Originally Posted by Zon2020
The problem with that is that the article that you chose to cite says SSDs are "a good way to improve system responsiveness" and that "the difference is very much tangible
in everyday use." It doesn't say anything about the increase in performance being "minor or non-appreciable." That statement is something you simply made up and is what is lacking any supporting data, empirical or otherwise.
While the title of the page he cites might sound like it supports his claims- the body of the text and evidence presented tells a totally different story.
Originally Posted by Lars99
I'll leave you with this, from Nov 2011.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...-ssd,3062.html
Read and attempt to digest the entire article.
Pay particular attention to the very last table, titled "Solid State Won't Improve All Gameplay"
I lol-ed hard at the "Read and attempt to digest the entire article.
Here is what I saw on that page you linked:
There's a lot going on when you play a game. So, generalizing about the way storage technology affects gaming ignores many of the nuances that affect how long it takes to fire up a game, load a level, or even just play on through.
Understandably, then, simply replacing a hard drive with an SSD won't address all of your performance-oriented issues. However, after expanding our testing to three more games, we have to amend our previous findings. In particular, Battlefield 3 and Rift turn out to be substantially different from some of the other games as they're being enjoyed. Mainly, reads are emphasized, just as they are while launching games and loading levels.
The storage profile of each game turns out to be a pretty good barometer of how it'll respond to an SSD upgrade, more easily explaining why some titles realize benefits you can really feel, while others don't. Practically, you don't spend a ton of time waiting for games or levels to load, which is why smooth gameplay should be top priority. We've seen the consequences of choppy gameplay on a system limited to magnetic storage and asked to perform too many I/O-intensive tasks at a time.
(you can watch the video in the link you provided for evidence)
The video above highlights the issue pretty clearly. At 1:07 or so, and then a couple times more, you see the system seize up a bit with an anti-virus scan running in the background, even with a capable CPU and a high-end graphics card. Compare that to the video below, complemented by an SSD. Performance is smooth (even consistent?) throughout.
This is perhaps the most compelling reason to upgrade. The passing of time sees all of our systems slow down. Small programs get installed, storage fills up, and more processes run in the background. You might not even have trouble with an anti-virus scan. It could be an unrequested Windows Update install (Ed.: I hate it when that happens), indexing, a disk degfrag, or Outlook's automatic email check.
While the performance gains aren't quantitatively impressive, SSDs remain a good way to improve system responsiveness. They're not as sexy as a new six-core CPU or a Radeon HD 7000-series graphics card. They're certainly not cheap, either. However, the difference is very much tangible in everyday use.
Did I miss something in the article and link you provided?
It almost seems to prove my point much more than yours.
Perhaps my "attempt to digest the entire article" as you suggested was not effective.