Windows 7 and RAID 0 woes

[Plekto]

250mb/sec is a bit low, though, compared to dedicated interfaces that make use of the PCIe instead of the slower SATA controllers. Though, the upcoming SATA3 interface will solve a lot of this.(750-800mb/sec is possible using the same technology and PCIe vs SATA2)   Yes, as I stated, real ram drives are a whole order of magnitude faster.  One Linux box out there is claiming an under 1 second boot now with such a device.

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-v...D-Grudge-Match/
Apparently the only issue with this technology is the interface.  Better interface=better speed.  Yes, that's one Fusion I/O versus a stack of 4 Intel SSDs.  Two Fusion I/Os or a similar technology would be probably limited by the motherboard's capacity to handle all of that data at once.  

The only issue of course is the silly price(but only for now - that will change for sure).  For that reason, a normal SSD would probably more than work for most people.(though if I had the money, I'd get a PCIe ramdrive and 32GB of physical RAM)

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?opti...8&Itemid=60
Man, I'd SO love one of these.  But you can see that the Intel X25 SSDs are noticeably better than the normal drives even in these tests.  Note the WD Raptor(single drive) near the bottom of the pack.  He was asking for proof that SSDs are faster and will speed up Photoshop(more than a new CPU, I'd wager) and there you have plenty of proof.

Also,
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?opti...mp;limitstart=9
The PC they used had an 11 second POST time, so the real time for boot with SSDs and RamDrives was in the 4-5 *second* range once that was out of the way.  If that doesn't make you a believer once you see it in real life, nothing will.  It literally feels gaming console fast to get up and running.

The real issue though is latency and simultaneous actions.  Hard drives have to queue up and use cache to keep it from becoming a total bottleneck.  Because it boils down to one head and one platter at a time for one piece of data.  Plus, with the right SSD and CPU/motherboard combination, it's possible to easily build a 1 fan(or completely passive) computer to keep noise down to nearly inaudible levels.

[PierreVandevenne]

Plus, with the right SSD and CPU/motherboard combination, it's possible to easily build a 1 fan(or completely passive) computer to keep noise down to nearly inaudible levels.

Yes, I don't dispute the advantages of SSDs (I am using them myself) and I agree the interface plays a large role. You can improve things a lot if you go to the very high end (but then you can get 500 GB/s out of RAM at the high end as well). In practice, however, for someone buying a standard Windows 7 PC, I believe Anand gives an accurate measure of what we can expect. Last but not least, anyone who's looking into SSDs should make sure TRIM is supported. Without it, withing a few weeks, the advantages are less obvious.

[PeterAit]

250mb/sec is a bit low, though, compared to dedicated interfaces that make use of the PCIe instead of the slower SATA controllers. Though, the upcoming SATA3 interface will solve a lot of this.(750-800mb/sec is possible using the same technology and PCIe vs SATA2)   Yes, as I stated, real ram drives are a whole order of magnitude faster.  One Linux box out there is claiming an under 1 second boot now with such a device.

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusionio-v...D-Grudge-Match/
Apparently the only issue with this technology is the interface.  Better interface=better speed.  Yes, that's one Fusion I/O versus a stack of 4 Intel SSDs.  Two Fusion I/Os or a similar technology would be probably limited by the motherboard's capacity to handle all of that data at once.  

The only issue of course is the silly price(but only for now - that will change for sure).  For that reason, a normal SSD would probably more than work for most people.(though if I had the money, I'd get a PCIe ramdrive and 32GB of physical RAM)

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?opti...8&Itemid=60
Man, I'd SO love one of these.  But you can see that the Intel X25 SSDs are noticeably better than the normal drives even in these tests.  Note the WD Raptor(single drive) near the bottom of the pack.  He was asking for proof that SSDs are faster and will speed up Photoshop(more than a new CPU, I'd wager) and there you have plenty of proof.

Also,
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?opti...mp;limitstart=9
The PC they used had an 11 second POST time, so the real time for boot with SSDs and RamDrives was in the 4-5 *second* range once that was out of the way.  If that doesn't make you a believer once you see it in real life, nothing will.  It literally feels gaming console fast to get up and running.

The real issue though is latency and simultaneous actions.  Hard drives have to queue up and use cache to keep it from becoming a total bottleneck.  Because it boils down to one head and one platter at a time for one piece of data.  Plus, with the right SSD and CPU/motherboard combination, it's possible to easily build a 1 fan(or completely passive) computer to keep noise down to nearly inaudible levels.

And don't forget - the faster your computer boots, the better a photographer you will be!

[Plekto]

So by that theory, your 5 year old computer should be just fine...    

I hear it all the time. "I need a faster computer".  Well, getting a 20-30% faster computer isn't going to solve the main problem for people which is slow video and/or slow storage.  Both of those problems require solutions that are cheaper than buying a whole new computer most of the time.