I'll say it again, depends on your use

by dony - 3/10/13 4:30 PM

In Reply to: Agreed, SSD is NOT for PC gaming by Demaclies

I agree with you that SSDs are not great for gamers today. However, when the 1 TB SSD hits the market at $500 to $600 next month, I would build any new computer only with SSDs for many reasons beyond speed. For the record, I am self employed and have been a systems analyst/hardware specialist/IT senior manager for more than 20 years after both undergrad and grad studies in physics. I taught HW/SW at the college level. BTW, its accelerated, not excellerated. I do have two gaming machines, one desktop and one laptop. Both do what they were designed to do and do it very well. I built the desk top and upgraded/tuned both. Today, I would not even consider an SSD for these machines as both do exactly what they were designed to do and are midway through their life cycle. They are both very lean in terms of OS, start up programs, lack of bloatware, etc. and are virus free. Both are finely tuned and will play any game out there. However, if buying a gaming machine today, I would consider a hybrid drive or an SSD (in April).
Quoting directly from "Hub Pages"
"Speed is the main advantage of a solid-state drive. SSDs offer blazing-fast performance being 100 times faster than HDDs. This incredible speed difference is due to a much shorter access time (less than a millisecond for an SSD compared to 17 - 18ms). If you want a big performance gain, switch to an SSD."
Their tests were done in Feb 2013 and are not even totally correct as the technology is changing rapidly. According to Tom's Hardware, the newest and best 10K to 15K rpm HDD running SATA III are half as fast as the newest SSD also running SATA III. These HDD sell for $500 to $700 each though so the price is comparable to SSD. HDD is at the end of the product life cycle though and SSD the beginning, so I will tend to SSD.
For boot up on the Ultrabook, 10 seconds for SSD versus 2 minutes for the HDD. Clean systems but much software like Photoshop pro, color rendering, facial recognition, etc. Yes, I can see the difference and it is there for many of the things I do. Time is money and a half hour saved is many dollars in my bank account.
For photography and photo processing, the SSD is better. Shooting a wedding, I may have 200 raw photos at a time and a few minutes to download to the SSD and check each because I can reshoot parts of the wedding if something went wrong. Superfast card reader directly to SSD and then opening, testing, adjusting color or white balance, comparing, etc. is much faster with the SSD. Once the wedding is over, it is over and the money shots are gone. Then, while I am shooting again, the SSD downloads to two different 1 TB HDDs (via my assistant) because there is enough time for that and I need two backups plus the camera cards. I never mentioned the web as I get paid for my work and never upload to Facebook or YouTube. I do participate on seven or eight social networks and have uploaded photos to Pinterest but that has nothing to do with the speed of the hard drive as you well know. Even with my superfast internet connection, the limiting factors are the systems to which I am uploading, servers, routing, etc.
So you stay with HDD and I will stay with SSD. Just do not ever accuse me of working for any marketing company. Its not true and a bit unfair.