How much will a SSD help my boot times?

[Phynaz]

The example you give is about 10x faster, not 100x faster. Give me a real world example of 100x faster.

Show me something, not a benchmark, that takes 1 second with an SSD and takes 100 seconds with a hard drive.

A n-dimensional OLAP analysis on a couple of hundred gigs of financial transaction data.

Although it's more like 10 mins vs a day.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I can't give exact numbers but holy hell my laptop boots faster. One super inexact way I took notice was that under the old 5400RPM HDD, the Windows 7 boot logo would pulse many many times. With the SSD it pulses maybe two or three times at most before getting to the login screen. I've also seen it pass that point before even assembling the...flower, or whatever it is (usually from a cold boot, not resuming from hibernate).

I suspect my desktop would also boot faster over its current RAID-0 config, but since so much time is spent in the bios and drive detection portions of bootup anyway, it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.

 

[Tom]

A n-dimensional OLAP analysis on a couple of hundred gigs of financial transaction data.

Although it's more like 10 mins vs a day.

cool. then anyone who's doing that should get an SSD. Do you have any proof of this, btw ?

 

[Tom]

I can't give exact numbers but holy hell my laptop boots faster. One super inexact way I took notice was that under the old 5400RPM HDD, the Windows 7 boot logo would pulse many many times. With the SSD it pulses maybe two or three times at most before getting to the login screen. I've also seen it pass that point before even assembling the...flower, or whatever it is (usually from a cold boot, not resuming from hibernate).

I suspect my desktop would also boot faster over its current RAID-0 config, but since so much time is spent in the bios and drive detection portions of bootup anyway, it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.

OMG that is cool !! LOL.

Seriously, I'm sure SSD adds some measure of pleasure and that's great for those who like the latest thing or the fastest upgrades.

But not directed to you or this thread, some SSD evangelists go so far overboard in their hype of how wonderful SSD is, when it's just not all that significant.

I mean, some things really are necessary, SSD isn't one of those things, IMO.

 

[Tom]

taltamir, maybe you should give up. Let Tom enjoy his hard drives while we enjoy our SSDs.

Tom, 10x or 100x, the takeaway from this whole discussion is that SSDs are faster than HDDs. Sometimes not too noticeable, but sometimes extremely noticeable. Whether you want to pay more for more performance, as always, is up to you.

I'm fine with that. I think 10x is pretty impressive. I've got nothing against SSDs, I'd like a little more realism and less benchmark driven hype tho'.

And if there are real world examples of 100x improvements in a meaningful timeframe, I'd love to see them, just out of curiousity.

Most real world demos I've seen, SSD looks more like maybe 2x fast to maybe 50% faster. Which is great, btw.

 

[Gooberlx2]

But not directed to you or this thread, some SSD evangelists go so far overboard in their hype of how wonderful SSD is, when it's just not all that significant.

No offense taken. I was being intentionally spastic.

It certainly does depend on the machine and usage. I'd probably experience less immediately apparent benefit on my desktop as far a launching programs goes, since it has enough RAM and Win7 is smart enough with its memory usage. Once I start accessing the drive though, like for loading/editing media, it's a noticeable benefit. Maybe not eleventy-billion times faster like some people have a tendency to make it out, but it is a very pleasant difference. I use a SSD on a machine at work, and it was definitely the second greatest upgrade to that machine, next to putting in adequate RAM.

As far as the OP goes, the bulk of my home desktop's boot time (or at least equal amounts) seems spent on bios and hardware garbage. 25% reduction in boot time in that case definitely isn't alone worth the SSD cost. It's even worse with workstations and server motherboards.

The benefits for laptops, with their integrated hardware and bios, and most of which use shitty 5400rpm HDDs, are absolutely tangible.

 

[taltamir]

The example you give is about 10x faster, not 100x faster. Give me a real world example of 100x faster.

Show me something, not a benchmark, that takes 1 second with an SSD and takes 100 seconds with a hard drive.

Those are rare because most programs use a combination of sequential and random access so they are somewhere in between 2x and 100x.

As I said its mostly about system responsiveness and multi-tasking. When you have many programs running at once each initiating random I/O your system remains smooth and responsive.

Specific programs which are 100x faster are likely not used by the average consumer. But then again, demanding one and ignoring the multi-tasking capability is no better then a canned benchmark. In real world use you would notice tremendous improvement in system responsiveness and multi tasking.

 

[Phynaz]

cool. then anyone who's doing that should get an SSD.

Exactly the response I expected - "Doesn't apply to me, therefore it isn't valid".

 

[Tom]

Exactly the response I expected - "Doesn't apply to me, therefore it isn't valid".

I didn't say it isn't valid. I don't think it's relevant to everybody with a computer tho.

 

[pcm81]

Windows 7x64 with I7 980X and 12GB of ddr3-16000 ram running off of RevoDrive X2 loads in 14 seconds to a ready desktop; not counting bios POST time.

 

[Phynaz]

I didn't say it isn't valid. I don't think it's relevant to everybody with a computer tho.

You did not ask for an example that was relevant to everybody.

Quit moving the goalposts.

 

[StinkyPinky]

My PC boots like a rocket. Barely over 10 seconds to a useable desktop. That's with the marvell controller disabled (it adds about 5 seconds at least).

 

[DominionSeraph]

Windows 7x64 with I7 980X and 12GB of ddr3-16000 ram running off of RevoDrive X2 loads in 14 seconds to a ready desktop; not counting bios POST time.

Nice to know my $350 2006 rig can beat a $2000 2010/11 rig at something.

 

[Rubycon]

Nice to know my $350 2006 rig can beat a $2000 2010/11 rig at something.

Try something like cinebench (which is what someone with a six core system would have it for in the first place hehe!).

 

[Tom]

You did not ask for an example that was relevant to everybody.

Quit moving the goalposts.

i asked for a real world typical example.

What's your point, anyway ? I asked for an example, you gave one. You want me to give you a gold star ?

I even said people who do the thing you told about should get an SSD.

 

[sxr7171]

A n-dimensional OLAP analysis on a couple of hundred gigs of financial transaction data.

Although it's more like 10 mins vs a day.

168x if my mental math is right.

 

[sxr7171]

i asked for a real world typical example.

What's your point, anyway ? I asked for an example, you gave one. You want me to give you a gold star ?

I even said people who do the thing you told about should get an SSD.

Sure SSDs don't make everything 5x faster and anyone who says so is exaggerating. Howver you can expect 2-4x faster booting depending on how clean your startup programs list is. You can also expect faster response in everyday things but nothing like 5x faster or anything.

However in relation to cost, once you have a decent rig up, your $120-$180 could not be spent in a better way in relation to performance. This is assuming you have a CPU and GPU that provides the performance you need. After that you could sink $120-180 into CPU or GPU or RAM and not get anything close to what that money on an SSD would give you. If you have a GPU that isn't cutting it, then by all means upgrade that GPU. Same if your CPU is really old and slow. After that, it's SSD all the way. Years ago we didn't have that upgrade option where a marginal $120-180 would kick the system into a whole other performance level. We are very lucky to have these IMHO. I don't blame people at all for talking up SSDs.

 

[DominionSeraph]

$350 Dell in 2006. This is the best I can do with the Caviar Blue it came with.

Seems I was mistaken there. Fresh install, fully updated:

I do so love tweaking XP.

 

[BFG10K]

My SSD reduced my boot time by 9.13 seconds compared to my Caviar Black:

That’s a real boot time, not a fake boot time. It’s from the time I press the power button until I get control of the computer.

Since I usually only boot once or twice a day, it’s hardly an earthshattering difference.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Being able to instantly launch apps the second after entering your password = awesome
On a mechanical drive, Skype, WLM and Steam really bog down the startup process.

 

[DominionSeraph]

That’s a real boot time, not a fake boot time. It’s from the time I press the power button until I get control of the computer.

From power on it takes my system around 6-7 seconds to pass off to NT loader. So I'm in the 16-17 second range.


/noguiboot and disabled fast user switching. Knocked it down another half second.

 

[sm625]

I would say that going from a caviar to a raptor is about as big a step as going from raptor to a Crucial M4. I use both a raptor system and a M4 system daily.

The best way to upgrade a $350 Dell from 2006 is to find a raptor on ebay for $38 and clone onto it. I've bought 5 such drives and they all worked amazingly.