Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well no, of course not.

That is why you made a good buy.

I would rather upgrade it with a slower 1TB SSD and save over $650 USD.

To give you an idea of how much that is, that's enough to eat at a fancy restaurant every couple of weeks for over a year.
 
I would rather upgrade it with a slower 1TB SSD and save over $650 USD.

To give you an idea of how much that is, that's enough to eat at a fancy restaurant every couple of weeks for over a year.

And that is your preference, to other people it is a tool for work where the tax will be written off and it will pay for itself in a few weeks, or it will be a massive bonus for batch editing photos etc making it worth the cash. Or even shock horror someone for whom cost isn't an issue, yes it is a relatively expensive computer but for the people that spend $10000 on a watch or $1000 on a bottle of wine it's not an issue
 
According to Barefeets, the unit in my late 2015 5K is significantly faster than the one in my 2014 model.
Apple changed the SSD technology and its much faster in the 2015 model. That said, you are only dealing with 24GB of that faster flash storage, as opposed to 128GB from the older model. There's no other "upgrades" to the Fusion drive, short of going with a 2TB Fusion drive (which still has the 128GB flash storage). The other option is to configure the mac with a SSD.

I just did a clean install 6 months ago after upgrading Mountain Lion to Yosemite on my 2011 MBP. I am pretty conservative about visiting websites on this system.
I prefer clean installs and using TM to move over my data, I've not used Migration assist. in years as I want to have full say of what is copied on to my new Mac.
[doublepost=1467110374][/doublepost]
And that is your preference, to other people it is a tool for work
I don't use it for work, but there's no way I could (or would) justify the high price increase in going with a 512GB or 1TB SSD, it made no sense to me.

While accessing my data can be a bit slower, specifically my Lightroom catalog/library. I'm very happy with the Fusion drive. Most of what is quite fast. The Fusion drive works exactly as Apple advertises it. Near SSD speeds at a hard drive cost.
 
I would rather upgrade it with a slower 1TB SSD and save over $650 USD.
I know. We know

Your preference is, without any doubt, valid.

To give you an idea of how much that is, that's enough to eat at a fancy restaurant every couple of weeks for over a year.
That is a good analogy, I don't usually hear that one.

I sort of don't know how that is possible but that is just great.

But I am getting off topic, we should return to the topic.
 
Last edited:
Apple changed the SSD technology and its much faster in the 2015 model. That said, you are only dealing with 24GB of that faster flash storage, as opposed to 128GB from the older model. There's no other "upgrades" to the Fusion drive, short of going with a 2TB Fusion drive (which still has the 128GB flash storage). The other option is to configure the mac with a SSD.


I prefer clean installs and using TM to move over my data, I've not used Migration assist. in years as I want to have full say of what is copied on to my new Mac.
[doublepost=1467110374][/doublepost]
I don't use it for work, but there's no way I could (or would) justify the high price increase in going with a 512GB or 1TB SSD, it made no sense to me.

While accessing my data can be a bit slower, specifically my Lightroom catalog/library. I'm very happy with the Fusion drive. Most of what is quite fast. The Fusion drive works exactly as Apple advertises it. Near SSD speeds at a hard drive cost.

Again YOU can't justify it, but many people could justify it no worries, hell I've seen friends spend that sort of money in an hour on champagne in strip clubs.
 
Apple changed the SSD technology and its much faster in the 2015 model. That said, you are only dealing with 24GB of that faster flash storage, as opposed to 128GB from the older model. There's no other "upgrades" to the Fusion drive, short of going with a 2TB Fusion drive (which still has the 128GB flash storage). The other option is to configure the mac with a SSD.

In my case, my 2014 had the 512GB SSD and my 2015 has the 1TB (mainly because the 512GB option was not available in a refurb unit at the time). In hindsight, I am glad I went with the 1TB as I was a bit space constrained on the 512 at times (I do have a 16TB Drobo 5D for long-term media storage, but I prefer to keep short-term stuff on the local SSD) and I now use a fairly larger Boot Camp partition (I prefer running games under W10, even if they have a native Mac port due to the better graphics support).
 
I would rather upgrade it with a slower 1TB SSD and save over $650 USD.

To give you an idea of how much that is, that's enough to eat at a fancy restaurant every couple of weeks for over a year.

Why not just go with an HDD and save even more money? The speed difference is between a SATA SSD vs PCIe SSD > 7200 HDD vs SATA SSD.
 
Why not just go with an HDD and save even more money? The speed difference is between a SATA SSD vs PCIe SSD > 7200 HDD vs SATA SSD.
I disagree.
For the user (not for the benchmarks), there is very little differences between PCIe SSD and SATA SSD.
You can compare application launch time, boot time, it's very difficult to make the difference.
Between SATA SSD and SATA HDD7200, the speed difference is huge.
People always compare max transfer rates (which are not very important) instead of random access time which costs a lot.
SSD have incredibly good random access performance compared to HDD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tubeexperience
For the user (not for the benchmarks), there is very little differences between PCIe SSD and SATA SSD.
ehh... no.

We're talking about saving quantities of time ranging from fractions of seconds to seconds, in every single task you perform.

For anyone who wants to notice, the difference is very obvious. Or you can just continue with your belief system of "ohh, everything is just the same in life. Please don't try to compare things to one another".

Well I definitely will.

Downplaying the speed of PCIe SSDs, is something I am simply not in favor of.
 
I disagree.
For the user (not for the benchmarks), there is very little differences between PCIe SSD and SATA SSD.
You can compare application launch time, boot time, it's very difficult to make the difference.
Between SATA SSD and SATA HDD7200, the speed difference is huge.
People always compare max transfer rates (which are not very important) instead of random access time which costs a lot.
SSD have incredibly good random access performance compared to HDD.
I agree !00%
I use both well a system with a PCI SSD another with a SATA SSD and I have 2 setups with fusion drives. at the end of the day the SSD's drives are about the same. Sure if I ran benchmarking software all day things will be different, but in my real world I boot once a day if that launch my programs a few times a day.So for me the I/O is mot my bottleneck. My fusion drive in my iMac mac does a great job of keeping up with the SSD systems plus I get 2GB of storage. When I am in Lightroom I don't notice any difference in the drives I am using.
 
Why not just go with an HDD and save even more money? The speed difference is between a SATA SSD vs PCIe SSD > 7200 HDD vs SATA SSD.

The perceived difference between a SATA HDD and a SATA SSD is huge.

The perceived difference between a SATA SSD and a PCIe SSD is not nearly as big.

Sure, you can look at benchmark and say "Wow! that PCIe SSD has really fast read and write speeds!", but how often would users perform some tasks that would reach anywhere near those speeds?

ehh... no.

We're talking about saving quantities of time ranging from fractions of seconds to seconds, in every single task you perform.

For anyone who wants to notice, the difference is very obvious. Or you can just continue with your belief system of "ohh, everything is just the same in life. Please don't try to compare things to one another".

Well I definitely will.

Downplaying the speed of PCIe SSDs, is something I am simply not in favor of.

As rbart said, that has to do with random access time rather than maximum transfer rate.

Higher maximum transfer rate helps when one is transferring gigabytes of data.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dimme and Weaselboy
Feel free to give me a choice between PCIe and the other one.

Just give me the choice between a brand new MacBook Pro with a super fast PCIe SSD, and granny's old plastic HP laptop that we pried open and threw an SATA SSD in (max read speed 300 mb/s).

I'll make the choice, let me tell you.

And I know many others will as well.

Why not just go with an HDD and save even more money? The speed difference is between a SATA SSD vs PCIe SSD > 7200 HDD vs SATA SSD.
He has the right idea.
 
Feel free to give me a choice between PCIe and the other one.

Just give me the choice between a brand new MacBook Pro with a super fast PCIe SSD, and granny's old plastic HP laptop that we pried open and threw an SATA SSD in (max read speed 300 mb/s).

I'll make the choice, let me tell you.
Sorry, I am not buying your straw man argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: varian55zx
Feel free to give me a choice between PCIe and the other one.

Just give me the choice between a brand new MacBook Pro with a super fast PCIe SSD, and granny's old plastic HP laptop that we pried open and threw an SATA SSD in (max read speed 300 mb/s).

I'll make the choice, let me tell you.

And I know many others will as well.


He has the right idea.
Your arguments are nonsense ...
Of course, PCIe is a bit faster, but most people won't notice it.
At the opposite, every one will notice the improvement from SATA HDD7200 to SATA SSD.
Of course, if you only rely on Blackmagic speedtest on big files (more than 1Gb) you have:
PCIe SSD: 1200MB/s
SATA SSD: 550MB/s
SATA HDD: 180MB/s
But if you compare random access to small files which is the most used mode, the two SSD are near, and really far away the HDD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dimme
Your arguments are nonsense ...
Of course, PCIe is a bit faster, but most people won't notice it.
At the opposite, every one will notice the improvement from SATA HDD7200 to SATA SSD.
Of course, if you only rely on Blackmagic speedtest on big files (more than 1Gb) you have:
PCIe SSD: 1200MB/s
SATA SSD: 550MB/s
SATA HDD: 180MB/s
But if you compare random access to small files which is the most used mode, the two SSD are near, and really far away the HDD.
"Your arguments are nonsense"

As he presents a non-sensical argument. This is the way some people argue, folks.

"Of course, PCIe is a bit faster, but most people won't notice it".

You're joking right. Please tell me this is an attempt at a troll

Let me ask you one simple question, bart.

Just because most people don't care to notice, does that mean the difference isn't there?

Well no. Of course not... That makes no sense.

Who are most of Apple's users? It's granny or jimmy in the Apple store going and buying their first MacBook or MacBook Pro. She doesn't even know how to start the computer.

For those of us who are, just a bit more nuanced. We can tell. Let me tell you.

When your senses are highly dulled, no, you cannot tell. The difference is apparent with the typing of one simple sentence, the keyboard is responding ever so slightly faster.

Additionally, you said "most people won't notice it". You are even acknowledging that some people can and will notice it.

Well, why are you discriminating against us? Why would you disregard those of us who can, quite easily, tell.

Since we are able to perceive something you can't, there is easily an argument that our point of view is the more credible one.

Ignore the subtle difference if you wish, but please, at least acknowledge the fact that not only is there one, but objectively there would have to be one.
 
The perceived difference between a SATA HDD and a SATA SSD is huge.

The perceived difference between a SATA SSD and a PCIe SSD is not nearly as big.

Sure, you can look at benchmark and say "Wow! that PCIe SSD has really fast read and write speeds!", but how often would users perform some tasks that would reach anywhere near those speeds?


Any storage based task?

Sure small stuff will be lost with due to hard to notice difference, for example Safari taking 1 second to load vs 2 seconds.

But I can easily notice a difference when it comes to loading things like games, dumping large files into other programs like iTunes (especially iTunes I don't think there is a counter argument if you are dropping movies into it), exporting final cut or iMovie, etc.

I would say if you can't perceive the difference your senses are just numb to it. But imagine me proclaiming I couldn't tell a difference between PCIe and a ramdisk. Either I would need my brain check or my specific workload was based around incredibly trivial stuff like just clicking on drop down windows or something.

Not knocking SATA based SSD's because they are great, fast and affordable. But it's not the best solution anymore and as far as Apple goes it's a thing of the past.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate your opinion I just feel otherwise.
 
"Your arguments are nonsense"

As he presents a non-sensical argument. This is the way some people argue, folks.

"Of course, PCIe is a bit faster, but most people won't notice it".

You're joking right. Please tell me this is an attempt at a troll

Let me ask you one simple question, bart.

Just because most people don't care to notice, does that mean the difference isn't there?

Well no. Of course not... That makes no sense.

Who are most of Apple's users? It's granny or jimmy in the Apple store going and buying their first MacBook or MacBook Pro. She doesn't even know how to start the computer.

For those of us who are, just a bit more nuanced. We can tell. Let me tell you.

When your senses are highly dulled, no, you cannot tell. The difference is apparent with the typing of one simple sentence, the keyboard is responding ever so slightly faster.

Additionally, you said "most people won't notice it". You are even acknowledging that some people can and will notice it.

Well, why are you discriminating against us? Why would you disregard those of us who can, quite easily, tell.

Since we are able to perceive something you can't, there is easily an argument that our point of view is the more credible one.

Ignore the subtle difference if you wish, but please, at least acknowledge the fact that not only is there one, but objectively there would have to be one.

Well, let me ask you this, how often do you transfer gigabytes after gigabytes to and from external SSD drives over thunderbolt?
 
Well, let me ask you this, how often do you transfer gigabytes after gigabytes to and from external drives over thunderbolt?
I'll answer, not that often at all.

But you shouldn't have asked that question.

Tasks such as transferring large amounts of data is where the benefit of a PCIe SSD is even more apparent, to the point that, surely, even granny or jimmy down the road can notice within 30 seconds.
 
While a 1TB SSD is oh so sexy, do you really need all that on the SSD? I have a 256 on which I keep all of my applications, and have maximum RAM. For all the data that I store, I use external drives, and particularly with music, there is no lag on playback even with spin disks, and I have considerably more music than what could fit on a measly 1TB drive. Save yourself the money and get a couple external drives, one for data and one for backup.
 
Any storage based task?

Sure small stuff will be lost with due to hard to notice difference, for example Safari taking 1 second to load vs 2 seconds.

But I can easily notice a difference when it comes to loading things like games, dumping large files into other programs like iTunes (especially iTunes I don't think there is a counter argument if you are dropping movies into it), exporting final cut or iMovie, etc.

I would say if you can't perceive the difference your senses are just numb to it. But imagine me proclaiming I couldn't tell a difference between PCIe and a ramdisk. Either I would need my brain check or my specific workload was based around incredibly trivial stuff like just clicking on drop down windows or something.

Not knocking SATA based SSD's because they are great, fast and affordable. But it's not the best solution anymore and as far as Apple goes it's a thing of the past.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate your opinion I just feel otherwise.
This is completely correct
 
rbart, I think that varian55zx doesn't have a clue what is the difference between random access time and sequential access time and that's why he keeps making his foolish argument.
 
To give you an idea of how much that is, that's enough to eat at a fancy restaurant every couple of weeks for over a year.

The flaw in that argument is that someone who drops that kind of cash on a SSD upgrade without wincing will have a very, very different idea to yours of what counts as a fancy restaurant (not that I eat in one every couple of weeks, but I've had the experience a few times - someone else was paying) :)

But yeah, with a 1TB SSD Mac you're paying 2 premiums: latest PCIe tech + 1TB on a single blade.

...and, yes, if you're comparing it with a HD then you're arguing over the merits of Ferrari vs. Bugatti while riding a horse.

With an iMac, the other alternative is to go for a more affordable 256GB internal SSD as your system/working drive - which is where you'll benefit most from the speed in general use - and use external drives for bulk storage. I can't say whether its for you, but its worth thinking exactly why you need your music and movie collections on a fixed drive sealed inside an iMac that you can't open without a pizza cutter and replacement sticky tapes.

...for laptops, that's not such a great solution because you want to pick-up-and-go (currently have 500GB of SSD and 750GB of spinning rust inside my 2011 MBP)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.