I hope this is a dual disk laptop, so are you talking OS/Applications or Project disk?
OS/Application drive, Bill.
Laptop's MYTHLOGIC Pollux 1611 (Clevo P150HM). Considering the Intel SSD 510 Series (120GB) as primary drive. And swaping-out the ODD with a 750GB 7200 16MB Cache SATA Hard Drive on a caddy for Audio & Video storage.
Unless you are into real heavy editing (and with this CPU class I doubt it) an SSD does not make cost effective sense as the boot drive. I have tried several and never found that with our Premiere Pro BenchMark PPBM5 that it made any difference in the scores over a good fast disk drive. Now it you have a very complex edit with something like 10 layers with some AE effects one of the forum members claims it makes a difference, but no measurement to back up that statement. Much more important than the boot drive are the processing power of the CPU and amount of memory. Now if longer battery life is a big concern then you might think about it.
I'm that member that Bill's talking about (above). I would wait to upgrade to SSDs until the OCZ Vertex 3 drives are out, which should be any day now. I have changed my mind and don't endorse SSDs in a SATA II config. Speed gains are not worth the money IMO (but speed is not the only reason I've been using SSDs for my C-Drive for the last 2.5 years). However, I've noticed a nice speed increase (as defined by OS boot up, app launch, AE & PPro Project file read/write. Autosaves take much less time and I don't cancel them like I used to do when storing to an HD) with a Crucial SATA III giving 355mbps read and 215 write. The new Vertex 3 is rated in the 500s for both read and write, which is a significant jump, from my Crucial drive, which (up until reading about the Vertex 3!) I've been happy with. Plus, the price is getting more "reasonable" (and opinions fly all over the place on what constitutes reasonable). I read that the Vertex 3 240Gb drive will be less than $500. Still a lot of money for so little storage, but the price is certainly (and FINALLY) on the way down for these drives so that they will be more practical for medium-end users, instead of just the high-end. Here's a review on the OCZ: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/02/24/ocz-vertex-3-ssd-preview/1
This lappy will deal mostly with (.mov) files from Canon 5D MarkII HDSLR.
Hardware config are as follows: i7-2720QM, 8GB (2 x 4GB - PC3-10600) 1333MHz SODIMM. OS: Win 7 Pro 64-Bit.
I'm for the OCZ Vertex 3 too! And, with a room for the upcoming Crucial C400/M4...
It's just that I've been on back-order since the early part of February 2011 and the Sandy Bridge refresh is just around the corner. My laptop could be in production tomorrow or the next day... The Vertex 3 is just in its introductory phase yet. And I need to make up my mind ASAP!
Since MYTHOLOGIC Pollux 1611 (Clevo P150HM) is SATAIII capable, I initially went for the Crucial RealSSD C300 128GB. But with the release of Intel SSD 510, I said "why not?".
In Sequential Read and Write:
Intel SSD 510 (292.2/331.4) trashes the C300 (273/195.5)
Yet, on Random Read and Write:
C300 (83.1/141.3/178.1) retaliates! Intel SSD 510 (44.4/49.7/49.6)
Now, to all you guys in this forum:
Would having the Intel SSD 510 as my OS drive give higher benefits than the Crucial RealSSD C300? Or, should I just settle with the ever-reliable 120GB Intel X-25M MLC SSD now and upgrade to the best & latest when released?
Your recommendations are highly appreciated!
Thank you all.
The opening statement in the article you linked to says it all:
Price per gigabyte is, by far, the biggest factor preventing SSDs from replacing hard drives. If SSDs weren't so darn expensive, we wouln't have any trouble getting past their capacity limitations, because we would be using multiple SSDs in the same machine.
There is no doubt the Vertex3 Pro is the next step up in SSD technology. Great performance. Reasonable capacity. But not everybody has the same deep pockets as Bill Gates, in fact the majority here have strict budgets, whether they are students, have a small shop or work for schools, churches, charity organizations etc.
If you need say 2 TB of disk capacity, it would require 10 Vertex 3 Pro SSD's @ $ 775 for the meager sum of $ 7,750 plus a raid controller that supports SSD's and the trim function, not widely available at the moment and with a steep price. In comparison, two 1 TB F3's @ $ 60 each is much more attractive, because it also does not require an expensive raid controller.
For people on a budget, the price per gigabyte is indeed the biggest factor and that explains why there are but a few who happily endorse SSD's.
SSD's may not be a by-word for the mainstream at present yet. But based on the latest PPBM5 Results (see attached), of the TOP 25... Almost 65% of the machines sport SSD's as their OS drive!
TO THE FEW WHO ARE HAPPY (SSD Owners): Can you please chime in???
And there is no causal relation at all between PPBM5 results and the use of SSD's for OS. Statements like:
based on the latest PPBM5 Results (see attached), of the TOP 25... Almost 65% of the machines sport SSD's as their OS drive!
are accurate, but prove nothing and suggesting a causal relation where there is none belong in the realm of "How to lie with statistics".
The only conclusion one can draw from the Top-25 list is that large raid arrays show massive performance gains, SSD's do not.
So, performance-wise... Will there be no improvement at all using SSD of OS Drive in a laptop in the environment of Adobe Premiere Pro CS5?
Which drive for OS would you recommend then?
1 person found this helpful
The question is ostensibly quite simple. The answer is not.
What kind of laptop? One that meets minimum requirements, two or more physical different SATA disks, or one that does not meet minimum requirements?
For laptops SSD's can be adventageous if you reboot multiple times per day and battery life is important and you are willing to pay the price. For instance, based on today's prices over here, a 640 GB 7200 RPM SATA Samsung Spinpoint MP4 for € 57 versus a OCZ 240 GB Vertex3 for € 450, your seconds saved on boot and loading of programs must be very, very precious to justify the price difference. Try to explain that to your wife... For the differenece of nearly € 400 she can get some nice clothes.
In editing performance, you will be hard pressed to notice any difference on a notebook with a single drive, if the notebook meets or exceeds minimum requirements, and you are willing to part with that much money, you will definitely gain a couple of seconds each day, but nothing approaching a 1 minute advantage per day. It is up to you (and your financial director, your wife) to decide whether that is worth it.
The Vertex 3 Pro looks like the best bet (SSD) for now, but at a price of € 600+ it does not come cheap. Again, if you have wallets like Bill Gates, this is peanuts and you know of course, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys and if you pay money to monkeys, you get rich monkeys.
1 person found this helpful
Harm, you are 100% correct, in that SSDs are the last path of the upgrade when it comes to performance increases. But once you have your 980x, GTX460-580, 16-24Gb of RAM and fast storage, the SSD is the next logical step IF you have the funds, which is probably why so many people are using SSDs who have the highest PPBM scores. They have high-end rigs. SSDs are probably not worth putting on the credit card at this point, unless you pay off your card each month. But, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT SPEED! There are many other benefits that SSDs provide. I whole-heartily agree, that at this point in time, they're still a luxury for the low to even mid-end user, but I have a problem when people say that SSDs are only good for bragging rights. If you're giving advice on this forum, you lose credibility with statements like that. That's tunnel vision and it's not good to be narrow-minded in such a creative field as ours. Here's my advice and notice how it gives more facts for the person inquiring to decide if it's right for him or her, BASED ON THEIR BUDGETS/WORKFLOW:
SSDs have the following advantages over HDs: they are signifcantly faster in data I/O (Sata III SSDs, especially the ones coming out soon), have a smaller physical profile than an HD, thus potentially restricting less airflow in a case, emit almost no heat, use less power (more significant in a laptop), do not need defragging, and pose zero risk of mechanical failure, BUT cost significantly more than a hard drive, at present. Right now, their primary use is for the C-Drive. One shouldn't even THINK of using SSDs for media unless under the supervision of a therapist. Also, one must have Sata III capabilities either built into their motherboard or with a plug-in controller, like a RAID card, to experience the significant data I/O these SATA III drives offer. Don't expect significant speed increases while using Premiere Pro or After Effects, though I've personally found it desireable to store AE and PPro Project files to my SSD because of the faster I/O. I used to cancel PPro Autosaves because they took so long before I started doing this. SSDs will clearly replace the hard drive someday. It's for you to decide, based on your budget/workflow when the price has dropped enough for you to make the jump. And on a personal note, having experience with the early SATA II SSDs and an almost-current SATA III SSD, I don't THINK (a key word here!) that anything less than a SATA III SSD is worth considering.
There. A balanced opinion.
I would go with the default 500 GB 7200 RPM drive for the OS/Applications, and instead spend all you can afford on first the fastest CPU and second on more RAM (if it really is available).
This laptop has the new Sandy Bridge mobile CPU and provisions for a second internal drive so when you do get it please test it with PPBM5 so we all can see how it does. Also PPBM5 is a great tuning tool.
Now, I'm coming into terms with what you guys know and have experienced about SSD's most especially in the Adobe Premiere Pro department.
If for instance, I want to take advantage of faster boot-up times, apps initialization etc... Would a 500GB Seagate Momentus XT be a better choice then? This one is surely much better in terms of $$$/GB than pure SSD's! Its just like being in two worlds without spending a limb...
Multiple drives and drive speed (read and write) are one of the 4 performance needs of PPro CS5 - to perform best it needs:
- fast CPU
- LOTs of RAM
- Multiple and fast drives I/O
- GPU for MPE
If I was configuring a laptop from mythlogic, I would tweak things up a bit so that all 4 of your performance needs are covered well; specifically:
1) Change to the Nyx 1711 which has 3 spindles and RAID 0 capabilities built in -- choose: 500GB/7200 boot + dual 750GB/7200 configured as a RAID 0 array
2) Your CPU choice sounds excellent (i7-2720QM)
3) Max out the RAM to 16GB
4) GTX460M video
Check out the thread, "How changes to CPU speed, RAM size, and drives (SSD and hard drives) impacted my PPBM5 score for some specifics about what exactly would speed up for: 8GB to 16GB, 1 work drive vs. 2xRAID 0 work drive, etc.
PS - I do think that new 120GB Intel SSD would be a rocking OS/programs drive, but ALL of the above upgrades should be done first and foremost and the SSD added ONLY if you want to afford that too. I sense that you will be max'ing out your budget w/o a SSD boot drive and that's really fine.
Thanks to all!
Your responses have greatly contributed to my understanding "now" of the benefits of having an SSD or HDD as primary drive.
Yes, SSD's have a lot of advantages. But its the $$$/GB that is just pulling it way down at present! Plus, within Adobe Premiere Pro environment... An SSD OS Drive has not proven a great deal in performance improvement over a 7200 rpm HDD primary drive. Even a Hybrid-HDD's (part SSD. greater part spindle HDD) which are cheaper in price have not also given boost within AP Pro.
Now, for late bloomers like me, here's a discussion of nearly a year-old already:
Harm Millaard wrote:
2. May 31, 2010 4:34 PM in response to: qseep
Re: Seagate Momentus XT
Since when is boot time so relevant on an editing machine?
You turn it on in the morning, while you are still having your first cup of coffee, and turn is off at the end of the day. Sure, it looks nice to reduce boot time for notebooks, but for an editing machine? I have my doubts, because most serious editors have raids and have you ever considered how long it takes to initialize the raid bios, what it takes to spin up your drives? Instead of 50 seconds, boot time may be reduced to 35 seconds. So what? Booting happens once a day, so it seems like a waste of money to pay twice or more the price per GB.
IMHO, it is a nice gadget, it may be worth it for notebooks that get booted multiple times a day, that are not delayed by staggered spin-up or raid initialization, but for an editing machine it is a waste of money.
Just my $ 0.02
When technology finally brings SSD prices down to a reasonable level, I'm sure most Adobe Premiere Pro users will jump into the bandwagon!