What is the best size for your SSD?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by bzollinger, Sep 9, 2011.

?

What size SSD drive did you buy?

  1. 40GB-48GB

    1 vote(s)
    1.4%
  2. 60GB-64GB

    5 vote(s)
    6.8%
  3. 115GB-128GB

    22 vote(s)
    30.1%
  4. 240GB-256GB

    29 vote(s)
    39.7%
  5. 480GB +

    8 vote(s)
    11.0%
  6. Other

    9 vote(s)
    12.3%
  1. bzollinger, Sep 9, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011

    bzollinger macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #1
    It's known that the size of the SSD that people choose is directly related to their specific uses, what programs they use most often and other needs. While juggling the "age old question" of what size should I buy, and not finding any specific poll I thought I'd start one.

    Currently I'm on the fence between the 120GB & 240GB. I think I could make the 120GB work, but if I want my iPhoto library to be on the SSD then 240GB is the only option for me. It's too bad that you don't get much of a $$/GB break when buying larger sizes...

    What size SSD did (or will) you buy?
    What brand?
    And what were the primary reasons for doing so?
     
  2. bzollinger thread starter macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #2
    For the SSD owners...

    Do you keep your iPhoto libraryon the SSD drive? If you didn't is iPhoto just as slow as if it were on a spinning drive?

    My iPhoto is over 60GB, so that's a lot of SSD space and $$!
     
  3. eddjedi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #3
    Don't most people with SSDs have ONLY the OS and apps on it, and then move their home folder (music, photos etc) to a second drive? That way you get great performance and only need a small SSD.
     
  4. bzollinger thread starter macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #4
    That's my understanding too. But for example if you put your apps on it, but not the content in iPhoto's case won't it be slow overall? It should launch fast but when browsing the thumbnails, the data source would be a regular hard drive which is much slower right?
     
  5. eddjedi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #5
    I guess in an ideal world you'd have everything on the SSD for the max speed benefit, but that's not feasible yet. They don't even make SSDs big enough to fit a modest person's files on. So for now I think that's your only option, and would still be far quicker than having on SSD at all. My understanding is that the boot time and app loading times are the things you'll notice most anyway.
     
  6. DustinT macrumors 68000

    DustinT

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #6
    Thats far from true. My MBP and my wife's MBA are both 240g SSD equipped and I think you'd be surprised what you can keep on there. Of course, my first hard drive was a 10 megabyte drive back in 1990 so, my standards are a bit different from some. A little pruning goes a long way. At home, I've got a huge disk array from Drobo that I can store all my HD rips, raw image files and .iso files for software. Why do I need access to all that on my laptop when I'm at work or school? What, am I going to watch 4 - 5 seasons of Top Gear, in HD, at work?
     
  7. zodqyv macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    #7
    I picked "other" because you didn't have a category my Intel 160GB X-25Ms fit into. I have some from each generation and love them. Only now I am considering larger Intel drives.
     
  8. bzollinger thread starter macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #8
    Oh sorry bout that...I kinda forgot that there's that whole segment in the 160GB zone. That's a good size too.

    ----------

    What do you suggest I do with such a large iPhoto library? Get the 120GB which I can afford and keep it on my other disks? Or try to pony up the 4 bills for the 240GB??

    BTW- I have no problem spending the $$ it's the wife ya know....
     
  9. Young Spade macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Location:
    Tallahassee, Florida
    #9
    Well if you can "afford" to get the 128, get that and then store all of the large files that you don't access readily on an external drive or something.

    Get what you can afford and work around that; it doesn't take longer than 5 minutes to stop, think about what you can buy, buy that, and then structure how you work around it.

    That's the only logical way to go about doing it anyway isn't it?
     
  10. bzollinger thread starter macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #10
    That is a good and logical way of going about it. However I'm trying to find out specifically how iPhoto will work if it's not all on the SSD.....
     
  11. milbournosphere macrumors 6502a

    milbournosphere

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #11
    I have a 120GB drive. It's a good size for a boot disk. I even have a small bootcamp partition on mine.
     
  12. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #12
    No it is much faster. The storage drive for Home (HDD) folder speeds up because of the lack of 4K and 256K blocks constantly writing keeping track of the OS. You get pure bandwidth and faster seeks as you are only usually seeking a few locations at a time. The whole experience speeds up. You will see a great improvement even if you do not put your iPhoto library on the SSD.
    My Lightroom catalogs used to take 30 secs or so to chew through. Now with SSD boot and home folder on HDD they take 5-10 secs.
     
  13. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #13
    Cost aside, I don't see how anyone who really uses the hell out of the MP can do with less than 400gb. I tried with 240 for a while and it didn't cut it. Even with loading lots of stuff over to a normal drive.
     
  14. bzollinger thread starter macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #14
    Thanks for the comment. This is good to know. My wife uses iPhoto quite a bit, so the last thing I want is to hear her complain about how much $$ I spend on the computer and it is still "slow" to her.
     
  15. derbothaus, Sep 9, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011

    derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #15
    Understand too well;)
    Doing the SSD/ Home Folder split is about the best you can do right now without insane cost. No one I know uses 3-4 480GB SSD's for everything. That would be 5000.00 anyway. If iPhoto is still slow then Apple and it's single archive model is to blame. If this is the case, keeping everything on the SSD will still not speed it up much.
     
  16. blunti macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
  17. beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #17
    It's not the size that counts its how you use it.
     
  18. bzollinger thread starter macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #18
    Yep, it's the old $400 and some breathing room. Or $200 and having to split things up and keep an eye on it.

    I'm going to dig into my setup a little more and figure out what's what, and where it all is. Right now I've got some split out of my home folder but not all of it....
     
  19. highdefw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    #19
    Just OS and apps on a 120GB OWC SSD. Roughly 35GB of free space...
     
  20. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #20
    You missed out 160GB.

    I have a 160GB X25-M in my Mac Pro for ~70GB of Lightroom Libraries and caches and a 80GB X25-M in my MBP for Boot, Apps, etc.
     
  21. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #21
    Also keep in mind that SSD's are faster with less data on them. The more full the drive the slower the transfer rates. Not huge but noticeable. The more bare cells available the higher parallel transfer rates. This does not affect access times like HDD's. 65% full OWC 6G on SATAII gets 215MB/s Write, 265MB/s Read. 25% full 261MB/s Write, 268MB/s Read. ymmv. So if you can afford it get a biggest you can even if you are only filling it 20%-60%.
     
  22. bzollinger thread starter macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #22
    Yah, someone else mentioned that...now I can't edit the poll. So I guess you're in the "other" group!

    ----------

    Yes, I've read this. If I get the 120GB drive it'll be running 68% full out of the gates, then getting fuller as I go.

    I like the 160GB intel option but with the $$/GB I mind as well bump up to the 240GB OWC.
     
  23. weinschela macrumors regular

    weinschela

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    New York suburb
    #23
    Will I am a bit crazy. I do mostly photo editing: I have a 200G main SSD with all apps on it and nothing else. There is a 600G SSD that is my main photo storage (it is now at 50% capacity); There is a 256G SSD for older photos (also about 1/2 full), and a 4th SSD that has a clone of my OS on one partition with the balance used for caches in photoshop. Needless to say, the system screams even with Photoshop CS5 and large files. There is also 20G of RAM. My personal theory is you cannot have too much HD space and you cannot have too much RAM, so go for tyhe biggest you can afford. My answer, therefore, is "none of the above"

    p.s. Time machine runs on an external 2TB regular HDD, and all the photo files are backed up on portable HDs, sunched with Chronosync, and then periodically synched again to a second computer at another location.

    Now prepared to be attacked for overkill, but it keeps me happy.
     
  24. sapporobaby macrumors 68000

    sapporobaby

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Location:
    3 earth minutes from your location....
    #24
    You can always put in two SSD's like I did into my MBP 15 inch.
     
  25. bzollinger thread starter macrumors 6502a

    bzollinger

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    #25
    There isn't a price difference in price per GB whether it's 120gb or 240gb. So getting two doesnt really have any benefit that I can see.
     

Share This Page