It always amuses me to see how people get hanged up over SSD performance. On this very sub-forum we have people stressing over whether they have the Toshiba or the Samsung SSD, because the Samsung model is a bit faster in synthetic benchmarks. What's even worse is what happens on the other forums, especially the iMac and MBP sub forums. People characterise the Apple SSDs as "crappy" and "slow" and drool over the latest Vertex 3 benchmarks, without taking into account whether they actually need such a drive. There is no question that the Apple supplied SSDs are overpriced and that is not what I am discussing, but if the drive is user upgradeable do you really need to pay more for a Vertex 3 when an Intel 320 is fast enough for most users and workflows? Never mind the reliability can of worms. Anand summarises it best in one of his SSD reviews so I'll quote it here. Now this, unfortunately, is where Anand and I differ in thought when it comes to his "storage bench" suites. I understand what he is doing and I respect the site and Anand's work. But the problem here is that certain impressionable people see the benchmarks and do not realise what they're actually saying to them. Here is a description of the test And finally here is the disk busy time chart, which tells us everything we need to know. Clearly some drives are faster than others. Looking at the chart, without considering what it's actually saying, the Vertex 3 and other new SandForce-based drives look very impressive indeed. They are clearly the quickest by far! But hold on a moment take a look at the chart and consider this benchmark . It is run using an automated tool and it's playing back a recording of work done by a real user over a couple of days. If I understand what the bold bit says, then it is actually the work done over two weeks. I may be wrong in the exact details, but it's clearly not something that a normal person would be looking to do within a couple of minutes. Now, as much as I like to think I am pretty good, and I earn decent money doing it, no matter how hard I try I cannot edit images, play games, surf the web, compile my code, copy stuff and install applications all at the same time or one after another within 700 seconds. There are times when I do a lot and then I do something like actually read the web page, or edit a document or edit my code or swear at the computer in frustration. I am not always doing something where the drive needs to do intensive work. This chart tells us that the difference between the fastest and the slowest drive tested is 869.7 seconds, which is equivalent to nearly 14.5 minutes. Therefore, I've managed to save 14.5 minutes by buying the fastest drive on a workload that is equivalent to a couple of days from a human perspective. Think about that for a moment. So how much time have I really saved? The point remains, unless you're doing 50 things at the same time and running 5 automated build servers on 5 different virtual machines, which compile lots of code and runs lots of automated tests and downloading, copying, editing photos, and editing a movie on the side too, you, as a real user, are the bottleneck; not the SSD drive. There are instances and workflows where the fastest SSD is justifiable, but even the "slow", "crappy" drives are fast enough for 98% of you. Do not stress whether you have the Samsung or the Toshiba SSD. Enjoy your new computer because you won't even see the difference, unless booting up in 0.5 of a second and having a better xbench score is really important to you. Perhaps I've misunderstood what these benchmarks are doing and perhaps someone like HellHammer can chat to Anand and correct me.