Thread: The SSD Thread
View Single Post

cwa107's Avatar
Member Since: Dec 20, 2006
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Posts: 26,754
cwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD

cwa107 is offline
Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post
No, it is NOT elementary.
Sure it is, you're just too stubborn-headed to see it. You've already got your mind made up, so I'm not sure why you bothered to ask the question. Perhaps you're more interested in making a subjective rant.

In fact, regarding application speed, several SSD techs have written that there should be NO difference. 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.
I understand exactly what you're talking about and your area of concern. You're referring specifically to a situation where data is stored on a separate volume from the boot drive. Data is on traditional rotating media, and the OS and apps are on an SSD. In the event that were true, you are correct that there would be little difference in accessing data on the mass storage volume (i.e. in/out operations to the data files). However, your applications, being stored on the SSD and OS are going to be inherently more efficient, running from an SSD.

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.
I'm not sure why you're being so combative here. This is a discussion forum. You have your opinion, which you are welcome to share in a respectful manner. I'm going to let this one slide, but perhaps you should revisit our Community Guidelines, which you agreed to abide by when you joined here - and particularly rule number one.


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.
That would be correct. Also in use of virtual memory and interacting with the OS.

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.)
It depends on the app. Yes, some apps will load all of their dependencies into memory at once, given adequate system memory. Even still many apps cache and interact with the OS and they stand to gain from the OS and application being installed on an SSD in that case.

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.
I would venture to say that the benchmark you're looking for is probably too specific of a scenario. However, I still think that anyone, even those running traditional HDDs for mass storage of project data, will still stand to gain significant performance by upgrading the OS/Application drive to an SSD.

I'd say if you want proof, pick up an SSD and if you're not satisfied with it, return it. OWC has something like a 30 day unconditional satisfaction guarantee.

Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!
QUOTE Thanks