Are throughput and capacity determining factors for effectiveness of a system more so than processor speed?

Simply yes, throughput and capacity are more a determining factor than processor speed on measuring the effectiveness of any system. The main reason is the processor is not usually the bottleneck in a system, its the I/O devices and BUS speeds that are the main culprits. This is why the focus in recent months across the industry have been the shift to using Solid State Drives (SSD) versus the hard disk drives (HDD) we all use presently. Secondary storage devices are generally the slowest I/O within a system so any improvements here trickle down to the rest of the system as a whole, making for more effective execution of processes and a more positive user experience. The actual throughput on a SSD versus a HDD is significantly higher, and access times are exponentially faster as well, which lead to faster response times and more efficient use of the processor. On the system board, the BUS speeds over the past few years have increased almost to the point that the BUS speed between the CPU and the primary storage is almost matched, which is a good thing. Once the speeds of the main memory BUS matches that of the CPU there is no latency experienced when swapping process states, which results in higher efficiency within the system, and better response to the users requests. At this point, the bottle neck goes back to the I/O devices. The issue with SSD right now is its expense, it has a much higher per byte cost than a traditional HDD, so dive capacities are lower. For example, (as of this post) a major online retailer sells a 500GB 7200rpm SATAIII HDD for $80, and on the same site a 512GB SATAIII SSD is $585. Plus, even with 6Gbps throughput, secondary storage still does not function at the same speed as the processor so again, the CPU ends up sitting idle more than it should, but less with an SSD. Modern multi-core processors can carry the general users through the next couple generations of innovation, and SSD's have already started improving those same users experienced with reduced latency and large performance gains. The next stage is to reduce costs so that SSD capacities increase while the price goes down, much like HDD has done over the past few decades.

Unless you are a systems engineer, gamer, or a hardcore Geek, most people do not consider the system throughput to be a potential bottleneck because all they hear or see are buzz words like "gigahertz", "multi-core", "terabytes", "BluRay", and "HD" or "3D" graphics. What most do not understand is that the throughput between the main memory, CPU, North & South bridges, and Video Processors should be as fast as possible and ideally match. For example, if the CPU core speed is rated at 2.0GHz, then in theory the memory clock speed should also be 2.0GHz, and the BUS pathways between the Bridges and Video processors should also be 2.0GHz, and so on. This produces an optimal operating environment at the hardware level, but is not usually the case because all hardware is made to function at different speeds with different capacities to appeal to different price point from cheap but functional, to expensive but really good. Once you bring I/O devices into the mix, the processor usually ends up in the idle state more often than while awaiting interrupts.

With SSD, durability is an important aspect. Since there are no moving parts, any shock given to the drive is less likely to cause severe data loss or even worse, drive damage. This is why our smartphones are able to be dropped from a couple to a few feet off the ground and usually survive without more than some cosmetic damage, because of solid state memory. If it had moving parts, those would surely get damaged on the first drop, even if only from inches above the ground. Longevity concerns is what made companies like OtterBox release ballistic shock resistant cases for mobile devices. People get attached to their devices, and it is more economical to spend $30-$50 to protect the expensive devices with a case like these, rather than have to deal with the hassle and expense of obtaining a new replacement at retail and migrating data.

What do you think? Am I on point here?

~Geek