Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

256 ssd or 3tb fusion

K

knjjustus

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 8, 2018
1
0
hello I am looking to purchase a used imac...the 2 that I have narrowed it down to are these

1. Retina 5k 27 inch, 4GHz intel core i7 with 16gb memory and a 3tb fusion drive (late 2015)

2. Retina 5k 27 inch, 4GHz intel core i7 with 32gb memory and a 256gb SSD (late 2014)

My wife is a photographer and does ALOT of Photoshop and Lightroom editing. she needs something that is fast, but she needs a lot of storage for her photos.

which one of these would be best?? please help
 
Last edited:
knjjustus said:
1. Retina 5k 27 inch, 4GHz intel core i7 with 16gb memory and a 3tb fusion drive (late 2015)

2. Retina 5k 27 inch, 4GHz intel core i7 with 32gb memory and a 256gb SSD (late 2014)

My wife is a photographer and does ALOT of Photoshop and Lightroom editing. she needs something that is fast, but she needs a lot of storage for her photos.
Click to expand...

We probably would need more information e.g. to the amount of existing external hard drives, the size of the storage required and especially for Lightroom the size of the Catalog and Previews.

SSD is the way to go in either option for the system, the LR catalog and previews.

If this fits on 256GB then may want to go this route and gain as well the extra memory. In your calculation you need to consider future growth of your photo library.

If you need more then the 256GB, you may get the newer iMac, use Fusion drive for storage of photos, buy an external SSD, e.g. the Samsung T5 in 500 GB or 1 TB, use this as boot and system drive with LR catalog and previews.
 
Neither.

Keep a lookout with a 512GB SSD. 256GB is simply too small for most users.

Fusion was a solution four or five years ago, but not today. Sierra and particularly High Siearra are designed to run of SSDs exclusively and that is why going on five months after release there is still no HS for Fusion Macs.
 
nambuccaheadsau said:
Neither.

Keep a lookout with a 512GB SSD. 256GB is simply too small for most users.

Fusion was a solution four or five years ago, but not today. Sierra and particularly High Siearra are designed to run of SSDs exclusively and that is why going on five months after release there is still no HS for Fusion Macs.
Click to expand...

You’re referring to there being no APFS currently on fusion drive iMacs. You’re correct, but Apple has stated that it’s coming.

Also, the larger fusion drives have 128gb of SSD, so for @knjjustus that might be ok for your needs. You’ll have plenty of storage, and every application including the system is installed on that before anything goes to the HDD.
 
knjjustus said:
hello I am looking to purchase a used imac...the 2 that I have narrowed it down to are these

1. Retina 5k 27 inch, 4GHz intel core i7 with 16gb memory and a 3tb fusion drive (late 2015)

2. Retina 5k 27 inch, 4GHz intel core i7 with 32gb memory and a 256gb SSD (late 2014)

My wife is a photographer and does ALOT of Photoshop and Lightroom editing. she needs something that is fast, but she needs a lot of storage for her photos.

which one of these would be best?? please help
Click to expand...

In this case, I prefer the 3TB fusion drive.

1) 2015 iMac is newer, better CPU and GPU, should last longer (both hardware and software)
2) RAM is user upgradable, so 16GB is fine
3) 3TB FD paired with a 128GB SSD. It's not that small, should be good enough to store the entire OS and apps.
4) Obviously it provide much more internal storage natively and internally
5) You can always connect a high capacity USB 3.0 SSD to get more fast storage.
6) Lower power consumption, so run cooler and quieter.
 
nambuccaheadsau said:
Changes nothing very slack Apple.
Click to expand...

It changes everything. You're equating the ability to run the latest operating system with the ability to convert a hdd to a new file system that was just released, what, 4 months ago? High Sierra runs perfectly fine, speedy even, on nearly every modern iMac. Having the HDD formatted as APFS isn't going to give those machines any notable speed increase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
Well I would call a brand new iMac modern.

Either HS or the Fusion drive should not have been released until it works. Like buying a new Ford that will not run the latest motor or electronics. Only a real fan boy fails to seer this bucko!
 
nambuccaheadsau said:
Well I would call a brand new iMac modern.

Either HS or the Fusion drive should not have been released until it works. Like buying a new Ford that will not run the latest motor or electronics. Only a real fan boy fails to seer this bucko!
Click to expand...

No, it only takes someone that uses their computer on a daily basis to run a business and make money to see that it works perfectly fine without APFS. Illustrator, Photoshop, Visual Studio, etc. they all work perfectly fine without it. APFS for the fusion drives will be released when it's done. Would you rather them rush it out, update all of the machines on the fly and be responsible for years of data loss? And do you expect Apple to deploy a team to help all of their customers migrate their drives back to HFS+? Because it's not as simple as just reformatting a drive. Especially if you have a fusion drive. Quite a bit of work in Terminal is required to recreate the logical group and marry the two drives again.

Call it whatever you need to justify your position. I just know that my machine(s) all work perfectly fine with or without APFS.

Edit: Also, Fusion drives have been around for quite a while, so you're suggesting that apple delay progress in some areas until it catches up in others. . . We'd still be on El Capitan and iOS 9 if that were the case. I'll take my chances with the newly released software.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
nambuccaheadsau said:
Fusion is the delay .. old technology Apple won 't let go.

The greatest benefit is the APFS.
Click to expand...

Benefit for what?

I used APFS since HS official launch, can’t feel any benefit (except file duplication) but slow boot, KP, Finder micro freeze....

I try it until 10.13.3, KP is gone, but the other issues still there. I end up went back to HFS+ and now a happy HS user.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vkd
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back