I'd get the 512GB SSD, and store all of files on a separate drive with a back-up. I do this on all of my computers to keep the boot drive clean.
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.
SSD vs Fusion Drive
- Thread starter Falcon80
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Same here
Ordered the 512 and got 2, 2TB external drives(usb 3.0 Western Digital) One for time machine one for movies and series.
My plan as well. Just don't have the budget for the Big SSD Option as of now. Heck, I might have a new box in 3-4 years. I can wait. 2T Fusion it is.
That's a really hard question to answer because it depends both on your usage patterns and on the ssd/hdd movement algorithms in the Fusion Drive software. When you are accessing the SSD side of the Fusion, I'd expect it to be on par with straight SSD; perhaps marginally slower, both because the SSD is smaller and smaller SSD's are usually a bit slower due to not using all available SSD controller parallelism, and because there's the FD layer to run through; but you would probably have to measure to tell the difference. Once you manage to hit data that's on the HDD, it's obviously going to slow down, but how much? Hard to say. If the FD decides to move that data file to the SSD, you might see a one-time slowness and later accesses are fast. If the FD thinks you're done with it and drops it off the SSD it will become or stay slow. It's really hard to say for sure.
About the only rule of thumb that I can think of off the top of my head is: if you work with a lot of largish files, say a bunch of megabytes-each photo files for thumbnailing, or a few very large files such as HD video, the FD is unlikely to be able to hold everything in the SSD and you'll probably see slowdowns. If you work with a few small files and stick with that subset for a period of time, you might see an initial slowness but mostly it will be fast.
By the way, one of the reasons for not liking the FD is this unpredictability. An HDD might be slow but at least it's always slow. With the FD you never know if today will be your lucky day or not. Sometimes this is fine and who cares. Sometimes it's wildly annoying...
I have been booting from an external SSD in a Thunderbolt enclosure on this soon-to-be-retired Late 2013 iMac ever since I bought it and only use the Fusion Drive for internal storage. Even so, the 1TB hard drive component failed last year, fortunately with 3 weeks left of AppleCare so I was able to get it replaced for free.
I am not going to be missing the spinning drive in my new machine. I'll hook those up externally, where I can easily replace them myself.
Photo editing ie raw files I have a huge photo library, virtual machines, audio,and some video work.
Icic. Thanks for sharing. Still a bit undecided which to get, though I am leaning more toward full SSD. I am doing plenty of development work, concurrently opening Xcode, Android Studios and at times, Unity3D. Also may need to fire up VM as well.
What Thunderbolt enclosure are you using? They seem to be hard to find or very expensive.
Up until this new release of the iMac, I used to advise buyers to get the 2tb fusion drive option, which offers a good blend of speed v. storage capacity.
BUT... with the 2017 iMacs -- I think "a change" is in order.
It's time to move away from platter-based "primary storage" (aside: platter-based HDDs, which are inexpensive, still are reasonable choices for BACKUP storage).
So... for new iMac purchases, I believe it's best to buy either a 256gb or 512gb internal SSD. Neither adds a great amount to the initial buy-in cost.
On the other hand, I -DO NOT- recommend the 1tb SSD (from Apple), as it remains way overpriced at $700 extra. NOT worth it unless you have money to throw away (some do).
Get the iMac with a decent sized SSD (256gb or 512gb).
If your "primary storage" needs are higher, go with something external.
It's of note that the USB-c ports support USB3.1 Gen.2, with a transfer speed up to 10gbps. That's "fast enough" for almost anything one would need to keep on an external drive.
And these drives are (or will soon be) selling for very reasonable prices.
BUT... with the 2017 iMacs -- I think "a change" is in order.
It's time to move away from platter-based "primary storage" (aside: platter-based HDDs, which are inexpensive, still are reasonable choices for BACKUP storage).
So... for new iMac purchases, I believe it's best to buy either a 256gb or 512gb internal SSD. Neither adds a great amount to the initial buy-in cost.
On the other hand, I -DO NOT- recommend the 1tb SSD (from Apple), as it remains way overpriced at $700 extra. NOT worth it unless you have money to throw away (some do).
Get the iMac with a decent sized SSD (256gb or 512gb).
If your "primary storage" needs are higher, go with something external.
It's of note that the USB-c ports support USB3.1 Gen.2, with a transfer speed up to 10gbps. That's "fast enough" for almost anything one would need to keep on an external drive.
And these drives are (or will soon be) selling for very reasonable prices.
I think that the 1tb upgrade cost a lot but I am personally considering it. I will install windows with bootcamp 150gb probably, so 500gb is not enought (it gets worst if you want to install even linux).
I usually stores documents and music in my main drive and video and photos on external 8tb wd my book (try to avoid it if you want a quite hdd; when it is writing it is realy noisy) that i now have connected to my shield tv.
I only hope that in next 2 years samsung 4tb sata ssd gets cheap.
I usually stores documents and music in my main drive and video and photos on external 8tb wd my book (try to avoid it if you want a quite hdd; when it is writing it is realy noisy) that i now have connected to my shield tv.
I only hope that in next 2 years samsung 4tb sata ssd gets cheap.
In late 2013 my 512GB SSD upgrade was $500. I would have hoped with SSD prices plummeting that Apple would have made these prices a little more reasonable, but $600 for the 1TB wouldn't be a deal breaker for me in a case like yours.
I also had hoped that by now Apple would have dropped hard drive-based storage altogether by now. Grrr.
I bought the Delock 42490 about three years ago. It was around $110 at the time.
There is a newer model out now, the Delock 42510 that you can get from Synchrotech for $85.
I can recommend the Delock highly. I've never had a problem with it from day one. I also posted some benchmarks comparing it to an Inateck USB enclosure in this review from 2014 in case you're interested.
A USB 3.1 enclosure would be a lot cheaper than TB. Is there any concession going that route?
I've been using SSDs in USB 3.0 enclosures for years and they perform great, but I'll upgrade those enclosures for sure when I get my new iMac.
I've been using SSDs in USB 3.0 enclosures for years and they perform great, but I'll upgrade those enclosures for sure when I get my new iMac.
Yes, apparently MacOS does not support the TRIM command over USB but it works fine with Thunderbolt.
For all I now the new filesystem does't work with standard hdd so I don't know why the still sell the hdd option.
As for the price of ssd, Apple just sell them with the price they had (samsung 960 pro?) when they first come out +100$.
I don't know in other countries but in Italy this iMac costs a bit less than 2015.
I love learning new things - thanks for that nugget.
The way I'm using my externals, TRIM probably isn't going to make a big difference, but for a startup disk there's no question that makes Thunderbolt the only way to go.
I had a Fusion Drive with my 2012 Mac Mini and I use that for photo editing and 1080p video editing. It works very well.
The only time it has slow downs is when I uploads lots of RAW photos and videos. That's when the SSD cache starts to fill up. After that, during editing, the speed goes back to normal.
If you're right about the 2TB Fusion having 128GB of SSD, then that should be suffice for general purpose work expect 4K video editing.
Here's what you can currently get with your money
+$100 - 256GB SSD from Apple
+$200 - 2TB Fusion from Apple
+$200 - 256GB SSD from Apple plus a WD My Passport 3TB drive (my recommendation)
If you get the Fusion and find that too slow in the future, you still have the option to expand your storage through Thunderbolt 3 or USB 3. E.g. via Transcend Thunderbolt Storejet (I'm using this for my Mac Pro for 4K editing) or the Samsung T3.
The only time it has slow downs is when I uploads lots of RAW photos and videos. That's when the SSD cache starts to fill up. After that, during editing, the speed goes back to normal.
If you're right about the 2TB Fusion having 128GB of SSD, then that should be suffice for general purpose work expect 4K video editing.
Here's what you can currently get with your money
+$100 - 256GB SSD from Apple
+$200 - 2TB Fusion from Apple
+$200 - 256GB SSD from Apple plus a WD My Passport 3TB drive (my recommendation)
If you get the Fusion and find that too slow in the future, you still have the option to expand your storage through Thunderbolt 3 or USB 3. E.g. via Transcend Thunderbolt Storejet (I'm using this for my Mac Pro for 4K editing) or the Samsung T3.
With 14 bit raw and 4K video everywhere these days why buy a fusion? I'd never buy a fusion just for the organization factor. It's a joke, you can't control what's on the ssd, that's not going to work. Buy for the future, think ahead not backwards. 5 years from now we could be using ssd everywhere and nobody will want to buy an iMac with a fusion in it.
yadmonkey wrote:
"TRIM probably isn't going to make a big difference, but for a startup disk there's no question that makes Thunderbolt the only way to go."
Once again, I have to jump in and say that claims like this are not supported by empirical performance stats from the real world.
I speak from personal experience.
I've been booting and running a late-2012 Mac Mini from an SSD mounted in a USB3/SATA docking station for four years and six months now. I contend that no other poster in this forum has as much experience in doing this as I have.
If I run BlackMagic Speed Test on the drive, it runs as fast today as the day I first booted from it. NO slowdown in performance whatsoever. NONE.
TRIM -- for all practical purposes -- is a non-issue, of next-to-no importance at all.
Arguing about it is the digital equivalent of arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I welcome and solicit refutations -- but ONLY from those who can offer concrete results after booting/running externally via USB over a period of 4 or more years...
"TRIM probably isn't going to make a big difference, but for a startup disk there's no question that makes Thunderbolt the only way to go."
Once again, I have to jump in and say that claims like this are not supported by empirical performance stats from the real world.
I speak from personal experience.
I've been booting and running a late-2012 Mac Mini from an SSD mounted in a USB3/SATA docking station for four years and six months now. I contend that no other poster in this forum has as much experience in doing this as I have.
If I run BlackMagic Speed Test on the drive, it runs as fast today as the day I first booted from it. NO slowdown in performance whatsoever. NONE.
TRIM -- for all practical purposes -- is a non-issue, of next-to-no importance at all.
Arguing about it is the digital equivalent of arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I welcome and solicit refutations -- but ONLY from those who can offer concrete results after booting/running externally via USB over a period of 4 or more years...
I'm using an external (seagate thunderbolt adapter) 120gb Samsung 850 evo SSD as my boot drive (OS and Apps) for my 2011 27" iMac. I have 25GB left on it.... The internal 3TB Drive stores my Home directory.
If I upgrade to the top end 27" iMac, I'm struggling with the practicality of having an internal 512gb SSD and external SSD/HD storage for my 1.27TB home directory that includes my 785GB Dropbox folder....
How am I going to use the 400 odd GB on the internal SSD????? Splitting the Home directory across drives isn't very palatable..... Practicality wise the 2TB fusion seems the way to go for me.
If you have ever had an Apple with SSD, you can definitely notice the difference using Fusion. I have a 1TB fusion and its been fine but I would prefer the SSD speed.
My Fusion failed only once when the SSD and HDD separated for an unknown reason.
I dont know that is it true that the SSD is longer lived than the HDD. SSDs seem to have their own set of issues over the long term.
For those considering external drives, you can manually separate the Fusion SSD and HDD and then use the drives separately. SSD for OS, HDD for files. I am sure this kills the warranty but saves 100's of dollars.
One would buy a fusion drive to save money (for the given amount of space), and not everyone deals in 14 bit raw or 4K video files. Someone whose primary use case is document editing, or code development, or editing some subset of a photo library might do just fine with a Fusion. If I am buying to use the computer until it dies, I don't care about resale value. I generally advocate going straight SSD, but trying to deny the value of the fusion drive in its proper niche is just silly.
You seem to be excited about this. Take a deep breath. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that TRIM on a startup disk is important and if so I think we can all agree that I should be executed publicly for it.
Maybe you're right that TRIM isn't all that important for even a startup disk and I actually value your input regarding your experience here. However I might suggest that your perspective would be more palatable without the pedantic tone.
The internet doesn't care what kind of refutations you welcome. This is a public forum and anyone can refute anyone, welcome or not.
Nobody is arguing except you. I am always open to opinions that challenge my assumptions. Also, you forgot to write "harrumph".
I don't know what you use your computer for, but if it were me in your shoes, I'd use the 512GB internal SSD as the boot and application drive, the 850 EVO SSD as cache or scratch disk, and get either a 1TB SSD for active working files or a 2TB black drive for file storage. Then I'd get another for 2TB black drive for a mirrored backup.
