Yes they do, according to benchmarks. In real world every day use for most tasks there is little noticeable difference is all I'm saying. My point being a 9mm firearm can have a muzzle velocity of 1250fps while a .357 can have a muzzle velocity of 1700-1800fps. Science says the .357 is faster, can you tell if a target is shot 'slower' with a 9mm? Doubtful. If we could sustain those seconds out to minutes or even an hour steady with maintained speed (obviously a bullet wouldn't continue to fly for an hour) the difference would be substantial. In short bursts common with real life and the real world, the speed differences mean very little. It's not as if because a 9mm is slower someone could dodge it like the matrix.
Where it would make a larger difference is under larger sustained transfers. For example in this tom's comparison, 16gb files transferred faster, much faster. A dvd is less than 5gb. Not saying there aren't people who work with large files like this, but how many 'average' people are doing sustained 16gb file transfers on a regular basis? In a way it makes sense since ssd's can be a major bump for laptop users between the shock resistance, lower power consumption and much faster speed - but in these particular tests, the ssd's are pitted against the wd scorpio which is a 2.5" mobile hdd with dismal 5400rpm speeds that were often found in a lot of laptops at the time of testing. Let's take the fastest drives out there and put them against the slowest to see how good they are. Even then backing up a steam game is much more likely scenario and despite the major difference between ssd and hdd the real world results were much less fantastic. Keeping in mind it's a 2.5" 5400rpm with both reduced platter size and lower rpm working against it. Same for boot times. My desktop with a 7200rpm hdd takes nowhere near a full minute to boot even on a cold boot.
There are very few real world, real usage scenario type tests to show the comparison of hdd vs ssd, I wish there were more honestly. The ones that do exist are often pitting an ssd against a small 5400rpm hdd which feels like molasses even to an old 7200rpm hdd. I don't wait forever and a day to save files, the biggest bottleneck is my slow internet. Opening apps, I click and they're open. How much faster can they open, I'd miss it if I so much as blinked or sneezed as it is. The human body is the biggest bottleneck in reality. We can only react and interact so fast with machines.
The vast majority of benchmarks are synthetic which is unfortunate because synthetics aren't the real world. We've seen it before, where dual channel ram on paper is vastly superior yet in the real world, pretty much no discerning difference between single vs dual channel. Or a cpu bench where one competitor has an extra '1000' worth of arbitrary points according to the measurement scale yet their games run 0-1 fps faster and the user is going where is all this extra performance? Similar to someone upgrading from say a 3rd gen i5 to a similar 4th gen i5 - they won't be bowled over by the performance like it's 'night and day' yet on paper it shows an improvement exists.