Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Installing a front USB 3.0 panel||
|AirAsia Plane With 162 Aboard Missing in Indonesia||
|Your main desktop web browser for 2015 is:||
|Your main desktop operating system for 2015 is:||
|Looking for a graphics card (not too expensive)||
Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:34
Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:01
Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:19
Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:29
Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:40
It depends on several factors, what is the software? How many files does it read/load at any one time? Are there a few hundred large files, or millions of small files? Is it constantly reading/writing files, or will slower drives only affect start-up speed?
Assuming ideal read/write conditions (large files), If you go for a USB3/Thunderbolt powered 2.5" drive you're looking at a maximum read/write of roughly 100MB/s, which, depending on the software, isn't going to feel anywhere near the performance of the internal 500MB/s+ SSD. If you went for a 3.5" 7200RPM USB3/Thunderbolt external powered drive you could get about 150-170MB/s which while better, will probably still feel slow compared to the internal drive. Both of these options would cost < £80.
Alternatively, if you want to spend a lot more (£300+) you can buy a 512GB SSD and a thunderbolt 2.5" enclosure which will give you a drive not requiring any external power bricks and capable of read/write speeds of 325MB/s+.
Again, it completely depends on the software though. If, for example, it's music software where the software itself is usually small but with large sample libraries and you only load a handful of the samples at any one time the slower 2.5" option would probably be fine.
Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:13
Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:47
Yes, but USB3 is practically just as good. (Technically it isn't, but realistically consumer hard drives are unlikely to see much of a difference.)
So if i went with a thunderbolt 7200rpm disk its performance would match that of a standard internal hard drive? which technically is good enough to run apps off.. but may still seem slow to me since i'm used to SSD therefore thunderbolt+SSD would be a better option and match the speed of my internal disk? and it should be a 3.5 drive because 2.5 is slower... i didn't realise 2.5 drives were slower even though the rpm matches.
Posted 03 May 2013 - 10:40