[Veltliner]

We have had the gigahertz race, and now we are getting more cores.

But I read that the real issue for speed currently isn't the processor, it's the pipeline between processor and hard drives.

Is this correct? Would giving the next generation Mac Pro an SSD as a primary hard drive speed things up? Is the read/write speed of hard drives a real issue in computer processing speed? Or is it simply the amount of data throughput currently possible?

Or where else would speed improvements be made?

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Would giving the next generation Mac Pro an SSD as a primary hard drive speed things up? Is the read/write speed of hard drives a real issue in computer processing speed?

Yes and Yes (for many high-end workflows), even with today's MPs. SSDs have been a bit bleeding edge so far but even so they have generally proven performance-effective. However like RAM third-party SSD installations may always be most cost-effective (unless Apple chooses to make a statement like they did with the original Superdrives).

[P]

The great thing about SSDs is the access time, the time it takes to find a certain piece of data and send it to memory. The access time for HDs has been about 10 ms since 1985 or so, and SSDs finally manage to decrease that - a lot. Fast flash storage will certainly be a part of future computer speed increases, in one way or another.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by P 

The great thing about SSDs is the access time, the time it takes to find a certain piece of data and send it to memory. The access time for HDs has been about 10 ms since 1985 or so, and SSDs finally manage to decrease that - a lot. Fast flash storage will certainly be a part of future computer speed increases, in one way or another.

Flash media is everywhere. Especially as a photographer I could see the cost of CF cards drop synchronously with speed increases.

Apple doesn't need to put a really big SSD on their Mac Pros, just enough to have all the hardware on it. No more spinning up...

Are computer SSD's so much more expensive than CF cards? I wouldn't believe it.

Are big changes in the data processing pipeline necessary? not techie enough to know that.

[P]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Are computer SSD's so much more expensive than CF cards? I wouldn't believe it.

Are big changes in the data processing pipeline necessary? not techie enough to know that.

The issue is that we are using protocols (ATA, mainly) designed for revolving discs to read and write data to flash. The firmware needed to make that work is complicated to make. Those controller chips cost a lot of money to pay back their development quickly (as they will be useless in 6 months when a better controller comes to market).

There are of course other ways to do this - in essence, putting the flash storage straight onto the PCIe bus. Only problem is that makes it non-upgradeable, and it needs some effort from OS makers to make everything work. There are PCIe "SSDs", but the support from the OS isn't really there to make them work efficiently. Intel had a presentation at last year's IDF that basically amounted to flash directly on the motherboard (a PCIe slot, in essence) but I never heard anything more about that.

[macaddict0001]

The speeds of current SSD drives haven't maxed out SATA just yet, but there is less bus overhead than is normal for drives I suppose. Especially considering traditional hard drives aren't even cresting 1.5 gbps just yet(enterprise aside).

[P]

They have maxed out the 3 Gbps limit common to SATA today (RealSSD C300). They're not at the 6gbps limit of newer SATA just yet, but give it time - they'll get there.