New
#541
LOL, not really. The biggest thing is more breathing room on the drive - from 120 to 256 gig.
I getting back into my photography and thus will need the speed and a little leg room to process my rather large RAW files. I have a Nikon D800E camera which is 36.7 mega pixels :)
I also want all the cache files from Adobe Photoshop CS6, Lightroom, and Nikon transfer to be on SSD drives.
At any rate I haven't notice a speed increase, at least not yet.
anyone worrying about their benches unless they completely hideous dont worry too much, I expect in real world performance the difference between sata2 and sata3 etc. is not noticeable. Its probably only the very old first or 2nd gen ssd's which had crappy 4k performance where it would be noticebly slower. Samsung and intel should be the most reliable as well in my view. My samsung 830 scores are lower than just about everyone else's and I havent noticed any lag at all on my system, its extremely fast compared to when on my WD black hdd.
Last edited by chrysalis; 03 Sep 2012 at 09:33.
I have no idea what a "hideo" is, but thanks for your exteme expertise on SSDs. We can all breathe easier knowing you are on the job.
Despite the bad spelling - hideos (hideous) crysalis actually makes a good point. However this IS a performance/benchmarking thread where you want to show and compare scores