idk if you knew this or not but in case you didnt i hope i can help ya out, you didn't pay the 600 for the 32 ram did you frozen toast? If you did just call and update your order and do it yourself, save you 450 bux at least..
----------
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.
The 768GB Flash Storage $1300 club
- Thread starter animatedude
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
----------
Well I finally got round to ordering today. Basically opted in for the maxed out 27" (minus ram as I've got 32gb here waiting) including the 768gb. Gave it a lot of thought but with several unknowns regarding Fusion and my workload I've gone for it.
I'm more concerned about image retention that I've read a few are suffering from!
Looking forward to editing my photos and managing my large high res archive on the new toy when it arrived!
I'm more concerned about image retention that I've read a few are suffering from!
Looking forward to editing my photos and managing my large high res archive on the new toy when it arrived!
Some people sleep better not spending the $1300.
I sleep better knowing I have the fastest option available and I don't have to worry about some files not being SSD while others are -- or having to create my own external thunderbolt connections.
Congrats on your purchase, Richard.
I sleep better knowing I have the fastest option available and I don't have to worry about some files not being SSD while others are -- or having to create my own external thunderbolt connections.
Congrats on your purchase, Richard.
Yeah ... I got my new iMac with the 768GB SSD and it is really fast and a real pleasure to use. I have about 620GB on it and I can search through my large photo library in the blink of an eye.
I'm very happy with my purchase ... no problems or issues with it at all.
Hope everyone else enjoys theirs as well...
-howard
I'm very happy with my purchase ... no problems or issues with it at all.
Hope everyone else enjoys theirs as well...
-howard
Yeah ... I got my new iMac with the 768GB SSD and it is really fast and a real pleasure to use. I have about 620GB on it and I can search through my large photo library in the blink of an eye.
I'm very happy with my purchase ... no problems or issues with it at all.
Hope everyone else enjoys theirs as well...
-howard
Can't wait to get mine! Love the SSD on my Macbook Air.
The Question SSD v. Fusion Performance Difference Finally Answered...
Barefeats.com just completed their STORAGE SHOOTOUT between the
'late 2012' iMac 27-inch HDD vs SSD vs Fusion Drive
http://barefeats.com/imac12d1.html
"We have answers to the question, "What drive should I order for my 'late 2012' iMac 27-inch?" Since the 27-inch uses 3.5-inch HDDs, the drive choices and drive performance will be different from the 21.5-inch iMac which uses 2.5-inch HDDs. With the help of remote mad scientists, we were able to get test results on four of the five permutations available to 27-inch iMac buyers."
Basically, it says the 1TB Fusion drive is just under 10% slower than the 768 SSD at reading and just about 35% slower at writing smaller random files.
With a 1GB file the 1TB Fusion drive is a hair faster at reading than the 768 SSD, and just under 30 slower at writing...
It is important to not they did note have a 3TB Fusion drive for testing, but think it will likely perform similarly to the 1TB Fusion Drive.
Merry Christmas!!!
Jake
Barefeats.com just completed their STORAGE SHOOTOUT between the
'late 2012' iMac 27-inch HDD vs SSD vs Fusion Drive
http://barefeats.com/imac12d1.html
"We have answers to the question, "What drive should I order for my 'late 2012' iMac 27-inch?" Since the 27-inch uses 3.5-inch HDDs, the drive choices and drive performance will be different from the 21.5-inch iMac which uses 2.5-inch HDDs. With the help of remote mad scientists, we were able to get test results on four of the five permutations available to 27-inch iMac buyers."
Basically, it says the 1TB Fusion drive is just under 10% slower than the 768 SSD at reading and just about 35% slower at writing smaller random files.
With a 1GB file the 1TB Fusion drive is a hair faster at reading than the 768 SSD, and just under 30 slower at writing...
It is important to not they did note have a 3TB Fusion drive for testing, but think it will likely perform similarly to the 1TB Fusion Drive.
Merry Christmas!!!
Jake
Last edited:
"The SSD is the fastest choice, obviously, if you are willing to cough up $1300. Also, it won't slow down in certain situations that affect the Fusion Drive's performance. (See "Fusion Reality Check" below.)"
That's what I read from the article. Merry Christmas to you too
An SSD is the fastest choice in every situation. It has faster random and sequential read/write performance than a traditional hard drive. If the fusion drive even comes close to the SSD performance it is because of the SSD thats part of the fusion drive.
Yeah, it seems some people might believe that a Fusion drive will be fast all of the time because of a large SSD buffer or something, but that's clearly not the case (as I'm sure most people here already know). As soon as you access files on or copy files to the old-fashioned HD part of the fusion drive, be prepared for slowness!
Also the HD part will heat up your machine, and create more noise.
If you really want pure SSD, but don't want to pay the Apple premium, buy the 1TB option, or the Fusion Drive option. Then pay your local Apple repair shop to open it up, put in your own SSD of choice.
Yes, it's a pain and a waste of time and money. I wish Apple gave us 256, 512 and 768GB options for SSD.
I am a member of the "go all SSD for primary data" club. I'm not sure what I am going to do either.
I might get a Fusion Drive, see how it works for me, and only if I start noticing slowdowns will I take my own advice above and swap the HDD for an SSD.
I have a Drobo iSCSI for timemachine backups of my local drives.
Yes, it's a pain and a waste of time and money. I wish Apple gave us 256, 512 and 768GB options for SSD.
I am a member of the "go all SSD for primary data" club. I'm not sure what I am going to do either.
I might get a Fusion Drive, see how it works for me, and only if I start noticing slowdowns will I take my own advice above and swap the HDD for an SSD.
I have a Drobo iSCSI for timemachine backups of my local drives.
As said in other posts,
my suggestion is to go with the Fusion 1TB so you can have Windows, and an external Thunderbolt SSD.
I went with Lacies SSD in Raid, they're uber-fast, more capable and less expensive than the Apple option, but there is one drawback: they do make noise, so you need to place them behind something if you want a totally quiet ambient.
If you don't need much SSD storage space and have plenty, plenty of money to spend, than the internal Apple SSD can be an option.
my suggestion is to go with the Fusion 1TB so you can have Windows, and an external Thunderbolt SSD.
I went with Lacies SSD in Raid, they're uber-fast, more capable and less expensive than the Apple option, but there is one drawback: they do make noise, so you need to place them behind something if you want a totally quiet ambient.
If you don't need much SSD storage space and have plenty, plenty of money to spend, than the internal Apple SSD can be an option.
Yep ... That spacious SSD is fast, silent, and the whole system runs cool.
Really enjoying my purchase too!
-howard
Some people will spend the $1300 on another iMac in 3 years when SSD prices have dropped considerably. Also some people have actually used the fusion drive and realize its as fast as an all SSD system
If you have that kind of money to throw around then that's great, but spending over 4k on a AIO is not smart imo.Some people will spend the $1300 on another iMac in 3 years when SSD prices have dropped considerably. Also some people have actually used the fusion drive and realize its as fast as an all SSD system
I would take your point about the $1300 if it was over a few months...but $1300 becomes a meaningless expense over a 3 year time period surely? I'd happily spend $1300 and would totally have forgotten about that expense in 3 years time...know what I mean?
$1300 is alot of money for someone paying a mortgage, i know most people would not forget spending $1300 3 years later. The thing is, the fusion drive is very fast and you can put the $1300 towards the next iMac when SSD prices have come down. Like i said if you have that much disposable money then by all means go for it but you may be upset when the new Mac Pro comes out and costs less then you payed for an iMac.
Yeah fair enough. I guess my life situation is different from alot of people who have more responsibilities than me so maybe you're right.
Guess we all gotta do what's right for us at the end of the day!
Plus, it is less than $1300 since you would have paid for the Fusion upgrade otherwise. And, any Fusion drive is not consistently fast over time as pure SSD (I have used both for some time side-by-side in the same machine for testing).
If you want the fastest experience all the time, get pure SSD ... Fusion is always a compromise!
I have the fusion 2012 iMac and a all SSD iMac and the fusion is just as fast in day to day operations
I notice the difference when dealing with very large RAW photo files in a huge photo library on my Mac Pro which is why I use pure SSD now both there and on my new iMac.
Yep i did say if you are working with large image library's then the pure SSD will be faster but for day to day operations the Fusion drive is just as fast. The thing is if you have very large image library's you would be better off with an external thunderbolt SDD solution as you could get more GB for your $$$. You can get 1.5TB of SSD for $1300. There is no real way to justify paying $1300 for 768GB unless you need all your storage internal.