Well no, of course not.Is there a faster 1TB SSD than what Apple has in the 5K iMac right now
That is why you made a good buy.
Well no, of course not.Is there a faster 1TB SSD than what Apple has in the 5K iMac right now
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.
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.According to Barefeets, the unit in my late 2015 5K is significantly faster than the one in my 2014 model.
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.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 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.And that is your preference, to other people it is a tool for work
I know. We knowI would rather upgrade it with a slower 1TB SSD and save over $650 USD.
That is a good analogy, I don't usually hear that one.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.
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.
Yes, which is why I postedAgain YOU can't justify it,
it made no sense to me.
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 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 disagree.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.
ehh... no.For the user (not for the benchmarks), there is very little differences between PCIe SSD and SATA SSD.
I agree !00%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.
What is it about the difference between "about the same" and "the same" that people do not understand.at the end of the day the SSD's drives are about the same.
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.
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.
He has the right idea.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.
Sorry, I am not buying your straw man argument.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.
Your arguments are nonsense ...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"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.
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?
"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.
I'll answer, not that often at all.Well, let me ask you this, how often do you transfer gigabytes after gigabytes to and from external drives over thunderbolt?
This is completely correctAny 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.
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.