Is the Solid State Drive worth it?

[awer25]

A SSD is 50 times more expensive for only 2 times more speed. ( comparing a 1 TB SDD to a 1 TB HDD ).

Not worth it.

When the price / speed ratio comes down, then we start talking.

How do you figure it's 2x the speed? The 1TB HDDs transfer data at around 70-90MB/s. The first 1TB SSD that I found is the OCZ Z Drive, which transfers data at 1.4GB/s. That's about 15x faster. Also, the 0.1ms latency of SSDs is where the real benefit is IMHO. Everything you open opens instantaneously.

To me it'll be worth it when the 512GB is about $250. Yeah, I know I'll be waiting a long time. But there's no way I'm compromising storage capacity, and there's no way I'm dropping over a grand on a hard drive just so Finder can feel "snappier" and I can have a boot time that 10 seconds shorter than my already fast boot time.

Why not get a dual-drive setup? You can get a 128GB SSD which is more than enough for your OS's and apps, and a 1TB HDD for media/other data. There is the drawback that you have to use an external optical drive, but for the rare occasion that I need to use a disc, it's a non-issue.

 

[Minicube]

Amazing difference

I remember the first time I used my wife's Air (with a 256 ssd). It felt by far like the fastest computer I had ever used. Yes, boot is very fast, and apps load instantly, but what impressed me was other things, like Disk Utility, running at turbo speed. EVERYTHING felt faster, and perception is what matters.

 

[wallysb01]

I was planning on getting a MBA but am now rethinking it and considering getting a MBP. I really liked the idea of having a SSD, thus part of the reason for considering the MBA. Now when configuring the MBP I see how much $ a SSD is going to bump up the price. What do you people here think.....is the increase in price from a HDD to a SSD worth it? What are the biggest advantages? If I were to go with the HDD can I upgrade to a SSD in the future? This will be my first Mac.....thanks so much for any feedback.

Right now, I would say no, if you need more than 120GB of storage. At OWC, a 120 GB SSD 6G is about $200. That's not a lot of space, for a good chunk of cash if this is your only drive.

I honestly don't care that much if excel opens in .2 seconds or 5 seconds. That 4.8 seconds every couple hours or maybe less, is just not worth that much. I need that time for my brain to charge up anyway. What I do need is somewhere to store several hundred GBs of media and files for work.

Now, as some people have mentioned, you could replace the optical bay, more your HDD to that SATA 2 connection, then install a smallish 60 or 120GB SSD in the main SATA 3 connection for your main drive, then move your apps and operating system to the SSD. I have the 2011 MBP 2.0, and that's probably what I will do, eventually. Like I said above, just a handful of seconds on start up and when opening apps is just not that important to me. Compared to the time it take me to write this message, for example, its just trivial. I think I'll wait to do that though until 60-128GB SSD cost about half what they do now.

 

[mark28]

lol are you really looking at sequential speeds? You don't know what you're talking about.

Anyway, SSDs main "performance" gain are fast random 4k/8k reads/writes, and much lower latency. How much faster? The fastest HDDs today are just below 1 MB/s read/write speeds, with 10-15ms access times. SSDs on average are pushing 40-80 MB/s read/write speeds, with <0.1ms access times.

So how much faster? 100x.

And lol 1 tb SSD. What is that, 5 grand?

Yawn, I don't care about synthetic benchmarks or stats. SSD are bought for launching apps and booting. Not for looking at benchmark numbers or looking at stats.

Real life benchmarks such as booting up is what matters ( tested myself in the Apple store with a 2011 MBA 13", it's only 2 times faster ). It's not CPU limited because my 2010 MBP boots just as fast as a 2011 2.3 ghz i7 Quad Core. So it's all HDD / SSD speed.

If somebody buys a new HDD for their laptop, they buy a 750 gb or a 1 TB drive. It's fair to compare it to a SSD of the same size when comparing the prizes no?

 

[mark28]

How do you figure it's 2x the speed? The 1TB HDDs transfer data at around 70-90MB/s. The first 1TB SSD that I found is the OCZ Z Drive, which transfers data at 1.4GB/s. That's about 15x faster. Also, the 0.1ms latency of SSDs is where the real benefit is IMHO. Everything you open opens instantaneously.

Simple, just real life tests I did in booting up the computer which I timed, and it was only 2 times faster.

Launching apps like garageband and safari, it wasn't faster by huge margins. Nowhere near 15 times faster which you claim.

I don't look at synthetic benchmarks, I tested it with real life tests myself. That's how I came up with the number about it being 2 times faster.

( yes, I know the Toshiba SSD Apple uses in the 2011 13" MBA aren't the top SSD's like the Vertex 3, but they are still pretty descent performing SSD )

 

[wallysb01]

If somebody buys a new HDD for their laptop, they buy a 750 gb or a 1 TB drive. It's fair to compare it to a SSD of the same size when comparing the prizes no?

Not really, because the intended purpose of the two drive types is different. One is more for bulk storage, the other is for quicker response time. Thus, people buy the correct product for their needs.

At the very least you shouldn't be making comparisons based on the tail of what's currently available. You should be comparing instead something closer to the middle of what's currently available for both technologies. At newegg, the ~1TB SSD are over $2K, while 1TB HDD are just under $100. That's a 20x difference.

A reasonable price for a 256GB SSD is about $400, while for a HDD its about $40. Which is "just" a 10x difference.

I'm with you on your basic conclusion that SSDs aren't quite worth it yet, but your rational is bass ackwards. You need to understand how the different technologies are used to fit their strengths. Something that is completely missed in your "analysis".

 

[2hvy4grvty]

lol no, SSDs are bought for an overall faster responding system. No more hiccups with the drive spinning up, the needle clicking about, those are the result of 4k/8k read/writes, the most common hard disk tasks. We're talking REAL world performance, not boot times. We're talking an overall increase in productivity, in multi-tasking.

Faster application startup is just gravy on top of that.

Reboot times are idiotic. Can't believe you'd consider that a "basis" of argument, considering there are hardcoded in registry delays to ensure certain things close/open properly of which no amount of speed can bypass.

Also, running a boot drive (e.g. a 60gb SSD, which probably runs for like <$90) in addition to an HDD sacrifices little if any cost/size.

Here's a real world "test": change itunes songs while trying to multitask just about anything at the same time. You can't. You're helpless as the needle dances around looking for that next song.

Running a boot drive in addition to the default HDD gives you magnitudes of performance increase, all for about $100 (an external ODD would cost like $15-$20).

 

[Bobby Corwen]

If you want your computer to be as fast as possible in all behaviors (they all add up to a more crispy experience) then get SSD.

The counter argument is that HDD is also already fast, but its not as fast as SSD. It is a noticeable difference, but not one that is automatically worth the sacrifice in all scenarios.

The reason a lot of us have SSDs already is we got around the price/size problem with having secondary drives for storage so we are able to nullify the downsides.

If you want the fastest and best, get it. It is worth it. Its for the user experience. Not necessarily justified in anything else except that its the crispiest experience.

When you click, it just instantaneously always opens. More instantaneous than an HDD (which was already pretty instantaneous even at 5400 RPM).

The HDD is the choke point in modern systems so take that into consideration. Its the one thing you can do to make a difference in the way your computer behaves.

In 2011, all systems are similarly powerful and responsive, but if you want to be at that peak level of speed approaching zero delay, get SSD.

 

[mankymanning]

You'd be better off with a MBP as you can upgrade it. If you don't think you'll ever run out of RAM, run with it.

For your uses, a SSD is a waste of money.

Got to disagree with this, there are *no* uses for which an SSD would be a waste of money. Frankly they are the best upgrade you can buy for a machine bar none. Everything and I mean everything ends up feeling quicker.

I will never won a machine without one now.

 

[theSeb]

How do you figure it's 2x the speed? The 1TB HDDs transfer data at around 70-90MB/s. The first 1TB SSD that I found is the OCZ Z Drive, which transfers data at 1.4GB/s. That's about 15x faster. Also, the 0.1ms latency of SSDs is where the real benefit is IMHO. Everything you open opens instantaneously.

Not quite. That's not exactly how it works because you're become enamoured with synthetic benchmarks . Also 1TB HDDs transfer sequential large files at around 160 MB/s. Back in the real world, when using real applications, a SSD is around 85% faster than a HDD (source: Tomshardware)

In this chart a SSD is 5 times faster (in this particular task of opening applications)

The point however is that, for me, a SSD is worth it - I am an impatient person.

 

[thinkinblue613]

It isn't... Yet.

The price is high for the amount of data you get with SSD these days. Then again, prices are at a premium with new technology. In time, maybe 3-4 years from now, we'll see SSD HD become more affordable and easier on the wallet.

At the moment.. I would rather save the money on things I need. And that is data space, not speed. The new MBP's are fast enough for me anyways. It really depends on your priorities, needs/wants and budget.

With this economy, I would rather not spend the extra $$$ for something that doesn't make much sense to me financially.

But I won't lie, I would love to have an SSD hard drive.

 

[Naimfan]

Got to disagree with this, there are *no* uses for which an SSD would be a waste of money. Frankly they are the best upgrade you can buy for a machine bar none. Everything and I mean everything ends up feeling quicker.

I will never won a machine without one now.

That is simply wrong. A SSD will not make Safari run any faster, nor will it make Work or Excel or iPhoto, etc., run any faster. As many people have noted, it shortens boot time and application launching times, as well as reducing the time it takes to swap to the drive when working in VERY large files.

The normal user will see minimal to no gain with SSD, in exchange for sacrificing storage space and lots of money.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

That is simply wrong. A SSD will not make Safari run any faster, nor will it make Work or Excel or iPhoto, etc., run any faster. As many people have noted, it shortens boot time and application launching times, as well as reducing the time it takes to swap to the drive when working in VERY large files.

The normal user will see minimal to no gain with SSD, in exchange for sacrificing storage space and lots of money.

Incorrect.

That is not a sound description of the performance difference.

It is more noticeable than that. Maybe in theory what you said should be true but after using an SSD, the perfect snappiness of ALL behaviors is very addictive, very perceivable, and you can never have patience to go back to HDD.

It's far from being as insignificant of a difference as you describe. Humans are very perceptive to these small nuances.

 

[awer25]

The normal user will see minimal to no gain with SSD

I take it you've not spend a significant amount of time using one. Forgetting numbers, benchmarks, and application launch times for a moment...there is a big difference with the overall feel of OSX (and Windows) using an SSD. I've just recently made the switch after years and years of traditional hard drives (including an i7 desktop w/ Velociraptor HDD) and it's truly a much better computing experience. Granted, "much better" is subjective, but to say there is minimal to no gain is an understatement.

 

[2hvy4grvty]

Snappiness. That's the main reason to pick up an SSD. Would it make your internet faster? No. But should you click a link when the HDD is performing background writes (always), then yes, it'll greatly improve your experience.

Don't believe me? Open up Activity Monitor, go to Disk Activity. Now do nothing but basic web browsing. Notice your disk is still constantly reading/writing? This is what causes the perceived HDD "hiccups".

If you love to multitask, the SSD would shine immensely.

 

[murdercitydevil]

For an MBP with a 5400 RPM drive, I would say that absolutely, yes it is worth it. A great 120GB drive can be had for under 200 bucks (SATA II, anyway) and you can always keep your stock drive for storage. With a 7200RPM drive, maybe not so much. But remember that in terms of future proofing, it's a great investment. Also, people here are comparing increases in performance based on solely the drive, you have to remember that taking out the bottleneck that a 5400 RPM drive creates, every other component will be able to work to the fullest as well.

 

[Naimfan]

I take it you've not spend a significant amount of time using one. Forgetting numbers, benchmarks, and application launch times for a moment...there is a big difference with the overall feel of OSX (and Windows) using an SSD. I've just recently made the switch after years and years of traditional hard drives (including an i7 desktop w/ Velociraptor HDD) and it's truly a much better computing experience. Granted, "much better" is subjective, but to say there is minimal to no gain is an understatement.

Wrong.

I had an OCZ for a while and sold it, because it did not make me any more productive professionally (which involves extensive research on and off the web, Office, and Keynote, with iPhoto and a bit of Final Cut Express). I do not do anything, nor do the overwhelming majority of Mac users, do anything where SSD would provide any significant benefit, especially given the absurd cost per GB.

The overwhelming majority of the time you cannot tell a difference. As I noted earlier, I (like many Mac users) rarely reboot, and once an application is open it stays open for days on end.

If it makes people feel better to throw money at it, go for it. And there ARE people who I would advise to invest in an SSD. But as I said, for the overwhelming majority of people, the outrageous cost of SSD vs. storage capacity is not worth it.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Wrong.

I had an OCZ for a while and sold it, because it did not make me any more productive professionally (which involves extensive research on and off the web, Office, and Keynote, with iPhoto and a bit of Final Cut Express). I do not do anything, nor do the overwhelming majority of Mac users, do anything where SSD would provide any significant benefit, especially given the absurd cost per GB.

The overwhelming majority of the time you cannot tell a difference. As I noted earlier, I (like many Mac users) rarely reboot, and once an application is open it stays open for days on end.

If it makes people feel better to throw money at it, go for it. And there ARE people who I would advise to invest in an SSD. But as I said, for the overwhelming majority of people, the outrageous cost of SSD vs. storage capacity is not worth it.

So you say it did not make you more productive?

All you need is a 300$ Toshiba Satelite to take care off business.

With your argument, nothing nicer or faster is worth it right? I don't think the OP was asking if SSD will make him a better businessman.

The way you are phrasing everything, you're giving misleading notions that there is such little difference that it is unnoticeable --when it is.

You just said it again: the overwhelming majority of the time there is no difference. Like the only reason an SSD might be worth it is if it makes you read web content faster? Continuing down that path of logic we can argue that Macs aren't worth it over PCs either.

How do you know the OP uses the computer like you?

I'm not saying your notion of price/performance choice is way off, just that the way you are describing the behavior is inaccurate.

I happen to be someone who multitasks and I feel the extra snappiness constantly, and your rendering of the performance difference is misleading to other readers IMO.

 

[takeshi74]

What do you people here think.....is the increase in price from a HDD to a SSD worth it?

Why does it matter what I (or anyone else) think? It's what you think that matters. I consider it worth it. I could sit here and try to justify it to you but you have to do this for yourself based on your own needs and wants -- not mine or anyone else's.

 

[wallysb01]

The way you are phrasing everything, you're giving misleading notions that there is such little difference that it is unnoticeable --when it is.

Noticeable and practically useful are two different things. Like I said above, so excel opens faster or boot times are quicker, yay. But if I most of my actual work is CPU limited...who cares.

Maybe he's wrong in saying the majority of the time you won't notice a difference, since that depends on the tasks you use your computer for, but for many jobs he's quite right.

You just said it again: the overwhelming majority of the time there is no difference. Like the only reason an SSD might be worth it is if it makes you read web content faster? Continuing down that path of logic we can argue that Macs aren't worth it over PCs either.

No, what you're using here is not logical at all. He might be wrong, but you're creating a slippery slop when none exists.

 

[2hvy4grvty]

Your work is CPU limited? Excel? Wait what?

Very few things see a CPU bottleneck.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Noticeable and practically useful are two different things. Like I said above, so excel opens faster or boot times are quicker, yay. But if I most of my actual work is CPU limited...who cares.

Maybe he's wrong in saying the majority of the time you won't notice a difference, since that depends on the tasks you use your computer for, but for many jobs he's quite right.

No, what you're using here is not logical at all. He might be wrong, but you're creating a slippery slop when none exists.

A slippery slope with an inconsequential destination which rather serves as an analogy for style vs function.

The thing I was focused on was criticizing the notion that an SSD only helps with boot time or a slight tweak of application launching. Its a summation that is giving people the wrong idea in some posts on this site that an SSD is not all it actually does end up being cracked up to be secretly.

People want to act like its just hype and it only helps with boot time and app launching in a very subtle and insignificant way but the reality is it makes it overall the smoothest experience you've ever had.

Why are people trying to downplay this? Is it because they haven't tried one and just read theories about it?

 

[mankymanning]

That is simply wrong. A SSD will not make Safari run any faster, nor will it make Work or Excel or iPhoto, etc., run any faster. As many people have noted, it shortens boot time and application launching times, as well as reducing the time it takes to swap to the drive when working in VERY large files.

The normal user will see minimal to no gain with SSD, in exchange for sacrificing storage space and lots of money.

I disagree with you again. A system doesn't just use a hard disk for loading an app and then that's it. The app probably saves to disk a whole lot and the OS will use hard disk for memory management, paging etc. It does affect a whole lot more than simply loading an application.

Most people are not CPU limited these days, even a Core 2 Duo from a couple of years back is enough for the the OP for the tasks they list.

I bet if they had a 2011 MBP with 7200rpm hard drive and a 2009 C2D machine running the same OS but with an SSD then the older machine would feel much faster.

For years most people have been I/O bound in a laptop not CPU bound. There is an insane amount of power available in a modern Macbook, video encoding and gaming aside most people don't use it.

I do a lot of development in virtual machines, it involves running multiple copies of Windows, compiling large projects in Visual Studio and regularly restarting IIS for a rather heavy web app. i.e. fairly intensive work. I recently upgraded to a new 2011 quad core MBP from a 2009 C2D one and the increase in performance was a fraction of that I experienced when I put in my first SSD into that 2009 MBP.

 

[wallysb01]

Your work is CPU limited? Excel? Wait what?

Very few things see a CPU bottleneck.

You haven't met my work then... Some things will max out how ever many cores you give it and write a 100MB file after running for 5 days.

Or there are steps in a process that do have CPU bottle necks, but then write temp files of 100GBs, while reading files of 50GBs, and final output is 30GBs. I'm not going to try to do that on a SSD, even if it would make the read/writing faster. It would simply cost too much to keep the amount of space needed.

Like I said, it depends on your work. And if its just for play, well that's fine, but right now you're paying a pretty good premium for just a "snappier" computer.

 

[awer25]

FWIW, the cost/GB argument only applies if you use a lot of drive space. Most of the people I know use <75GB on a laptop.