SSD Worthwhile for high volume image processing?

I'm wondering if instead of getting an i7 maybe getting a 64GB Kingston V+ SSD would give me a decent speed boost for less money - NZ$320/US$250 or so.

I'd want 20GB as OS, then 44GB as data space. That'd let me put a wedding or two one and keep it on the SSD while I was actively working on it. I have a dedicated hard disk for cache, but maybe i'd just have Bridge export the cache to the ssd.

I use XP32, and I process 20GB of data per wedding in CS4 Bridge. Are SSDs ok with XP32? Is that trim thing that was a big deal a while ago worked out now? Can I image my spinning disk then throw the image onto the SSD easily?

Does anyone who processes 1000+ images in a sitting have any practical feedback on the practical performance increase?

Unless you have an i7 and Windows 7, no point, most HDDs are fast enough. Only when rendering previews with an i7 will the processor render previews faster than the HDD can pull files from the disks. Exporting wise, it'll have little effect.

Might make your system feel faster, but won't help much with something like bridge or LR2

basroil wrote in post #9384329
Unless you have an i7 and Windows 7, no point, most HDDs are fast enough. Only when rendering previews with an i7 will the processor render previews faster than the HDD can pull files from the disks. Exporting wise, it'll have little effect.

Might make your system feel faster, but won't help much with something like bridge or LR2

Got to disagree. I have an Intel SSD and I did some tests of Preview generation in LR2. Using the SSD was about 40% faster than using the HDD. It looks as if LR waits until the preview file has been writ to the drive before it starts generating the next preview. Here's the post with the test.

tim wrote in post #9383706
Is that trim thing that was a big deal a while ago worked out now? Can I image my spinning disk then throw the image onto the SSD easily?

Not sure if the drive you mention supports trim, but it's not really relevant as WinXP doesn't. Indeed, the only trim-aware OS currently available is Win7. You'd need to check if Kingston supply and garbage collection software. If they don't then you may find performance degrades with use.

I use Acronis to clone by boot HDD to my SSD (in an external enclosure) then swapped them over.

basroil wrote in post #9384329
Unless you have an i7 and Windows 7, no point, most HDDs are fast enough. Only when rendering previews with an i7 will the processor render previews faster than the HDD can pull files from the disks. Exporting wise, it'll have little effect.

Might make your system feel faster, but won't help much with something like bridge or LR2

You might be surprised. We had this same conversation in another thread and someone with an SSD and HD both running tested LR and it distinctly showed that preview rendering was diskbound -- the SSD made a huge difference. I'm pretty sure he wasn't on i7 yet.

Tim -- I plan on doing exactly what you described in the OP.

TheHoff wrote in post #9384642
You might be surprised. We had this same conversation in another thread and someone with an SSD and HD both running tested LR and it distinctly showed that preview rendering was diskbound -- the SSD made a huge difference. I'm pretty sure he wasn't on i7 yet.

Yup, dat was me ^^^^

No, I've not got an i7. Plain old quad-core for me.

hollis_f wrote in post #9384532
Got to disagree. I have an Intel SSD and I did some tests of Preview generation in LR2. Using the SSD was about 40% faster than using the HDD. It looks as if LR waits until the preview file has been writ to the drive before it starts generating the next preview. Here's the post with the test.

TheHoff wrote in post #9384642
You might be surprised. We had this same conversation in another thread and someone with an SSD and HD both running tested LR and it distinctly showed that preview rendering was diskbound -- the SSD made a huge difference. I'm pretty sure he wasn't on i7 yet.

Pretty sure I said that

I'm saying that for batching/actual editing, you will not run into issues with an HDD(unless you are editing 1d classic raws, and even then, not sure if it would).

Thanks guys. I don't much care how long preview rendering takes, that can happen while i'm doing something else. I'm only concerned about interactive speed. When I open a 7D RAW file (30MB or so) or move to the next one inside ACR it can take about half a second to apply my modifications to say exposure. It doesn't sound like much, but it's just enough to get annoying.

It sounds like there's not much point without an i7 and Windows 7. I guess i'll wait, and upgrade one day. I'm not that busy this season so i'll get by fine, and i'll upgrade next season.

tim wrote in post #9388119
Thanks guys. I don't much care how long preview rendering takes, that can happen while i'm doing something else. I'm only concerned about interactive speed. When I open a 7D RAW file (30MB or so) or move to the next one inside ACR it can take about half a second to apply my modifications to say exposure. It doesn't sound like much, but it's just enough to get annoying.

That just sounds like a slow computer processor, not slow disk.

basroil wrote in post #9389135
That just sounds like a slow computer processor, not slow disk.

Yeah, that's why I was considering the i7. If I was in more of a hurry i'd probably upgrade, but since I have time to play golf three times a week at the moment I don't think it's terribly critical It's a Q6600, maybe i'll look at overclocking it again.

tim wrote in post #9389223
Yeah, that's why I was considering the i7. If I was in more of a hurry i'd probably upgrade, but since I have time to play golf three times a week at the moment I don't think it's terribly critical It's a Q6600, maybe i'll look at overclocking it again.

Stock 860 is almost 100% faster than a stock q6600, so should be better without increasing the thermal needs of your system. Upgrade shouldn't take more than an hour, but I'm sure you know all about that (that includes OS install if you go with W7)

I'd get the 920, but at NZ$1200 or so for motherboard, cpu, and ram it's not really worthwhile at the moment. The Q6600 probably has another 6-9 months in it for me before I get too annoyed with the speed and upgrade.

Adobe's website says Photoshop cannot be installed onto a flash based storage device. Isn't a SSD a flash based storage device?

YEs. I expect an SSD just looks like any other disk to the software though.

Poe wrote in post #9396445
Adobe's website says Photoshop cannot be installed onto a flash based storage device. Isn't a SSD a flash based storage device?

They are not referring to SSDs in that statement it will install and work fine on an SSD.

Quad wrote in post #9396596
and work fine on an SSD.

Better than fine, it works wonderfully. Pre-SSD it always used to bug me, the amount of time I seemed to spend waiting for PS to open. Now it takes around 2-3 seconds. Still long enough to be a niggle, but about 10% as annoying as it used to be.