What affects installation speed more? Storage or CPU?

brownbat · Sep 10, 2016

If you wanted software installation to be as fast as possible, would you prioritize a new CPU (because installs involve a lot of unpacking compressed files), or a new SSD, maybe m.2 (because installation requires writing a lot of files)?

This is probably dependent on the particular program, and maybe there's so much variation that this is impossible to answer.

I know this would be an odd thing to actually build for, I'm just asking as a hypothetical.

USAFRet · Sep 10, 2016

Too many variables.

1. Depends on the application
2. Does the application have to talk to home base during the install? A lot of applications, the 'setup.exe' is just a small stub, and the majority is pulled down from the internet.

Don't base a parts list on speed of application install.

brownbat · Sep 10, 2016

Thanks for your reply, I can see now a little clarification would help.

> Don't base a parts list on speed of application install.

As I said, this isn't for a build (it's not in the build section for a reason). This is a question about how hardware affects installation times (if at all). Think of it as a bar bet question.

> Too many variables.

Ok, fair. Let's consider a specific test. Let's say I'm installing a series of the following programs to an empty drive and want to complete the cycle as fast as possible. Let's assume hard wired Gb/s Ethernet from a leading search engine's fiber rollouts.

a) Windows 10. Let's say I have it on USB, though I know it will still pull updates through the fiber. I will skip setting up anything that I can save for later, like personal information or wifi, and just choose the defaults for everything.

b) Adobe InDesign

c) Wolfram Mathematica

d) FarCry 4

e) X-Plane

(I tried to pick some meaty ones, probably we could make a better benchmark with a little thought.)

So some of the questions are:

Would M.2 install faster than SATA? I'm guessing basically no difference.

What about CPU? My hunch is that cores will matter a lot.

RAM? Probably no effect.

Again, if you're hung up on why anyone would build this way, don't worry, no one would. This is for curiosity, and to settle a debate, that's all.

Thanks if you have any more thoughts!

Ecky · Sep 10, 2016

Both are factors. The CPU is involved in decompression, and the SSD is responsible for reading and writing. Which is larger would depend on the particular program.

How many cores are used in decompression will depend on how it was packaged.

A fast native M.2 drive like the 950 Pro would be significantly faster than any SATA SSD.

USAFRet · Sep 10, 2016

Given a true gigabit ethernet connection, I would guess that the drive write speed would be the deciding factor.
An SSD would be faster than an HDD. A PCI-E SSD would be marginally faster than a SATA SSD.

But also, what sort of compression is in that install? More intensive compression, the CPU would probably matter more. At the low end, RAM would also come into play here.

All else being equal, installing Win 10 from a USB, to an SSD, is faster than from a USB, to an HDD.

A true benchmark would involve testing between multiple systems. I'll leave that to you...

brownbat · Sep 10, 2016

> A true benchmark would involve testing between multiple systems. I'll leave that to you...

I actually really do want to benchmark this, even though it's a completely academic question of no real practical value. There may be something wrong with me...

USAFRet · Sep 10, 2016

brownbat :

What you might find is:
Application A installs faster on System X, but slower on System Z
Application B, the other way around..

Search

What affects installation speed more? Storage or CPU?

brownbat

Distinguished

USAFRet

USAFRet

Titan

brownbat

Distinguished

Ecky

Illustrious

USAFRet

Titan

brownbat

Distinguished

USAFRet

Titan

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page