SSD responsiveness is only caused by your HDD you make it sound like that now you have a SSD your HDD should be faster...I know thats not that you mean that but thats how you come across by saying that.
I don't think that the way SSD are made that a low budget high storage with limited writes is possible, MLC flash SSD are the cheapest you can get unless Intel can find a way to fit more bits in a cell which would likely be very difficult as 2 bits per cell is hard to do as it is from what I understand.
Your best solution is to RAID best cost per GB MLC SSD's to get the storage you need or just set the idle the HDD to never in power options.... its not going to kill the drive any faster.
What I am trying to say is that having a HDD on my system for static data storage detracts from my OS SSD experience. I would like to switch over to SSD for storage but it doesn’t make sense to use a high performing and expensive SSD.
I’m asking Intel if they would consider a product that can help me. Maybe a 1TB drive with TLC NAND. My static data is exactly that. I only need to read quickly from the drive.
I don’t like leaving my HDD powered up all the time because it is a waste of electricity and in any case it would only go part way to resolving the problem.
There is a budget drive for an OS but there is nothing on the market for large capacity on a budget.
Waste electricity is rubbish they use very little power to run as it is and as to only going part way to resolving the problem well only you and getting more SSD is solution.
Just looked up TLC NAND and its 3-bit-per-cell which gives you more space but your talking about a budget 1TB?
It took some time to get HDD up to and part 1TB at a budget it is today a budget 1TB SSD is not going to happen over night so how much want you want to pay for a budget 1TB SSD?