Do not be much swayed by vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick. They will be 50X faster than a hard drive.
In sequential operations, they will be 2x faster than a hard drive, perhaps 3x if you have a sata3 interface.
Larger SSD's are preferable. They have more nand chips that can be accessed in parallel. Sort of an internal raid-0 if you will.
Also, a SSD will slow down as it approaches full. That is because it will have a harder time finding free nand blocks to do an update without a read/write operation.
It is better to buy only one SSD large enough for both the os and at least some games. Larger ssd's perform better and last longer.
240gb would be minimum, but 500gb is becoming affordable.
If you will store videos or other large sequential files, a separate hard drive is in order.
My preference for a ssd today is Samsung EVO or Intel 730.
They make their own nand chips and can do a better job of validation. I think they keep the better chips for themselves and can offer longer warranties.
Some games do use a hard drive or ssd for checkpoints, logging and level loads.
There is no negative to using a ssd for anything except for the higher cost per gb compared to a hard drive.