There are claims being made that SSDs (Solid State Drives) are one of (if not THE) best investments one can make as far as PC hardware upgrades. If someone wants a cite, just pick one of 3876 glowing SSD-thumping blog posts by Mr. Atwood on a little-known Coding Horror blog (disclaimer: the number of posts might have been a mite exaggerated).
A sample quote:
if you care at all about how your computer performs, solid state hard drives remain a life changing experience. Here's why:
- A solid state hard drive is easily the best and most obvious performance upgrade you can make on any computer for a given amount of money. Unless your computer is absolute crap to start with.
Jeff-zinging aside, I am a mite skeptical about SSD benefits per unit of cost owing to three concerns:
The cheaper ones appear to be worse performing, possibly materially so.
SSDs are actually pretty expensive (even "cheaper" ones) - I think Mr. Atwood, being a successful entrepreneur, might have a somewhat skewed perception of this.
Generally speaking, when dealing with computer upgrades, different usage/app patterns produce different cost/benefit curves.
Therefore, the question is:
Is there a reputable detailed benchmark-backed-up cost/benefit analysis of the SSD upgrade that is deep enough to consider multiple usage scenarios as well as costs of competing non-SSD upgrades? In other words, something that would back up Jeff's generic quoted claim in a majority of situations usage-wise and upgrade-wise.
Please note that I'm looking for something REALLY in-depth - e.g. something that for example evaluates the possibility that a whole brand new PC can be built/bough for not much more than the cost of even a small-capacity high end SSD (this is important, since merely adding better components to a single PC may not give nearly the real life performance boost compared to having 2 PCs side by side for many usage scenarios), and/or something that benchmarks various possible upgrade combinations from base configurations.