09-04-2012, 02:46 AM
Originally Posted by cwa107
Well, I almost hate to say it, but the most likely reason you haven't found any specific commentary on it, is because it's elementary. Any time you increase throughput on mass storage, you're going to see an overall performance increase.
No, it is NOT elementary. In fact, regarding application speed, several SSD techs have written that there should be no difference at all. If there WERE a difference, then you would expect to see many online tests showing how much of this difference exists between the various brands & models of SSD, yet there are none.
CWA, I'm not sure you read my question carefully, or perhaps simply don't understand what I'm asking ABOUT.
Any pro user running apps that require heavy data reads & write (Photoshop, Protools, Final Cut Pro, etc) will have the data on a separate drive, so the boot drive's throughput has nothing to do with accessing that data. Your comment makes no sense.
Even if we were talking about running an app that accesses data, and is (stupidly) storing that data on the same drive (which no pro would ever do) it is not AUTOMATIC that there would be an increase in app performance. Probably yes (in that bizarre scenario) but there can be other bottlenecks, such as ram limitations of the memory controller. - but this is not much of a real-world scenario, so it's moot, anyway.
- And as far as apps that do NOT access data, throughput may not matter at all.
Please don't post unless you are sure.
The only reason I even brought it up is that I feel there might be a performance boost in some applications, simply because the Mac has to write-read a lot of invisible files as an app runs. However, the standard tech response to this idea is that those write-reads typically happen in the heap file, which is in ram and thus just as fast as an SSD. (faster, actually.)
So, I'm still curious if there are any specific benchmarks that might show additional benefit.
It seems that a lot of people are spending big money on SSD boot drives, for almost no reason. If saving 30 seconds on your system boot speed, or maybe 15 seconds on an application boot, is important to you, then fine, but that money could be better spent elsewhere.
Now, if you are a pro A/V use that typically opens many large sessions in a day, and time is big money, then the application-boot difference could be more like 2 minutes per session, and that could perhaps add up to enough time to warrant the cost. But if you're idea of a large program is some video game, then I dunno ....
Still hoping for some real data, if it exists.