SDD or HDD for Creative Professional

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by mediamab, Oct 30, 2008.

  1. mediamab macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #1
    Hiya guys,

    Im after some advice.. Im looking at buyin the new mac book pro... 2.8ghz, 4gb of ram.. question is 7200rpm 320gb hdd or 128gb sdd?

    I will be using the laptop for design work - so primarily photoshop/illustrator and then also flash and html programs and small amounts of after effects...

    I dont mind splashing the cash but I just wandered if you could advise me on which has the best performance for me?

    Many Thanks
     
  2. UltraNEO* macrumors 601

    UltraNEO*

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    近畿日本
    #2
    The 320Gb HD's are plenty fast!
    And the 128Gb SSD's are a complete ripp-off!!!

    From what I read the SSD's reading performance isn't so great and the writing is much slower compared to a disk. Personlly I'll go with the larger disk space as projects could get fairly sizeable and HD's today are fairly cheap and reliable. But you know.. If you wanna go with SSD, there's nowt stopping you!
     
  3. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3
    I'm also a designer, and from my experience with an older MBP, I'd go for the 7200rpm hard drive; the performance on it will be fine.

    That 128GB can fill up far too quickly with software and projects. It becomes a real chore at times keeping things slimmed down. I'll be replacing the 130GB drive in my MBP sometime next year for something faster and bigger.

    Any performance increase from an SSD, which will probably be marginal in terms of productivity, is offset by capacity.
     
  4. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #4
    i'm a designer too. but i went SSD as I travel a lot and dont want to risk bumping my drive or have a drive failure down the line. which WILL happen. just a matter of when. and when it does, you'll be on a big project and may lose some or all your work.

    SSDs are the future.
     
  5. mediamab thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #5
    thanks for the information...

    I am also planning on getting time machine so this will help keep everything in order and I plan on only having current project and itunes files on the computer...

    So ignoring space but considering the safety feature - performance wise would the SSD help me or be of any assistance?

    I really want a HIGH spec machine that will last hence why im paying xtra for the 2.8ghz...

    cheers
     
  6. TheHoff macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #6
    Paying the high premium to be an early adopter of the SSD isn't quite worth it to me. I think you'd be better off going with the 7200 rpm HD now and upgrading to an SSD in a year or two when it is more of a fair comparison or offers more speed advantages. The HD is dead simple to swap out on the new MBP.

    Paying more for a fraction of the space isn't a fair trade. I have 100 gigs of photos and TIFF edits in Lightroom just from 2008 though I'm not sure what sort of work you do.
     
  7. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #7
    but then you're left with a redundant HD. what a waste.

    SSD's were stratospheric when they débuted on the 1st Vers MBA. but know I think they are more realistic.

    For me a portable should be totally portable without the inherent risk of dropping one's laptop. and a HD drive failure has happened to me on more than one occassion to be a risk I prefer to avoid at all costs. its not worth it to risk an entire project for the cost of £300 for the premium of an SSD over a 7200 rpm HD? I make that in less than a days billings
     
  8. mediamab thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #8
    I see all your guys views and can see an argument for bth but I am not really gettin an answer to my question...

    I understand I am getting less space and a securer drive - but what I really want to know is how is my performance affected?

    cheers
     
  9. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #9
    Very fast reads, esp APP & SYS loading. random Reads are superfast. Writes are marginally slower. would one notice? on BIG scratch files it may be noticeable, but i'll soon know When my machine arrives.
     
  10. mediamab thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #10
    so using photoshop mainly I could actually see a performance decrease? cheers
     
  11. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #11
    how big are your PSD files going to be? if they are MASSIVE you should be getting a MacPro and fill it with 32GB of RAM.

    When I get my MBP17, I'm going to RAM it up to 6GB. PLus the 128SSD, this should be plenty. And in the very unlikely event that it isn't, then I'll get a an eSATA external drive and hook it to the express port and point the SD there.

    I have used a 17" PB G4 for the last 3+ yrs with only 2GB RAM and an 75gig HD and managed. Go figure
     
  12. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12
    In that case, you're probably better off doing your own research like somewhere like Tom's Hardware where this is just one of many articles on the pros and cons.

    As I've said, the productivity gains are probably minimal. Half a day in learning software techniques and keyboard shortcuts will result in far greater productivity gains for any designer, no matter how qualified, rather than incremental seconds shaved here and there.

    Note that Time Machine is not an archival solution, it's an incremental backup solution. Time wasted in storing and archiving completed work is a consequence of having a smaller drive and as others have said, you can swap out the drive in a year or two when you'll get much better bang for your buck.
     
  13. TheHoff macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #13
    Depends if you routinely work with multi-gig files where you have to use scratch space and not RAM or if you have many large apps open at once. Average photoshop use should see a slight speed increase from SSD if you don't do those things mentioned.


    And I never see an extra hard drive as redundant... there is always room for an off-site backup or an external array.
     
  14. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #14
    so how are you going to use your spare Internal drive from your laptop? add the cost of housing it and connecting it. Plus you can't convert a single dedicated HD as an external array. thats a frankenstein setup. even for a Pro
     
  15. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #15
    TRUE. which makes the failure and drive redundancy issue more of a factor

    Do you make your living from your MBP. because if you do. a mere £300 is nothing in the greater scheme of things. Correct me if I'm wrong
     
  16. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #16

    I do some freelance work, but in most of my jobs my Mac has always been provided. I've worked on quite a range of machines.

    My MBP doesn't go anywhere; it's on a stand and is the second display in a two screen setup; it's hooked up to an external display and various drives and networks. It's a desktop replacement for what is quite a small working space. Which is why I'm not worried about dropping it or losing data.

    Right now, I'd rather put £300 towards CS4... or maybe a new display.
     
  17. TheHoff macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #17
    As I said -- an off-site backup. I swapped out the HD my MBP came with and it is now sitting in a (though I thought that price shouldn't matter as a pro) $25 external enclosure in a fireproof lockbox in another city.

    I'm not sure what else is in your office or your house but I always have a use for an extra decent hard drive. Upgrade your media server? Back something up you hadn't backed up before? Upgrade your wife's computer?
     
  18. mediamab thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #18
    thanks for all the input...

    so to to sum up - am i correct....

    IF i have the 300quid spare - and im happy with the lower storage space then performance wise I will see some or on occasions a much higher performance..

    mainly though it is much higher security and so the risk of loosing files is much lower than a hdd?

    im gettin the view thats its a very personal decision? but for me who works with 500mb MAX files (im a web designer) - will be taking it on the road and wants the best performance possible and have the 300quid extra spare then it would be a good choice?

    cheers
     
  19. mmulin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    #19
    PS will start up faster on SSD, but only the first time you launch it in this session. Large files will load faster too but as soon you start working on your projects and PS starts scratching, you will have a slow down compared to HDD. In general the performance differences are so marginal between a 7200 rpm and the current SSD, Apple uses, that by no means it makes sense to sacrifice space for that difference - unless you just looking for a reason to be hip. The next generation SSDs will though. FOR now stick with a large 7200 rpm HDD, seriously. In a year or two, exchange it for a SSD possibly. The HDD you can reuse in an external enclosure and as mobile backup.
     
  20. TheHoff macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #20
    Yes, go with SSD according to your summary above (because you want to be hip! and you're not interested in arguments to the contrary). Make sure you plug into your Time Machine regularly and you have little to fear about losing data.
     
  21. mediamab thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #21
    my reasons are not for wanting to be "hip"!

    i simply want the fastest spec possible with the added security of knowing the drive is more secure -im getting the impression it will run much quicker at times - but i am debating whether it will prove to be worthwhile for the money...

    im not smoothered in cash but this is why if im spend 2k+ on a mac i want to buy it right and have the best I possibly can...

    cheers
     
  22. mmulin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    #22
    exactly what we trying to tell you. yes, it is more secure. no, there is no real world performance to gain once your are actually working on whatever you are working.

    i have & love ssd too but unless it is server grade ssd (slc tech), the technology, at especially these price points, is not far enough yet to live up to the promises of the future. $300+ can be well invested in something more worthwhile than faster boot up times of the OS. because, really, this is the only performance advantage you get from the ssd now.
     
  23. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #23
    You have wrong info. The reading performance of a SSD (especially random reads) will kill any HD. The one Apple is using seems to be about 10x faster than the fastest HD (Seagate 320GB 7200rpm). Writes are much closer but the SSD in the MBP seems to be slightly better on random writes and about 20% worse on sequential writes.

    To me it's storage needed and cost. If 128GB is enough and cost isn't a big deal, get the SSD. If you need more storage for don't want to spend $500 more, get the HD.
     
  24. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #24
    If you want the absolute fastest money-no-object solid state drive money can buy look no further than the Intel X25-E with sustained sequential read up to 250 MB/s and sustained sequential write up to 170 MB/s.

    The downside being it is currently only available in up to 64GB. Oh yeah, and price :p

    People have been known to edit video and photos on something vastly inferior to that, so I would think that the standard 320GB 7.200RPM harddrive should suffice for 99% of the cases out there, especially seeing as this is on a notebook to boot.
     
  25. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #25
    Actually the Intel one is 80GB, but yes it seems to be the fastest out there at the moment on most benchmarks, but the Samsung is a little better on few of the tests.
     

Share This Page