Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SSD for OS and Apps

Tags:
  • SSD
  • Apps
  • Build
  • Storage
  • Product
Last response: in Storage
Share
November 11, 2008 11:03:41 AM

Hey guys,

I have been lurking for quite some time here, plotting a build and I have a question regarding SSD's and HHD's with regard to OS and Apps.

My build is pretty expensive as I am always on my computer - either editing my website, my digital portfolio, or gaming. Rather than go into the details of the build, Ill stay on topic - I was thinking about getting 2 30gb SSD's and setting them up RAID0 for my OS and Apps and, from my research, I think that would be the fastest option for adobe performance. Using Photoshop CS4 -

Will this set-up speed opening PS?
Slow down saving large image files?
Speed HDR merging of multiple images?

Obviously, I am trying to increase the speed of CS4 apps, my OS, and other apps. What hard drive set-up would accomplish this best?

Thanks guys.

More about : ssd apps

a b G Storage
November 11, 2008 11:22:51 AM

There was another thread about this a few days ago, and the general agreement was SSD's are not ready for main stream use yet. The few that do work well, are very expensive ($600). The cheap ones....well, there is a reason they are cheap.

Im am sure someone will post that is more has more experince than I do with Photoshop, I use it but not intensively. I would think that for working with size of files you talking about, an SSD would not be much of an advantage.
November 11, 2008 12:03:41 PM

I assume that the intel x25-m is one of the drives that 'works well'.

Hypothetically, if I were to spend the $600 for the 80gb version, would the above speed increases/decreases be true?

Its a major selling point if you think about wait times for Photoshop - 1 HDR merge of 4 images can leave me waiting for 5 minutes, sometimes longer (on my current set-up, of course) unable to do any other tasks, and that's before editing... All for ONE portfolio picture. It adds up fast.
Related resources
November 11, 2008 5:38:48 PM

you'll end up having more speed increase with a faster cpu than a faster hdd. You might want to consider a velociraptor 300gig sata2 if you want a fast HDD with less chances of problems (no raid0).
November 11, 2008 6:36:13 PM

My i7 965x has already been shipped, which will be coupled with Rampage Extreme x58 and G-skill 6gb DDR-3 1600. The only thing up in the air is 2 velociraptors or 1 x-25m and 1 velociraptor.
November 11, 2008 6:58:54 PM

If you are still interested in a SSD, make sure you get one with SLC flash storage, not MLC. The Intel (MLC) drive is fast, but with multiple programs accessing it at once, it slows down...big time.

I have personally invested in 3 Samsung SLC SSDs and would not trade them for any of the fastest conventional HD on the market. The speed is simply astonishing. Newegg has them on sale this week. Typically they are about $750, but they are only (and I use "only" loosely) $550 right now. One of these drives will leave any Velociraptor setup in the dust, whether it is single or in RAID 0. There is no comparison.

To answer your question directly:
Will this set-up speed opening PS? Yes. Your HD will no longer be the bottleneck.
Slow down saving large image files? Yes. Files will save much faster on a SSD
Speed HDR merging of multiple images? Probably not. Merging is more of a function of your CPU speed.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

edit: On a side note, I would probably have the 64GB drive setup to hold the OS, Photoshop, any miscellaneous software, and your temp files that Photoshop uses. From my experience, Photoshop accesses the temp files often, so this would help with performance over a conventional HD. I would also have a large 2nd drive (probably 500GB or larger) to hold files that would eat up space on your main SSD.
November 11, 2008 10:45:35 PM

Genius! Nothing like a sale in a bad economy!
a b G Storage
November 11, 2008 10:50:58 PM

pbrigido said:
If you are still interested in a SSD, make sure you get one with SLC flash storage, not MLC. The Intel (MLC) drive is fast, but with multiple programs accessing it at once, it slows down...big time.
.

Not true. The Intel drive is great. The ones that have problems are the other cheap MLC drives, not the Intel one. This is due to their Jmicron controller.

The Intel drive or any SLC drive is fine, but all other MLC drives aren't worth it right now. They have too many problems.
November 11, 2008 11:32:41 PM

cjl said:
Not true. The Intel drive is great. The ones that have problems are the other cheap MLC drives, not the Intel one. This is due to their Jmicron controller.

The Intel drive or any SLC drive is fine, but all other MLC drives aren't worth it right now. They have too many problems.



On the contrary.

Both of the Intel -M models are based on Intel's MLC flash. The X25-E uses SLC flash. Trust me, I have used the -M model. It pales in comparison to the Samsung SLC SSD.

True, it is the fastest MLC drive, but still lags behind its fellow SLC drives, especially when multitasking.
a b G Storage
November 12, 2008 2:43:14 AM

The Intel drive is absolutely MLC. However, it is still just as fast as the Samsung. This is shown by a number of benchmarks.

Here's an example:



Another:



It is true that in multitasking, the Samsung and other SLC drives are able to make up a lot of ground, and even occasionally take the lead, but on the whole, the Intel is at least as good, if not better than a standard SLC drive.

Of course, I have to admit to being curious about the performance of the Intel X25-E SLC drive.
November 12, 2008 9:34:16 AM

My arguement isn't about both drives top speed, rather, the speed when multitasking is involved and many files are being written to the SSD. In that scenario, my statement still holds true.

I have had both drives. I talk from personal experience.
!