SSD Worthwhile for high volume image processing?

hollis_f wrote in post #9403891
SSDs using the Sandforce controller get a lot of their speed boost by compressing the data. However, when the data you're moving is already compressed (i.e. most image formats) then they're not mopping any floors.

Ouch!

This was a good read,
http://www.anandtech.c​om …e/showdoc.aspx?​i=3631&p=1

So I decided to give it a go. One thing I learned is that ssd do not do so well in a raid configuration. And you want to make sure you get one that handles trim operations. Looks like in the next six months this option is going to improve considerably and drop down in price.

IUnknown wrote in post #9481889
So I decided to give it a go. One thing I learned is that ssd do not do so well in a raid configuration. And you want to make sure you get one that handles trim operations. Looks like in the next six months this option is going to improve considerably and drop down in price.

They DONT or DO well in Raid Configuration?

I have 2 setups 2 x 60 GB SSD in raid 0, 4 x 30 GB SSD in raid 0 and the performance to unbelievabe.

Finished installing a 160gb SSD as my main drive and did some test with lightroom and capture one. Although everything in the OS is much snappier and my download speeds have reached 1.5MB's, the image rendering in lightroom/capture one has not seemed to improve. At least in capture one, its faster than lighroom and not annoying.

IUnknown wrote in post #9639867
Finished installing a 160gb SSD as my main drive and did some test with lightroom and capture one. Although everything in the OS is much snappier and my download speeds have reached 1.5MB's, the image rendering in lightroom/capture one has not seemed to improve.

Hmm, when I did timed tests the SSD was noticeably faster. That was with the LR catalog and the images I was working on stored on the SSD.

IUnknown wrote in post #9639867
Finished installing a 160gb SSD as my main drive and did some test with lightroom and capture one. Although everything in the OS is much snappier and my download speeds have reached 1.5MB's, the image rendering in lightroom/capture one has not seemed to improve. At least in capture one, its faster than lighroom and not annoying.

Just means your $400 would be better off spent on an i7 860+mobo rather than ssd

I did not run any timed tests, so you are probably right. But it was not the improvement I was expecting, and that second it takes to render is still annoying (I still like lightroom, just being nit-picky). CP1 isn't bad. I'm going to try the DXO 6 trial and see how that compares.

probably true. From what I've read the next generation of SSD are going to be more affordable.

Which 160GB SSD did you purchase and install?

This is what the reviews recommended,
160GB X25M MLC SSD 2.5"/9.5mm
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …25_M_Mainstream​_SATA.html

It is a good drive...but for the $$$ there would have been some better options for you.

As an example, you could have gone with two OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD (MLC) in Raid. Granted it would have been 120GB vs 160GB, but you definately see an improvement in read speeds in all areas.

Have you gone into your system and tweaked the various settings to squeeze out all the possible performance?

yeah, that would have been better.how do you like the performance in lightroom?

Again..its all feel, but coming from 2 WD raptors to 3 x 30 (then 4 x 30) OCZ Vertex SSDs, lightroom was night and day.

This is an older benchmark i ran a long time back, there have since been a few firmware updates that have improved the performance slightly. Granted the below is a benchmark (not real life usuage) but it does provide an indication of performance gains.

3 x 30 OCZ Vertex Raid 0, using the motherboard's raid controller (Intel ICH10R).

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Aw, thanks so much YP5 Toronto for the advice. Yeah, I was getting write speeds of 150 max. Going to return for the two 60 gb drives.

IUnknown wrote in post #9640757
I did not run any timed tests, so you are probably right. But it was not the improvement I was expecting, and that second it takes to render is still annoying (I still like lightroom, just being nit-picky).

Well, when I was asked to run the test I was doubtful that there'd be much difference - because I'd assumed that drive speed would have little impact on what is a very processor-intensive task. And I think Basroil's correct - a processor upgrade (assuming enough RAM) would have a much bigger effect on that particular task.

IUnknown wrote in post #9641986
Aw, thanks so much YP5 Toronto for the advice. Yeah, I was getting write speeds of 150 max. Going to return for the two 60 gb drives.

150 MB/s is SATA 1 speed, sounds like your HD controller needs updating.