20 seconds. The main difference is that my current laptop has an SSD for the OS. (Transferring files, of course, is much faster as well).

I personally like Western Digital Black. Solid speed like cheap SSD...

No not really. I have both a WD Black and a VelociRaptor drive but neither comes even close to any of my SSDs. It's not just about max write/read speeds - access times matter a lot more for everyday use, especially for an OS drive and SSDs are in a whole different league when it comes to that.

But 2 Blacks in RAID 0 can compe with SSD.

Once you try SSD you never go back.

All my PCs have SSD only - my main PC has 512Gb SSD M2 Samsung Evo

And for all the rest I've a small 20Tb Nas (RAID5) to serve the whole home for movies, pictures and used as stuff collector

I bought my first SSD 2 years ago, 256GB i think. It's pretty good, but i'm not sure if SSDs are necessary if you can be patient to wait for things to load. I've also just bought a hybrid drive/SSHD as i'm planning on dual booting Windows 10 and Linux.
(side note- does it make any difference which drive I install these OS on? I'm thinking of using the hybrid for win10 in case there's compatibility issues with Linux, but if Ubuntu is faster to boot anyway then I could probably use the hybrid for it)

Nvm. Sorry.

Not in terms of reliability.

My OS and programs are on a 250GB SSD, my pictures, documents, MP3s and videos are on a 2.5TB HDD and my games are installed on a 2TB SSD ***mic drop***

The link you posted gives an unreadable page which prevents me from scrolling down to read the article!

I've got a WD Black HDD in my main PC. It's an old FX 8350 (needs an upgrade), but I'm not going to add a SSD to that build - the motherboard only takes SATA drives.

My old work laptop had a SATA SSD - I didn't feel much difference to my WD Black. However, my new work laptop has an NVMe drive - which I can notice the difference, so I'll probably get one of those and pair with a decent WD Black (or SATA SSD depending on price points, but I think that a magnetic disk will still be cheaper per MB for a while)