Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac choices...
- Thread starter Bobo123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea, you're probably right, but 'ticking time bomb' relatively speaking
And if we want to get all anecdotal (which is not science and why I posted links to actual scientific tests by PC World and Tech Report), I've had macs for 32 years (that's right I actually had one of the original 128 macs in college). And I have had a TON of spinning hard drives fail on my watch. I've been using SSD's in my macs since 2013 and they all are working fine and showing no indication of wear.
At the end of the day, I agree there's a halfway decent chance you'll never have a failure with a spinning drive. And frankly, my big reason for favoring SSD's is the pure speed in every aspect of usage. The way better reliability is just a nice bonus.
[doublepost=1504884861][/doublepost]
Did it myself. With the iFixit tools (including the adhesive strips) and their guide, it took about 35 minutes (I went very slow and careful).
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iMac+Intel+21.5-Inch+Retina+4K+Display+(2017)+Hard+Drive+Replacement/92700
I had done HD to SSD upgrades on a couple of older iMacs (2011 models) and it was actually harder on those older macs, since the screws are so difficult to get back in due to the strong magnets around the screen. Also the 2011 iMac had a total of 4 cables attaching the screen to the board, the 2017 iMac has only two, and they're very easy to get to.
In this regard, I totally applaude Apple for making the upgrade fairly accessable. I know it's still something the average user wouldn't want to do, but it's very do-able.
Last edited:
Yup. My close friend out here in LA does system mods as a sideline, so I'll let him swap out my drives. He was another expert voice of reason telling me to wait before doing the SSD, but max out everything else. He's telling me that SSD will be considerably faster in two years, though I don't understand his techno-babble about that. It's his view that SSD is developing so fast that the upgrade will be desirable even for current SSD buyers.
That said, some folks want to order a machine and avoid getting involved with tear-downs and upgrades in the near future. I totally understand that. But the "math" of my plan is going to net me a superior machine overall for less money.
And based on my time with the i7 with 2TB, I'm not even going to feel pressured to upgrade to SSD anyway. It's a hugely capable machine in that configuration. I mean, c'mon! I just bought my son the i5 27" with the 1TB and he's having a blast with how fast it is cutting his GoPro footage and Nikon D610 pics. ALL of these machines are capable and most folks buy the higher end models with an eye towards longevity.
R.
Good to know. So is the 27" the same as the 21.5" teardown?Yea, you're probably right, but 'ticking time bomb' relatively speaking
And if we want to get all anecdotal (which is not science and why I posted links to actual scientific tests by PC World and Tech Report), I've had macs for 32 years (that's right I actually had one of the original 128 macs in college). And I have had a TON of spinning hard drives fail on my watch. I've been using SSD's in my macs since 2013 and they all are working fine and showing no indication of wear.
At the end of the day, I agree there's a halfway decent chance you'll never have a failure with a spinning drive. And frankly, my big reason for favoring SSD's is the pure speed in every aspect of usage. The way better reliability is just a nice bonus.
[doublepost=1504884861][/doublepost]
Did it myself. With the iFixit tools (including the adhesive strips) and their guide, it took about 35 minutes (I went very slow and careful).
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iMac+Intel+21.5-Inch+Retina+4K+Display+(2017)+Hard+Drive+Replacement/92700
I had done HD to SSD upgrades on a couple of older iMacs (2011 models) and it was actually harder on those older macs, since the screws are so difficult to get back in due to the strong magnets around the screen. Also the 2011 iMac had a total of 4 cables attaching the screen to the board, the 2017 iMac has only two, and they're very easy to get to.
In this regard, I totally applaude Apple for making the upgrade fairly accessable. I know it's still something the average user wouldn't want to do, but it's very do-able.
Yes, data is often more recoverable from spindle drives than solid state drive.
The difference is moot if you're regularly/frequently performing proper backups. Which is something anyone savvy enough to be discussing this matter *ought* to be doing.
Easy is relative. From what I've seen of taking a current 27" imac apart, thats not something I'd suggest for most of the people I know, though I'd have no compunction doing so.
Another factor to consider is that it appears to not be possible to put an aftermarket blade SSD into Macs, you'd be limited to using SATA interface SSDs.
Personally, I already had my external storage. USB3 HDDs do the job for data/backup purposes. They don't cost a great deal of money.
Not sure what we're debating at this point....get an SSD now, later or never...totally up to the buyer. For me, a bigger faster SSD later made the most sense. You won't go far wrong regardless of what's chosen. All good fast machines that can be expanded. My only advice is to get fastest processor (if you really want a maxed out desktop) and graphics card. You can always add fast/big drives and memory later.
End of story!
R.
No moving parts in SSD. No heads to misalign, no spindles to wear out and no HDD noise. With a proper backup strategy, data recovery is a non-issue.
[doublepost=1504914711][/doublepost]
Well, I am not going to tell you that you're wrong to prioritize CPU over SSD, I am just going to say I disagree and that I would put the SSD first in order of importance.
You're right that there's no point in arguing it any further.
Last edited:
As someone else pointed out, it's a moot point because proper backup will protect you. Thus reliability of a drive does not factor in at all. Drive failures are not all that common.
Note that there was no answer when I asked what apps were being run over time where the SSD bested the 2TB FD drive. But two people using BOTH already admitted that the differences were pretty minimal for video editing. And I can testify that there is NO difference when running Photoshop and Lightroom. A fast processor and adequate RAM are key for those.
I'm certain there are areas where the SSD are better, but they do not effect my workflow for now. It can always be easily added.
R
[doublepost=1504915658][/doublepost]
No moving parts in SSD. No heads to misalign, no spindles to wear out and no HDD noise. With a proper backup strategy, data recovery is a non-issue.
[doublepost=1504914711][/doublepost]
Well, I am not going to tell you that you're wrong to prioritize CPU over SSD, I am just going to say I disagree and that I would put the SSD first in order of importance.
You're right that there's no point in arguing it any further.
The problem here is that you're ignoring facts. So let me lay it out for you.
i5 vs. i7. The i7 had the 2TB FD. The i5 had the SSD (don't recall if it was 1TB or 512).
Both machines running PS with files from the D810, batch processing, layers etc.
The i7 was FASTER at everything, including rendering effects. It sounds like you don't understand how significant the i7 is over the 5. Any experienced shooter knows processor and RAM are 95%. SSD only helps if you don't have RAM for the task. And rendering effects is all about processing.
There's NO way to make the i5 ANY better. It's a dead end. The i7 can get the SSD and has more longevity. I didn't really prioritize. I can buy whatever I like.
When it comes to tech, you prioritize what CAN'T be upgraded. Drives ARE upgradeable, but you seem to ignore this. I also sought final advice from my friends in Hollywood who use these machines to cut movies. I was told three times to wait on the SSD, unless I absolutely needed it. I'm pretty sure these guys know more than you or I given what they do for a living and laugh at benchmark scores. SSD is the future, but I prefer to avoid upgrading twice.
R.
Last edited:
Interesting thread. I have a late 2012 base model iMac. Still has 750GB of storage left. Runs well, the fan will make some loud noise lately, which is slightly concerning. I could probably only afford the base model of the 2017 iMac. Based on what I've read here, it seems that my 2012 should last a few more years, which might make a iPad Pro a better choice at this time? What do you much more Apple knowledgeable than I folks think? Thanks for any thoughts!
Yep...your 2012 can work for a while. The longer you wait, the better you'll do for the money spent in most cases. Just try not to get caught up in the nonsense. I have a 4K sitting next to a 5K and I can see a small difference in a few sources, but it's really not significant. I also have SSD, fusion and standard drives and I'm a professional photographer working with monster-sized RAW files in batches. Everything opens fast and it all works great on these machines.
Over the last few years we've hit a technological plateau where things got very fast, but the advances have become less and less meaningful beyond those editing high res footage or doing a lot of gaming. My 2011 i7 iMac could do just about anything I threw at it and my clients were always happy. Do my machines work faster in a way that improves workflow? Hmmmmm. To be honest, no. And my friends here in LA who edit feature films? Nope. They don't even work off internal drives and when they do, even a spinning drive is still fine.
So don't get caught up with folks who seem to define themselves by telling people what they need. I just saw a post where a guy said his SSD opens his RAW camera files instantly. Good grief. My 2011 machine did that. Maybe he means his SSD will open a batch a half second quicker. What does that mean in real world workflows....ZERO. There are some savvy people here, but the majority are not using their machines for task intensive applications. Frankly, the i7 5K 27" with 580 card and 2TB is overkill for me and I'm shooting with the best DSLRs on the planet. I plan to upgrade it down the road with a much bigger internal SSD...but I probably won't really need to! But people love to think they're buying the "best" even if they really don't need it and will never use it. Most folks who buy a fast car don't drive it fast or know how.
R.
Thanks for the advice and information. It's true that it's easy to get caught up in all the hype, and all the choices. There does seem to be a pressure to always have the best. This thought that I should get a new computer when this one does everything I want it to do is a result of that. I'm sure that the processors have improved from 2012 to now, but honestly, I never sit here and think that this need to be faster.
If I could ask, could you do what you do on an iPad Pro? I know that Apple thinks they could someday replace the Mac. Truth be told, with all the clouds, I could probably live with 256GB internal storage. I'm just concerned that there are some programs that need an actual computer to complete a task. I love my iPad Air 2, but if my iMac was not going have as important a role, I would move to the iPad Pro.
Thank you so much for taking the time to let me know your thoughts!
I have the iPad Pro. The issue for me is that I'm also a working writer. Even with the external keyboard, the iPad is not as comfortable to use on my lap, which is sometimes how I work. The fact that I can put a laptop on my lap, adjust the screen to whatever angle and have a proper illuminated keyboard is what killed the iPad as a replacement for me. That could change if someone build a better keyboard for it, but so far I've yet to see anything that can match a laptop.
If you don't require the form-factor of the laptop, the Ipad pro is fairly versatile.
As for the "forum peer pressures" of having the best, you only need to talk to people who make a living off their gear. Many people here parrot what they've read or just say silly things without any experience. All they have is the expensive machine in front of them and they need validation for the short life it will have as "the best." It's the sad consumer mentality and we've all been brainwashed by it to varying extents.
Case in point. I bought my son a 5K 27" with 8GB of ram and the 1TB Fusion drive. It has photoshop and runs well enough for anyone. Add a little RAM and I could probably do just fine with it. So the best excuse for me buying the more expensive machine would be potential longevity I may get. But that doesn't work if the 2020 iMac deluxe transformer 8K monster doesn't make us all feel bad about our "old" machines.
This is how the system works. Because I traded a new 500HP car for a 745HP car so I could drive it a total of 4 times beyond 150 MPH. Worth the extra 25K? No way. But I did it anyway and this mania exists at all levels. People want the best phone, computer, car, washer/dryer....it's endless and such a waste of energy. The very best photographer I know works with a very old DSLR and a 5 year old computer. She's won a lot of awards, makes a fortune with her work and could care less about SSD drives. Computers are TOOLS for her expression and work. And that's the way it should be.
Keep your computer until it prevents you from work or expression. That's when you upgrade. Now...if I could only follow my own advice.
R
Something you might want to reconsider. When apps become more feature-filled and resource-heavy (and bloated) it's definitely nice to have a machine that's newer than six years old. Think about this: six years ago the top iMac was a 24" Core2Duo machine with a non-LED-backlit display, and the last OS it can now run is 10.6 Snow Leopard. That's not a pleasant way to run Adobe and CAD software (and the latest versions of those wouldn't run on that OS anyway).
I generally recommend keeping Macs with Applecare+ for the 3-year life of the Applecare coverage, then reselling the machine (which still will have reasonable resale value) and buying new again. Keep a machine for 6-7 years and you won't get much for it, you won't be able to run the latest most powerful apps and OS versions either. By selling when Applecare expires you will always have a Mac under Apple warranty, you will always have a recent-model that's cruft free and with the latest features/ports, and when including the resale value the cost for the running the sold machine usually ends up being between $1.00-$1.50/day.
Yep, everyones use-case is different.
Personally, the only thing I'd say is whichever model you have, upgrade the RAM to 16GB and try to avoid the fusion drives. They're still a marketing gimmick - when they come with a decent speed 256GB SSD they'll be worthwhile IMO, but the 128 is naturally limited.
$ for $, iMacs are not bad investments. With edu discount, I've just spent a total of £2600 on my new iMac - i7, 512GB SSD and 64GB of third party RAM (Apple's RAM is the worst investment you can make!).
I'm upgrading from a 2011. I'm parting it out, because it's been modified beyond believe so nobody would actually buy it as is (I know it's reliable, but you wouldn't buy one that's been modified, would you). So far, I'm at:
CPU: -100
Logic board: -120
PSU: -50
Stand: -50
GPU: -100
LCD: -150
Glass: -30
RAM: -150
Wifi card: -15
Misc cables and bits: -150
Rear housing: -100
Box (yes, someone bought the box): -30
Headphones that came free (edu discount): -250
That's £1295 back in various bits and pieces, for a few hours ebaying, and I've still probably got a couple of hundred worth of bits left. That makes the net cost of upgrading 1305. Over 5 years (what I tend to keep them), that works out at 71p per day. It probably costs more in electricity to run it than that.
Over 5 years, I only need to do 3-4 days of consultancy using it over the next 5 years (VMware consultancy pays well, and my main reason for upgrading was so I could have 64GB RAM which will come in useful for testing vsan environments), and it's basically paid for itself.
Could I justify that £2600 if I was just using Facebook - no way. But for me, it's an absolute no-brainer.
[doublepost=1504994974][/doublepost]
Again, it all comes down to use-cases.
For me, the speed of the new SSDs is a huge benefit. I spend half my life provisioning/installing vms. When I went from HDD to SSD back in 2011, it was a massive benefit. Now I'm going from 2 SATA SSDs in raid to the new PCI-e SSDs. That could easily halve the amount of time I spend provisioning, which over the course of a day, could be a good half an hour saved.
Doesn't sound like much, but over a year, those half hours really add up.
As I said, I see it the other way. The 2TB Fusion Drive is faster than a standard drive and slower than a SSD, but much larger.
For my work the Fusion works perfectly. It handles my photo beautifully. The SSD adds nothing, unless I got a much larger one which is a poor value for me.
And again, running Premier and FCP, the Fusion does a great job, so how is it a gimick?
Your comments are exactly the sort of misleading statements that apply to a specific window of usage. My 2011 iMac served me beautifully as a professional photographer using top tier cameras. Today's machines are even better. So it sounds silly when people "insist" that they should get the SSD.
No one ever addresses the elephant in the room. Earlier a fellow pointed out that he's cutting 4K video on both versions of these machines. Like me, he saw very little difference in workflow. The 2TB fusion drive worked great.
So what can you say to that beyond YOUR needs?
And then there's the little fact that in 24 months I'll pay a smaller amount than you paid to get an even larger and faster SSD put into my machine. That's the beauty of this. I get my cake, then a better cake and I still pay less because I didn't upgrade twice.
The bias against the Fusion Drives is NOT driven by experience. Major effects houses are using those drives here in LA with no issues at all.
I'm sorry, but it's time to call BS on this drive nonsense. My old machine could open two dozen RAW files and batch process them with a SPINNING drive and do it in a few minutes. My son's new iMac does it even faster with just a 1TB fusion drive. Most people here have no need for anything faster and that's a commonality. Few people need more, including me as I work with high end cameras.
Stop the insanity, especially for an easily upgradeable platform.
R.
I used a 2012 quad-core i7 mini to work with RAW files from Nikon and Panasonic digital cameras/DSLRs for years, in Aperture, Photos, and Lightroom. It will definitely handle the job with a HDD, or a Fusion Drive, or an SSD.
For dealing with lots of video editing, or running a DAW with lots of tracks, however, an internal SSD is highly recommended, as Apple's SSD tech and internal transfer speeds are faster than even an external SSD connected via Thunderbolt 3. There are some occasions where SSDs prevent problems and don't just make things more pleasant, but those are not typical use case scenarios for most people.
That said, if you can afford an SSD get it. Otherwise, if you go for the 27" iMac look closely at the 2Tb and 3Tb Fusion drives, which have 128Gb SSD components while the 1Tb Fusion Drive has only 24Gb SSD.
For dealing with lots of video editing, or running a DAW with lots of tracks, however, an internal SSD is highly recommended, as Apple's SSD tech and internal transfer speeds are faster than even an external SSD connected via Thunderbolt 3. There are some occasions where SSDs prevent problems and don't just make things more pleasant, but those are not typical use case scenarios for most people.
That said, if you can afford an SSD get it. Otherwise, if you go for the 27" iMac look closely at the 2Tb and 3Tb Fusion drives, which have 128Gb SSD components while the 1Tb Fusion Drive has only 24Gb SSD.
No matter how often I point this out...no one wants to admit to it. It's getting pretty silly.
The fellow I'm working with at the moment is one of two editors on a feature film, shot on digital. They are cutting scenes on these machines. They've got SSD's, FD's and standard drives. When your cutting millions of dollars of footage, what should you use?
Gee wiz...guess what? The internal SSD isn't a factor at ALL because external caged SSD's are used. Smaller stuff is cut on internals and some animatics, and ALL of the drives do a fine job because these are processor and graphics card intensive actions along with RAM. In fact, some of the gear is running on external graphics cards. The opinion of these industry pros is that the SSD is best waited for when you can add an even faster 3TB version for much less. I already know that they are right.
NOW...lets move on to the machine that came this morning...Imac 27" i7 with 580 and 24 GB RAM. Running along with a Dell 4K monitor.
I'll post a review in detail in a couple of days, but the very 1st thing I did was import 150 GB of photos (RAW from a Nikon D810) and some 4K footage. For reference I did this with the i5 and a 1TB SSD drive.
People can jump up and down until they turn blue, but the i7 with the 2TB is faster. In every way that I could think of. The only thing the SSD did faster was open an app. Oh, and the Dell 4K monitor looks just as good as the iMac screen...perhaps better. The Mac seems to have a bit more dynamic range...more on this later once things are fully calibrated.
I'll give a detailed review and give full real-world results, but this system is so fast I will likely do the SSD upgrade just for the heck of it than anything else. T5 drives will be used for editing video.
Cheers,
R.
Appreciably faster for a few apps, not others. And, as has been pointed out previously, this thread has posts by people who found the constant firing up of the iMac fan to be sufficiently annoying for them to return it in favor of the i5.
So yes, if you're a pro editor who uses apps or plugins which regularly take advantage of hyperthreading, there is a case for the faster, noisier machine. But that's not the situation for most people, and different peoples' priorities are different, which should be obvious but perplexingly isn't to some.
So yes, if you're a pro editor who uses apps or plugins which regularly take advantage of hyperthreading, there is a case for the faster, noisier machine. But that's not the situation for most people, and different peoples' priorities are different, which should be obvious but perplexingly isn't to some.
If you don't mind cracking them open, everything can
I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong.
The iMac isn’t “easily” upgradable, and you’ll void any warranties doing so.
The fusion drives are nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Don’t access your photos for a while? Well sorry but they’re going to end up on a spinning disk. YMMV, but for anything Pro you really do need to upgrade from a fusion drive.
You may pay less 2 years down the line, but I’ll have had a much more responsive machine for 2 years. If you’re that fussed about storage, get the 256G ssd and an external.
Wow....some people just don't seem to understand compromise. Everything in life is a compromise, and shock horror, we all have different priorities and budgets. Choosing a different set of compromises to you does not make someone else's choice wrong, just different. I don't think anyone believes that a fusion drive is better than a pure SSD, but it occupies a different place in the speed\cost\capacity compromise.
Personally I'm undecided which way I'm going to go when I order my new iMac. I've had a fusion drive before in a 2012 Mac mini, and it was a good experience, but that was 5 years ago. On the other hand an SSD would really stretch my budget, and I'm not a fan of having a bunch of external drives hanging off the iMac to get the capacity I need.
I do wonder why anyone cares so much what computer another random on the internet uses....
Personally I'm undecided which way I'm going to go when I order my new iMac. I've had a fusion drive before in a 2012 Mac mini, and it was a good experience, but that was 5 years ago. On the other hand an SSD would really stretch my budget, and I'm not a fan of having a bunch of external drives hanging off the iMac to get the capacity I need.
I do wonder why anyone cares so much what computer another random on the internet uses....
Your money, you waste it as you see fit. My money is on a 3TB FD which I'll get many years out of. When I do decide to upgrade to an SSD, I'll purchase a 2TB or higher SSD for several hundred less than The $600 1TB that apple charges. If I decide to do it myself, OWC charges $50 for the kit and the labor involved is no more than a couple of hours.
The warranty is only 1 year and I guarantee you the people that're buying the puny 512SSD will be doing the surgery way before me.
Just realize you're not comparing apples to apples here. A SATA SSD (what you can put in yourself) benchmarks substantially slower than the blade SSD that Apple put in. Whether that will make a difference in an individual's usage will depend on what they're doing, so I'm not saying SATA SSD is bad -- just pointing out that they're NOT the same thing.
Depends on the individual's needs. Not everyone needs a crap-ton of space for what they do.
As for warranty, don't people use credit cards with warranty extension benefits? So at minimum you're at 2 years coverage. Three years if you buy AppleCare+.
Either way, as you suggest it's wise to consider the in-warranty period in one's plans.
Last edited:
I think I've been coerced and that's not easy to do. I cancelled my original order and ordered the same machine except with a 512mb SSD.
I really don't keep much on my Mini and iTunes and photos are already on an external. I did watch some videos on opening the iMac and it's doable but definitely not something I really want to mess with.
[doublepost=1505092262][/doublepost]Somewhat off topic but what external enclosures is everybody using? I did a search and I'm somewhat confused when it comes to USB-C and thunderbolt. I guess what I'm asking is what's the most cost effective?
Last edited: