Struggling w/2017 i7 storage 1TB SSD vs 3TB Fusion

[Bob418]

After several weeks of thinking about this, this is my conclusion is well. I'm currently specing out a new 27 inch iMac, and not sure if I should choose the 1 TB SSD or 2 TB SSD. It isn't cheap at $1400, but I can afford the 2 TB, so I'll probably just go for it. I do a lot of photography, and what the photographers have said in this thread makes perfect sense to me.

If you can afford it, I would suggest you go for it. Nothing can compete with the speed and convenience of the internal SSD drive. I previously used MBP Retina with 256GB SSD. I actually thought about going 512GB when ordering iMac. At the end, I decided to go for 1TB. Now I feel it's the best decision I've made. I moved my previous projects to the internal drive, and it improved my productivity so much as I frequently checked back old codes across projects (27 inch screen also helps). My wife also told me that opening files in Photoshop is so much faster, because her projects are sitting in the internal drive. Now I have crossed the 512GB usage.

So I suggest to get the maximum SSD internal drive you can afford. SSD drive might be getting cheaper over time, but it has nothing to do with your iMac, unless you buy a new one.

 

[theluggage]

I'm currently specing out a new 27 inch iMac, and not sure if I should choose the 1 TB SSD or 2 TB SSD.

Breaking news: 2TB is better than 512GB. If you don't mind paying for the 2TB option, then go ahead. I went for the 1TB based on similar reasoning - the 512GB would have worked for me if cash had been tighter (and I already have external drives and networked storage) but 1TB is more convenient. 2TB, well, yes I could have afforded it - but the reason that I could afford it is that I tend to hesitate before buying things that I <begin italics>could<end italics> afford

However, I think the summary remains valid:
(a) putting spinning rust in an iMac is like buying a Tesla with a diesel engine.
(b) The 512GB SSD option is probably the "sweet spot" in terms of value for money - and the bulk of the speed advantages come from having your system, swapfile and temporary files on SSD. You'll need externals or NAS for backup anyway.
(c) Without a specific technical justification, 1TB is a nice indulgence if you can afford it, while 2TB smacks of decadence.

Remember, (bear in mind that you can't easily yank the SSD from an iMac if it has to go for repair) and if you're doing serious video work then (you probably don't need telling) even 2TB will fill up rapidly and you'll rely on an external storage solution anyway.

 

[tgara]

(c) Without a specific technical justification, 1TB is a nice indulgence if you can afford it, while 2TB smacks of decadence.

So what you're saying is that the 512GB SSD storage option is like a bowl of fruit for dessert, the 1TB SSD option is like a bowl of ice cream, and the 2TB SSD option is like a chocolate fudge sundae with whipped cream and a cherry on top, right?

 

[hans1972]

IN any case, same rule of thumb applies: It's not a magic bullet and if you have large reads or writes then the stuff you are working with, especially if it is new work is likely not going to be all in the cache.

All new data goes to the SSD since Fusion Drives sets a side 4Gb of free space for new data. It is only if you exceed that amount of new data in a certain time period that things will go to the HDD.

edit:
Tier-ing is actually worse as it means the data exists only in one storage area at a time and must be MOVED when it no longer belongs in the cache, rather than just dropped from the cache. This is slower...

Again it is not a cache, since the data conceptually are never in more than one place at the same time.

In practice, in most scenarios, the date you need is on the SSD or it will be there after a certain time. It is only if you often generate lofts of new data (4Gb) in a short amount of time or if you need frequent access to more than approx. 120Gb of data that you will notice the slowdown of a Fusion Drive all the time or at least frequently.

Fusion Drive is a solution that tries to give slow SSD speed for 90% percent of the users 90% of the time.

 

[gian8989]

Pretty well set on the BTO configuration: 27" 580 w/8GB GPU 7, i7 CPU & base 8GB RAM (which I will rectify by purchasing and installing 32GB Crucial kit to save $350), but am having a hell of a time nailing down the final parameter...

Normal usage, but with an eye towards the mrs getting serious about photography, processing RAW files with Lightroom & Photoshop.
Our current free space is 644GB on our 1.1TB Fusion, which will be trimmed down likely another 100GB b4 migration....

I purchased the 1st version 1.1TB (128GB SSD portion) of the Fusion Drive, when I bought the late 2012 Mac Mini. It was a large part of my decision to buy that unit.
It has performed admirably in the past 5 years, and even survived an apple (really) juice bath from my little one knocking a cup over on the desktop, where the SATA (seen in pic, on top of the Mini with the the protective sleeve peeled away and the connector detached) portion of the Fusion drive was sopping wet and had to be decontaminated.
I will say, I am really struggling on my new 2017 iMac purchase.
I want so bad to have the latest and greatest all SSD 1TB drive, that likely will get full quickly as RAW files are stored, necessitating an external drive.
The Fusion served us so well, even in such adverse usage, and we can get a 3TB version for 500 less than what the all SSD costs, I'm heavily being pulled in the Fusion direction again....

View attachment 709296

Sorry if i say this but if you are going to do serious work with photo you also need an external hdd (if you won't need it to work at least as a backup). No internal hdd will ever be big enough in an aio. If this was a tower you could have added hdd or ssd over time but with the iMac is not possible. In my opinion fusion drives are only good if your work is not media related.

 

[Luxtrau]

All new data goes to the SSD since Fusion Drives sets a side 4Gb of free space for new data. It is only if you exceed that amount of new data in a certain time period that things will go to the HDD.



Again it is not a cache, since the data conceptually are never in more than one place at the same time.

In practice, in most scenarios, the date you need is on the SSD or it will be there after a certain time. It is only if you often generate lofts of new data (4Gb) in a short amount of time or if you need frequent access to more than approx. 120Gb of data that you will notice the slowdown of a Fusion Drive all the time or at least frequently.

Fusion Drive is a solution that tries to give slow SSD speed for 90% percent of the users 90% of the time.

Yes, in theory. I had a Fusion Drive on a mac mini and replaced it with a SSD after a while. And it was a noticeable difference. A Fusion Drive simply isn't as fast as a SSD. But it is faster than a HDD. So I ask myself what's the point in buying an expensive high-end computer and putting an old rusty technique (HDD) in it? And I think an iMac should do its job a couple of years.

BTW another downside of FD is if one of the two drives get an error you will lose data on both. I had this issue on my mac mini.

 

[throAU]

All new data goes to the SSD since Fusion Drives sets a side 4Gb of free space for new data. It is only if you exceed that amount of new data in a certain time period that things will go to the HDD.



Again it is not a cache, since the data conceptually are never in more than one place at the same time.

In practice, in most scenarios, the date you need is on the SSD or it will be there after a certain time. It is only if you often generate lofts of new data (4Gb) in a short amount of time or if you need frequent access to more than approx. 120Gb of data that you will notice the slowdown of a Fusion Drive all the time or at least frequently.

Fusion Drive is a solution that tries to give slow SSD speed for 90% percent of the users 90% of the time.

SO when i do something common like, oh i don't know... copy some content off my 64 GB GoPro SD card, i blow the 4GB write area and am reduced to HD spindle speed (for the remaining data written)

Like i said. If you want to do video, a Fusion drive won't cut it. And whether or not you call it a cache or tier or whatever - it's not going to change that fact.

 

[AFEPPL]

1TB SSD every time

 

[snowtrooper1966]

Sorry if i say this but if you are going to do serious work with photo you also need an external hdd (if you won't need it to work at least as a backup). No internal hdd will ever be big enough in an aio. If this was a tower you could have added hdd or ssd over time but with the iMac is not possible. In my opinion fusion drives are only good if your work is not media related.

Don't apologize, I asked.
Have a 3TB Airport Time Capsule for Time
Machine backups, but did finally decide, and ordered 4TB Lighting Bolt 3 G-Drive as external compliment to the 1TB all SSD internal......

 

[Larabee119]

I opted for 1TB Fusion drive and then use thunder bolt 3 external SSD as bootdrive to save a bit of money. The internal SSD becomes Time Machine backup drive.

 

[gian8989]

Don't apologize, I asked.
Have a 3TB Airport Time Capsule for Time
Machine backups, but did finally decide, and ordered 4TB Lighting Bolt 3 G-Drive as external compliment to the 1TB all SSD internal......

It is an expensive solution (I have the 1tb ssd as well) but i would have considered a fusion drive only if there was only a 256gb ssd solution. The ssd is just too fast compared to fusion drive.