Does size really matter?

[ingeborgdot]

I guess it depends on who you ask
Really, though I do have a question about SSD and size. It has been asked over and over but I have not seen any threads that really answer my question.
What size SSD would be the best option for me? I do your normal computer operation but do a lot of serious video work. I have many programs that I need to use for different things that I do. Several different things for video(large programs) office, programs that I have for home automation, hundreds of gb of music, hundreds of pictures, tb of video. Large programs for pictures. I know I won't store any of the music, pics or video on the SSD.
I have read many, many, many conflicting reports on what to do with your SSD. My big question is will I get faster video rendering if the program is on the OS drive? Where is the best place to put my programs. On another drive or on the same partition as the OS? I want what will be best for video work.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Programs and OS should be on the SSD. If you have any games, they could go on there as well, but that should be the very bottom of your list.

I use a 60GB drive for Windows 7 HP 64-bit, and I put all my programs on it as well. Including a hibernation file and 1GB page file I still have over 15GB left over. So just going from a space perspective I think 60GB is enough for just an OS/programs drive.

However, the larger the SSD the better the performance. The increase isn't that great, it's nowhere near as large a jump as from HDD to any SSD, but it's there.

And no, you probably won't get faster rendering if your program is on the OS drive. I doubt throughput for rendering is I/O-bottlenecked, more likely your processor is the bottleneck. The rendering program will start up quicker and be more responsive outside of rendering, though, especially if you have all the data files on the SSD as well.

 

[ingeborgdot]

Not a gamer.

 

[gramboh]

Rendering stuff at home is not I/O limited, but working with large HD+ uncompressed video is definitely huge I/O.

 

[ingeborgdot]

I have just been visiting with people who work strictly with video and they say for what I want and need an SSD is pretty much useless except I will restart faster and programs will start faster. A good, fast CPU is the key. i7 2600k is what I am getting.

 

[rchiu]

I have just been visiting with people who work strictly with video and they say for what I want and need an SSD is pretty much useless except I will restart faster and programs will start faster. A good, fast CPU is the key. i7 2600k is what I am getting.

Yeah I don't think SSD will give you the bang for the buck given you work with large files. For starting program faster, there are a couple of alternatives you can consider. I bought a hybrid Seagate Momentus XT for my laptop, and it helps to start windows/program faster with the 4gb solid state cache. Or you can use Win7's readyboost with a fast USB stick. I would actually get i970 or other 6 core Gulftown chips. Most video work take advantage of extra cores.

 

[ingeborgdot]

The test data I have seen tells me I want the i7 2600K as nothing can touch it for video. What if a person used a good and fast hdd and used a 32 or 64 ssd as readyboost. Is that something a person could do?

 

[erdemali]

Some are still resisting and trying to find a reason to not getting an SSD.
What's with you all.
For me this is the breakthrough in computers history.
Floppy's 5.25 2.5"
CD ROMs
DVD
Flash drives
Wireless
They were all so expensive when they came out.
Or you may just be working for a spindle company and trying to
survive. Soon that will be the end of HDDs as it happened to floppies
zip drives CD ROMS even DVD ROMs will all disappear from our lives.