My basic understanding is that part of the reason we add RAM to our computers to help with the interent delays in I/O from the Hard Disk Drives.  So given the fact that SSDs are orders of magnitude faster than HDD, does this make any difference to the amount of RAM that is needed??
 
Just wondering.
 
Mick

No.

At least not in my opinion.

Having more RAM enables you to load & run many more plugin instances, especially some of the massive sample libraries like EWQL, BFD etc and it will also mean you can run projects with tracks numbering into the hundreds.

Are you suing a 64 bit OS?  If not, max useable RAM is about 3 to 3.5GB.  An SSD even with a 32bit OS really won't do much for the disc I/O unless you have SATA III SSD and SATA III controller port and even then it will be minimal.

When I built my new super fast system, I used a SATA III SSD for the OS and Sonar.  The only (visible) thing the SSD did was a faster boot up time.  Other operations appeared to run about the same speed as my old system with a hard drive.

none at all
ram is ram and HDD is HDD. nary do they cross.

with that said if you dont have enough ram and the system has to use the HDD as a page file then the SSD would be faster than a standard. this should never happen however unless paying with large video files and rendering.

 My basic understanding is that part of the reason we add RAM to our computers to help with the interent delays in I/O from the Hard Disk Drives.  So given the fact that SSDs are orders of magnitude faster than HDD, does this make any difference to the amount of RAM that is needed??

No... 


Think of RAM as short-term memory... and HD/SSD as long-term memory.
One is not a replacement for the other.

Years from now, the line between RAM and SSD will blur... but that's a long way off.

"Are you suing a 64 bit OS? If not, max useable RAM is about 3 to 3.5GB. An SSD even with a 32bit OS really won't do much for the disc I/O unless you have SATA III SSD and SATA III controller port and even then it will be minimal. When I built my new super fast system, I used a SATA III SSD for the OS and Sonar. The only (visible) thing the SSD did was a faster boot up time. Other operations appeared to run about the same speed as my old system with a hard drive." That is not the experience I've had.
Last month I installed a new SATA 3 SSD as the boot drive and I notice loads of all programs are half the wait (twice as fast).
Perhaps your SATA 3 controller isn't working correctly? ps. these forums suck, can't even quote someone

Last month I installed a new SATA 3 SSD as the boot drive and I notice loads of all programs are half the wait (twice as fast). Perhaps your SATA 3 controller isn't working correctly? ps. these forums suck, can't even quote someone

 
Couple of things that could affect the situation:
 
The best SATA-III SSDs are sustaining 500+MB/Sec on reads.
To reach that level of performance, the SSD has to be connected to the SATA-III controller that is integrated into the chipset.  Connect to a 3rd party SATA-III controller... and speeds will be considerably lower.
 
SSD really shines when loading/streaming large sample libraries.
This is where SSD makes the most significant performance difference.

That's right Jim, I am using the integrated Intel controller.
My motherboard has four total SATA 3 outputs, but only two that use the integrated Intel controller.
Whatever the slowest area in the throughput of data is will control the results you experience.

how fast is your work pulled up when its needed.
how fast do your projects load?

thats only ram ?

nope.