Do I need an SSD drive for PP?
Manfr3d
Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
Hi there,
I am ordering a 27" iMac i7 and was wondering if I really need to shell
out $600 more to get it with an internal 256GB SSD Drive? I already have
extra ram so I will end up with 12GB total. Is there still a need then, to
upgrade from the standard 1TB Harddrive to a SSD Drive? I would prefer
to spend that extra money on some external storage or a lens instead.
Any advice?
I am ordering a 27" iMac i7 and was wondering if I really need to shell
out $600 more to get it with an internal 256GB SSD Drive? I already have
extra ram so I will end up with 12GB total. Is there still a need then, to
upgrade from the standard 1TB Harddrive to a SSD Drive? I would prefer
to spend that extra money on some external storage or a lens instead.
Any advice?
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
― Edward Weston
0
Comments
I bought the 12GB not just for photo but also for video editing and
programming (work) where I often have multiple VM's with windows
and linux running at the same time.
What do you think about the speed of the SSD vs. a standard drive?
― Edward Weston
Sounds like you folks have it figured!
Manfr3d,
I added an SSD to my old unit and then included two into the new unit I built.
Of all of the changes I made, added and upgraded thru, including a QuadroFX3800 nvidia graphics card, and 12 GB of RAM, the SSD is by far the best choice I made>.<
SSD's Read tons faster than even the fastest disc HDD, but they tend to write a bit slower. Most of the apps you will use in video and photo need read speeds. The 12GB will come in handy during your rendering of video. Working in Premeire, I've noticed I can render a HD 1080i 500MB file in under one minute. Oh, and I only added 160GB SSD's.
ENjoy!
They really don't wear out sooner. The Apple engineers are smart enough and know about things like wear leveling… practically it would be 10+ years of 12 hours/day use before you could hope to "wear out" the SSD, at which time a point and shoot will probably have 10 GB per shot and you'll have a 25 TB SSD drive, so no worries
Bummer, Apple uses Samsung SSD's which have 10x higher access times
than Intel X25 ssd drives for example. Also Apple does not support TRIM which is
needed to keep the disk fast when it gets filled with data (otherwise
defragmentation can reduce transfer speeds up to 50%) ... I think I better
wait until prices come down a bit and some more user experience is
available for macs. Actually, $600 for 256GB looks alot like an early adopers price doesnt it?
― Edward Weston
This is wrong. Apple specs the firmware on its devices and it's custom and tuned for the Macs. Going off stock SSD access times is folly. 10x higher access time ROFL. Check benchmarks.
Also, TRIM is not strictly necessary either. Performance of the SSDs in the Macs does not slow down over time, this per testing, so tell me again what the problem is?
Pricing on SSDs is an issue, yes. They're not inexpensive at this time. But they are WAY faster for many tasks, and they are hugely more reliable than spinning disks.
Why so agressive? It seems you feel the need to push your opinion trough and not really contribute to this thread with backed up knowledge. Please go away *pat.on.your.back*
― Edward Weston
Given I'm personal friends with a couple of the file systems engineers at Apple, and have discussed this issue with them at length, I feel I'm qualified to comment.
Cat, any comment how these drives from OWC compare to the SSDs offered by Apple? I have upgraded my Macs a fair amount with offerings from OWC, memory, drives, Video card etc and to date have been quite satisfied. I have been wondering if an SSD would keep me in my present desktop tower for a couple more years yet, as a main drive for system and application files.
In an interesting twist, Apple's SSDs are cheaper than the ones from OWC. That's interesting, and unusual too.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
OP - Personally, I feel the SSD is a good option if you don't mind spending the money. I have a RAID0 192 SSD Samsung drive setup in my laptop that I do my editing work on and then store them on a 2TB external hard drive once I am done. Currently, TRIM does not work in the RAID0 config, but with the GC system, I have not experienced any slowdowns. It is a hell of a lot faster than even a 10k RPM HD. My opinion - Do you need it? Certainly not. But if it doesn't set you back, it is definitely worth it.
I have the 256 GB SSD in my laptop. I don't think it will markedly improve battery life. I have the previous generation 15" so I think "claimed" battery life is 8 hours (as opposed to 9 in the new ones?) and I get probably 5+ hours of normal use. I think SSD versus HD would perhaps improve battery life by say 15 minutes or so? Really the BIGGEST improvement for a portable is the vastly better durability. Increased speed is a bonus. From login window to fully populated menu bar is like 2 seconds; all menu items pop in at the same time, instead of crawling in 1-by-1 like it is with a hard drive.
Lloyd Chambers seems to like them:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-SSD-OWC-Mercury_Extreme.html
I haven't tested them. I do find it annoying that he makes assertions about the Apple drives and TRIM support and all that, though, not having tested them. I wouldn't be completely shocked if the fact that he gets compensated by OWC when you buy through them could influence his methods of testing.
I'm sure Apple ships hundreds or thousands times more SSDs than OWC sells at retail. That probably affects the supply of materials :-)
I am sure Apple sells more Ram than OWC also, but they (Apple) do NOT sell it cheaper than OWC's RAM.....
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Do you need one? Definitely not. Can it be faster? I'm not sure post processing your images will go faster, but other things may be.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Even on my old machine ( 2007 Intel Q6600), which I use for everyday tasks now. The SSD's make it behave much faster than before. I had maxed out the RAM at 8GB, and even made purchase of a Quadro FX300 graphics card...but the SSD made the largest difference in everything.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Pleasure!
Truth is, I went about replacing the HDD's and then graphics-card due to wanting to eek out WHAT it was that was the major ____??. HDD's are a bottle neck ( of info read/write) and the SSD simply made my old Quad core behave and respond so very much better. In video rendering I do find that the new machine I built along with it's 12GB of RAM, does indeed render faster. But the old Machine rendered faster too after that simple SSD fix.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=fusion-io+ioxtreme+&x=0&y=0
I was able to put it through some tests with PS and LR. The thing is fast,
it just flies over my 20-40mb raw files like they where thumbnails.
LR takes four seconds to start with a 18000 pictures library and PS takes about 3.
I can certainly live with those "waiting" times. The only time when
the machine got slow was before I added the other 8GB to the existing 4.
By the way, all 8 cores are used by LR to genreate previews. However the load
does not go up to 100%. I guess that the external FW800 disk I use is the bottleneck
here. An SSD would probably help speed things up here but then 1TB of pictures would
not fit on any of todays SSD drives. I for one am happy I did not shell out $600 for
an SSD. But your mileage may vary
― Edward Weston
SSD is more for folks who travel a lot and need the robustness, fast start, and low power.
For desktop work the extra performance does not trade-off at these prices versus the reduced capacity. Just my 2 cents. Better stay with the 1TB hard drive and spend the money saved on something else.
PS. I see you did! Wise man.