> Btw, do SSDs make any significant difference for desktops nowadays? I mean, I power up my PC once in a day. Depends on your workload. Mine now frequently in

> Btw, do SSDs make any significant difference for desktops nowadays? I mean, I power up my PC once in a day. Depends on your workload. Mine now frequently involves accessing far more data than will fit into RAM, and thus will fit into the filesystem cache. There are only two options: This either flushes useful data out of the cache, or fails to enter cache in the first place. Either way, I'm going to be hitting either slow to seek spinning platters, or a fast random access SSD, even with a perfect oracle for an OS caching algorithm. Sadly, current OSes seem to be lacking even that. > Also, as I'm aware it doesn't really help much with compilation performance. Friends have seen compilation times approximately halve, even without a RAM busting workset (yes, they timed it.) I've personally seen similarly extreme performance gains in compilation, again even without a RAM busting workset. I've seen even better gains for those worksets that do bust RAM, especially if extremely IO bound. YMMV, but I do not buy or build computers unless I can put a sufficiently large SSD into it anymore. I define "sufficiently large" to include my OS, my tools (IDEs, SDKs, etc.), and a couple of active projects to fit onto. Everything stays snappy. I bought an 80GB back when they were $500, about twice the cost of any other component in any of my computers then or since (ignoring more SSDs), and still consider it money well spent. I recently bought a laptop - priorities, in order, were: Must have an SSD, should have extremely high resolution (ended up with 1800p, not 1080p), and only after that did I even bother to check if the machine had at least a decent amount of RAM, and a not entirely terrible CPU. It doesn't even have a dedicated GPU, just the little Intel that can do D3D11 at horrifically low framerates. (This despite using Direct3D SDKs both professionally and for play.)