Will a 1 TB Drive be Significantly Faster than a 2 ?

[Syd]

Sounds like a silly question maybe, but I have a wd Black 1TB drive and a samsung F4 2TB
I have not run any tests as I am not quite that involved, however I do need the fastest possible solution for file storage for large images (NEFs, Tiffs etc) and my current storage solution is now full so time for a swap around.
Just before I start formatting and installing am I likely to see a big difference in access times in lightroom 3/elements 8 on either drive ?
Think I might post this in the photography forum too just in case the boys over there have any input
It's a core 7 920 with 12GB of ram so no bottleneck there, and much as I would love a couple of SSDs I could only justify one of those for my boot drive lol!!!
Thanks for reading
Syd

[jim]

If the RPM is the same, then the 2TB drive will usually be faster - higher platter density.

Of course, if it's a 2 platter 1TB drive versus a 4 platter 2TB drive, then they'll be equal.

[mikemikemi]

At a guess I would say that the 2TB would be faster as I would assume it has higher density platters, without benchmarking I wouldn't know for sure though.

Edit: Beat me to it.

[Pob255]

afaik, the WD Black 1tb is a two platter drive
the F4 and F4EC 2tb are 3 platter drives
The WD black 2tb four platter is still slightly faster than the F4EC not sure about the straight F4

Which F4 do you have the plane F4 or the F4EC? (EC=EcoGreen)

[duc]

The 2TB Samsung F4 should be fast, even though it only runs at 5400rpm it has a greater aureal density; 3 platters at 667GB per platter.

[Biscuit]

regardless of which one is faster, you wont notice it to any huge amount for image files unless you are talking about raw photots at some insane resolutions.

[Funkstar]

^^ This.

The most important part will be where Lightroom is installed and where your page file is

[Syd]

^^ This.

The most important part will be where Lightroom is installed and where your page file is

Thank you to all of the contributors here Kinda what I expected, very little difference.
HOWEVER Funk, you have raised a point that I hadn't given any consideration to.

Given the current prices I put 12GB Ram thinking it would speed up the way LR loads and scans through its library module, i'd really like it to be pretty instantaneous rather than waiting for files to pop up after a few secs. And the RAM has made a difference, but not alot, and I have just turned on high res previews.....................

What would you suggest funkstar - a little 'cheap' SSD for LR ? But it will be constantly changing data which I 'thought' they were not keen on.............

[Rob_B]

RAMDrive?

[Biscuit]

http://www.ghacks.net/2010/06/10/use...-state-drives/

[Funkstar]

If you do go for a RAM drive, it's LR's cache that you would want to move.

To do that, you would need a "write through" RAM drive, as any changes made to the cache/DB will need to be replicated to disk to stop you loosing it when you reboot.

For a library of about 26,000 photos, the cache is about 8.3GB, you will probably need a lot more than 12GB in your system to cope with that size of RAM drive and have everything running well.

[Syd]

If you do go for a RAM drive, it's LR's cache that you would want to move.

To do that, you would need a "write through" RAM drive, as any changes made to the cache/DB will need to be replicated to disk to stop you loosing it when you reboot.

For a library of about 26,000 photos, the cache is about 8.3GB, you will probably need a lot more than 12GB in your system to cope with that size of RAM drive and have everything running well.

Can you advice a solution ? would an ssd be it or do i buy another 12gb ram
24bg ram sounds extreme!!!!!! (and that 26000 files in only gonna grow!!)

[Funkstar]

Well you said you couldn't justify more than one SSD as a boot drive, so can you justify 24GB RAM?

If you are going that far, you would probably be better with one of those PCIe SSDs.

[Bobster]

5 ways to speed up lightroom > http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmed..._lightroo.html

another useful link? http://www.foto-biz.com/Lightroom/Ram-vs-cpu

useful info?

Disk speed

Modest demands on disk speed (Lightroom)
For the tests, both the Mac Pro and the MacBook Pro used the same drive, the ultra-fast Intel X25-E solid state drive (SSD), which reads at 260MB/sec and writes at 170MB/sec (as actually tested). See the reviews of its sibling, the X25-M.

The disk I/O was monitored during the test, and it was observed that Lightroom demands on disk speed for this test were very low, on the order of only 10MB/sec. Furthermore, a 4-way striped RAID was also tested, no difference.

So it’s not a disk speed issue for importing files in Lightroom, at least not when referencing the original files on disk. The story is similar for exporting JPEGs.

However, if you’re exporting huge 16-bit TIF files, drive speed does matter. And it will likely matter for any type of really large file (importing or exporting).

[Bobster]

oh and i know a couple of photographers who swear by this book > http://www.lightroomqueen.com/

[Syd]

Well you said you couldn't justify more than one SSD as a boot drive, so can you justify 24GB RAM?

If you are going that far, you would probably be better with one of those PCIe SSDs.

I suppose i Could just about stretch to another 12GB of RAM OR a small SSD, I was at the time thinking I would need an SSD large enought to hold my entire Photo library ( ie 250GB)
12 GB RAM = £160
Small SSD is much less I just like things to be snappy.
Also if I ended up with 24GB RAm would this cause me issues rumming triple channel and mess with my overclock?

Thanks for all you guidance so far Funk