@Feuerfalke
No one forced me and I never did. I said not much faster. And I even did some math in case you overlooked it again ;P
Even low-rpm drives that are FAR from Velos do a decent read. That is a fact.
The problem that most people don't realize is that an SSD might give you a GREAT benchmark score but almost no real world gaming value when it comes to game load times or FPS. You linked an article from anandtech so I'll link you another:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2614/14
Now these are just examples but instead of 1 or 2 average frames per second more I'd certainly dump the 350€ into a better graphics card, for this amount of money probably doubling, tripling or more the average FPS for most systems out there.
I hope that makes the logic I want to communicate clear. Yes, in Bench apps you do get great scores. Yes, if you multitask with I/O heavy software you do get better performance. But if you work, browse and game you do not get a better performance at all compared to other tweaks that will boost gaming performance through the roof!
Ok, now the discussion about space. SSD's perform well until the fill up. You can't live on the edge with an SSD. So 64Gb are filled up swiftly. If you install your programs on a different HD you're not having faster FPS in gaming and not measurably faster program load times either. So that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.
However, Windows itself is probably fine with 25Gb for the OS and some software. Then add a classic pagefile of about 4gb, hibernation fil about 4-12gb based on RAM and you're already seeing different numbers. Now imagine the user doesn't know how to move off the user data to another partition and we have another few potential GB landing right on the SSD.
Additionally the partinioned space is less than the capacity. For a 64Gb SSD it'd be roughly 59,5Gb available NTFS space. 74,4Gb for an 80Gb Model, 112 for an 120GB model and 148 for a 160Gb SSD.
However, as for games the space tends to vanish fast. Even IL-2 consumes 11Gb space modded.
I searched real quick and looked at a few other flightsims and X-Plane 9 would be about 71Gb without any mods, just the scenario packs. FSX has similar requirements. In other words, especially for simmers the space needed to run a game is increasing rapidly. You won't come far with an 64Gb SSD at all.
So yes, not all games load textures sequentially. However you would only benefit from that if you install it on an SSD which requires you to have a big SSD.
Secondly it's not entirely true. Sequential read doesn't mean the game needs to load a 2TB file. If you're looking at the anandtech link I posted (and there are many other around, I just chose this one because you seemed to trust the site) most games won't see a dramatic decrease of load performance. The opposite is the case! Many games don't use the read speeds of SSD's fully. In other words: they only load a bit faster.
Look at how quickly spore loads (procedural textures), almost no difference. Oblivion would load about a third faster on a SSD. Even the rescource hungry Crysis sees little increase of load times.
And now just calculate real quick what kind of performance improvement you can gain by spending 150€-350€ in processing power, RAM upgrade and / or a better / 2nd GPU.
My personal conclusion is that everyone really needs to sit down and look at these numbers and decide for himself if the benchmark numbers are worth the money.
You won't get a measurably better framerate, in most cases no reduced power consumption (unless you replace high-rpm drives, but not if you just add a SSD to your system - same goes for noise as well, unless you don't remove high-rpm drives you don't get a quieter system).
You do get faster boot though and overall better OS speed / responsiveness.
That means for gamers that need to look at what they'll spend their money at I'd recommend getting a better GPU / 2nd GPU, more RAM or a better CPU unless it'd mean getting overpriced high-end components.
But that is just my personal advice. I know things like these can be a bit emotional, especially for benchmark-oriented people. SSD's really help push the numbers in synthetic environments, that's for sure. Otherwise, stick with some real reviews and just consider what gives you the most "bang for the buck". And that's certainly not SSD's at the moment unless you really got a kickass PC already anyways.
As for the CPU cooler: I can recommend the Scythe Mugen 2. It's fair priced and really good performance for that.