What size ssd is most useful as a boot drive?

I am looking to buy a laptop with a 128gb or 256 gb ssd to run windows and my programs from and then a 500gb second drive for data. I just don't know how quickly I would fill the ssd up. I may install myself or buy specified that way (don't know yet which).

I will be running AutoCAD, Revit, photoshop, and Lightroom. I may put some files on there as well to speed things up from time to time, but my knowledge on this is limited, as I haven't used an ssd before.

What size is acceptable and what would you go with? Price is a consideration.

 

What's your budget?

Higher-capacity SSDs are generally faster than smaller-capacity drives of the same model line. But any SSD will be faster than any HDD, so if you can only afford a 128GB SSD, it's still better than nothing.

 

128 should be fine, but you may find yourself managing disk space more often. When installing software, probably avoid blindly doing full installation.

 

If you want more than just the OS and couple large apps/utilities, go with 256GB. The drives will likely be faster in all aspects compared to 128GB and give you the extra breathing room needed. Considering you can get a Crucial M500 240GB for $200, it's more than worth the cost.

 

Price is always a consideration.

But there is also the sense that some things are not worth doing (at almost any price). Buying a 128GB SSD is one of them. Especially for your intended workflow(s).


I would suggest a 512GB (or larger; either 2x 480/512GB+ SSD's or the 960GB Crucial M500) all SSD solution for your setup.

With all your programs: a 100GB 'C:' partition is the most you will ever use for your O/S, programs and even some data (think PDF's, the LR's catalogue files, etc.) that was 'work in progress' (WIP).

The remainder of the SSD's capacity will be used for the actual data and the PS 'scratch disk space'. AFTER you have left ~30% 'unallocated' to ensure consistent, sustained performance and the least possible wear on and tear on the SSD with normal usage and TRIM and GC 'background' functions.

The larger SSD's also offer better quality nand - fully populated controller channels and each channel fully/optimally interleaved for the best performance over time (again: sustained, real world, day in, day out use). Coupled with at least 30% OP'ing, the drive should last the life of the system in use - almost no matter what workload (workstation use, not benchmarking...) you can throw at it.

And yeah; I would recommend the above even for 'most useful as a boot drive' too.


Good luck.

 

I do not mean to criticize every response you post (and I apologize if it seems like I am bashing on your suggestions, which I am not) but again, I would suggest against this. There is simply no logic in suggesting the most expensive option when OP has clearly stated that price is a consideration. That completely negates his criterion. I use a 128 GB SSD with my OS on it and a few other programs/games. It is (and has been for almost a year) filled up to 80GB and I have no noticeable performance drop. Sure there is a few percent difference when I run benchmarks. However, the point is to actually feel the faster performance and that I do not.

OP, if you can afford the 256GB SSD, go for it. The current difference in price between the two is about $70-80 I believe and imo, it is worth it. If not, you should be fine with the 128GB SSD.

 

You can suggest what ever you like. Same as me. However; your suggestions are based on price which is the wrong metric on whether something is viable or not.

My suggestions are based on the intended workflow and the experiences I have had with the equipment and similar/same workflows over the past few years (~2009).


I do not know how you quantify 'no noticeable performance drop' on a single system over time - benchmarks do not mean anything to me or correspond to anything in the real world ime either.

I have had the opportunity to use/test many, many systems - some EXACTLY the same with the EXACT same workflows except for the SSD capacity - the small SSD's are simply toys to be dismissed at this point in time. And that is just running 'light' workloads too - not my much more demanding workloads that have effectively killed a 100GB SSD in less than 2 weeks... (still 'worked', technically; but at or below HDD levels... ugh!!!).


I am not against being criticized - I need reality checks too here and there... but when a solution for a workflow (PS, LR, and some AutoCAD) I am familiar with is asked for: I proceed with offering the most balanced long-term solution I know to date. Anything else is just sabotage, imo.

And as for the 'bang for the buck' argument? With no bucks; there is no bang. (And wishing otherwise won't make it so).

 

Thanks everyone for the responses. It sounds like there's no consensus on here, but that maybe the 128 will fill up and will be a slower drive?

 

256- 512 should be fine, IF the notebook has room for a second drive 500-750 GB conventional HDD should work well. What notebook model and brand do you have in mind? .... If your machine has esata out this could come in handy for quicker backups and even more storage. In general you can save a few $$ by getting a machine with minimal storage & RAM and upgrading yourself. I would recommend 32 GB RAM also as I have learned from tilleroftheearth.

 

Another option you may want to consider is if the notebook you are purchasing has an msata drive slot. You can get a 64gb msata for around 60-80 and use it solely as a caching drive for Intel smart response. You wont get the full benefits of a traditional ssd, but youll notice quicker boot times and quicker load times for your most used programs. Combine the msata with a 1tb HGST 7200 rpm and youll have fairly quick performance for under $200. Again, not going to be as fast as traditional SSD + HDD setup, but it gets you close for the cheapest price. Good luck

 

Personally, I wouldn't bother with a cache drive. Just install Windows + programs on there to get the full benefits of the SSD. You paid for it, why only use "part" of the benefits?

 

128GB is plenty for an OS drive. I have a 120GB Intel 320 series SSD as my boot drive - with just Windows 7 and programs residing on it (MS Office, Adobe CS5), I have over 75GB free space. I would've bought the 80GB version to save a few dollars if I had to do it again.

It's true the larger SSDs in the same series are faster (in nearly all cases), but personally I don't see it being worth the extra money.

It's easy to map your Downloads, Documents, Pictures, Music, and Videos libraries over to a secondary hard drive, as I've done with my setup; I have a 500GB hard drive installed where my optical drive used to be. I am very pleased with this setup.

 

The Samsung 840 250GB SSD is probably the best for your needs. It's approximately $175.

Good luck.

 

If it's just for basic uses (mostly reads), then yeah its a good drive. Write-heavy stuff though would be a bad usage for the 840, but if it's just for OS/programs then no big deal.

Anyway, the 250gb version is running strong with my sister's laptop. Great cheap drive.

 

For normal usage (ie, not installing many huge 10GB+ games, etc), a 128GB SSD is probably more than you'll need. My laptops have 80GB and 64GB SSDs, and I still have ~20GB free on each one, and have not noticed any negative performance impacts.

 

I am currently working on a laptop with a 128GB SSD, running mainly Photoshop. Secondary drive is an external HDD.

Capacity wise, i have no problem using the 128GB SSD as a system disk: Windows&Software are using around 35GB, my data stored on SSD amounts to about 50GB, and free space is around 35GB. (Hibernate is off, System Restore is On, Page File is on Auto). I do find myself cleaning up now and then in order to keep free space up, but that is something one should do anyways.

However there is one more aspect to take into consideration: Scratch Disk usage, or any other potentially massive temporary writing to the disk. On two occasions, while editing very large files in PS i found myself almost out of scratch disk space on the SSD. These were extraordinary situations as i was editing files intended for large prints on a machine intended for web design.

My next SSD will probably be larger than 128GB, in the 180-256GB range. I'm not in any real hurry though

If i were you, i would either choose a really fast 128GB drive like the Samsung 840 Pro or i would take a look at cheaper & bigger alternatives like a 256GB Samsung 840 or 180GB Intel 335. You can make it work both ways (with some perks and penalties of course).

 

I was getting a Lenovo W530 workstation.