Ross8ch wrote:
Most likely I'll get the 2.3ghz
And currently I have final cut pro set up using an external harddrive as my scratch disc and used for all video file storage.
It sounds to me that the "SSD VS HHD" is up
In the air, you guys seem pretty split on the subject.
To me, part of the issue is that you gave as examples Ps & FCP. Those types of apps tend to "aways need more of everything". It's like you "always" see the spinning beach ball when applying a Ps filter. And video is quite CPU intensive. So that would seem to indicate the better CPU. BUT video also has large files and don't like "hiccups" when accessing the disk. On that note, I've seen some projects that had to edit multiple RAW picture files, so even Ps could need disk space. In addition, Ps uses the HD as scratch space and the recommendation is to put the scratch file on the fastest disk. Thus the "need" for more CPU performance AND more HD performance.
Since you already have an external HD, then the SSD would be a good investment, even for the price. But your needs will determine whether you should get it. For example, I do a lot with virtualization. Specifically running multiple virtual machines simultaneously. Thus I have a need for more cores and memory first, then more CPU speed and HD speed. But it also needs HD
space to store those multiple virtual machines. So for me, the decision would be for the 750GB drive over the 256GB SSD. I already replaced the 200GB drive in my MBP for a 500GB hybrid drive. Thus for me, the _+lack of space+_ on the SSD is a big deciding factor.
If you want a more realistic "assessment" of your situation: The SSD will get you the first 90% of the performance boost. The CPU will give you an additional 10%. Could even be closer to 80/20 if your work is more CPU intensive. (e.g.: applying Ps filters.)