Hello. I'm up to get a new MBPro. I need to do some video editing when I travel. I was planning to get a MBPro with the full amount of RAM: 8Gig with the 512MB video card. Now I'm stuck with the choice of a SSD or a standard 7200rpm SataDrive. Is there a down fall of using SSDs in video production? Anyone using SSDs with FinalCut?
I do plan to do burn discs, and I'm hearing that SSDs have a slower write speed. True?
Right. So that's the scratch disc/storage. I understand. So no issues with working with those captured media on a boot/system with FCP installed? -As far as performance.
Thanks.
1. FCS must reside on the OSX system drive. It is not necessary for that drive to be anything other than a standard 5400/7200 rpm drive. If you want to spend the money for the latest and greatest - go ahead but It is unlikely you will see any measurable performance gains.
2. If you have a MacBookPro, your captured media, image files, etc should be stored on an EXTERNAL drive. Depending on the formats you edit, the drive(s) can be anything from a FW400 to an ESATA array. Storing media on the system drive can lead to all sorts of editing headaches. Playing back multiple streams of video at the same time as running the OS and the application will overwhelm the poor machine.
If you're confused about anything, ask away. Isn't why this forum was designed for? I think with folks experienced in this topic would provide some good feed-back, which both of you did very well. Thanks.
Anymore folks out there running this kind of configuration? -And can provide some feedback on how it's been running?
I don't use this configuration, but have looked into it, and it just doesn't seem cost effective.
All the SSD will do on the boot drive is probably launch applications a little faster, or load PS files a little quicker.
But because you aren't going use that SSD boot drive to store media, it has no effect on optimize use of that media on a dedicated external drive.
Save you money and get a fast 7200 rpm boot drive, and put your remaining money on a fast exteranl media drive, more RAM, and the best GPU you can build to order.
Thanks Dave for the well thought-out response. I really appreciate it. I was actually thinking the same thing, after doing a little bit more research online and viewing some demos. The cost for the SSDs are still steep for the little amount of capacity you get, and it doesn't seem significant enough to invest in. (For me that is.)
I guess this discussion has changed into seeing if other folks have this sort of configuration and seeing how their real experience is working out for them. -And if it was a good and worthwhile investment.
Studio X wrote:
1. FCS must reside on the OSX system drive. It is not necessary for that drive to be anything other than a standard 5400/7200 rpm drive. If you want to spend the money for the latest and greatest - go ahead but It is unlikely you will see any measurable performance gains.
Just for the record, I like to put 10,000 RPM Raptors as boot disks in my desktop machines. I have found that having a fast boot disk significantly improves boot times, app launching and overall app responsiveness because data can be read and written to swap far more quickly. It makes my G5 Quad feel a lot faster than some Mac Pros I have used (one of the reasons I haven't bothered upgrading yet).
Having said that though, I still think SSDs are far too expensive to justify the performance boost.
some ssd's are reported to be 3-4 times faster than the fastest hd's. I think xmas time to the spring of next year (2010) would be a good time to start checking these beasts out.
I appreciate the response. My experience with 10k rpm drives is they generate significantly more heat and consume more power than their 7200 rpm brethren. Since I am the slowest component of the computing equation, the trade off doesn't seem useful to me at this time. Other's milage will vary.
The laptops run very hot and where the SSD may pay for itself is in longer computer life.
I have a 2008 Macbook Pro with a 7200RPM drive, and a 2009 Macbook Pro with the SSD. If you have the budget, get the SSD. All of the statements above are correct, but not entirely analyzed, probably because the posters don't have the new SSD in their computer. I was lucky enough to have my company pay for my computer, so I got the SSD. It's way better. Yes, all apps load faster. The computer starts faster. I have less issues with waking from sleep mode. I NEVER overhear, as there are less moving parts in the computer. Acutally, Photoshop and Motion are the only apps that get me close to hot, as the graphics card still gets hot. But there is no added heat from the HD. Also, it's SILENT. When you are accessing files from the system drive, watching movies, whatever, there is no noise. It's quite enjoyable. Looking at the new cameras for both consumer and pro, solid state is the way we are going. More reliable in the long run. Greater read and write cycles, not damaged by shock, low heat, small footprint... there are a lot of benefits that are not FCP specific, but just make the computer perform easier. If you got it, flaunt it... get the SSD and brag that you had the cool toy before everyone else!
Have a new Intel SSD. Want to install oSX and Final cut studio. Can I install the 'extra content' on another drive and still have FCS work like it should, or does that extra content have to be on the same drive?
