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.
Subjectively - how slow is iMac 21.5" 5400rpm disk?
- Thread starter erikbailey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I had one on the mini, very objectively it's as **** as it can be.
There's absolutely no reason beyond apple's (Cook's that is) warped reality field (where touch typing becomes a viable and exclusive means of typing apparently...
) why any computer costing $1300 in 2013, let alone a DESKTOP computer should be saddled and rendered dirt slow by a 5400rpm drive. If you can't afford the +$450 apple tax (and there's no reason why they should bully you into it), at least get ready to open it up and stick a momentus hybrid drive there, which has both flash (albeit not that much) and is a 7200rpm drive.
There's absolutely no reason beyond apple's (Cook's that is) warped reality field (where touch typing becomes a viable and exclusive means of typing apparently...
) why any computer costing $1300 in 2013, let alone a DESKTOP computer should be saddled and rendered dirt slow by a 5400rpm drive. If you can't afford the +$450 apple tax (and there's no reason why they should bully you into it), at least get ready to open it up and stick a momentus hybrid drive there, which has both flash (albeit not that much) and is a 7200rpm drive.I believe the Blackmagic benchmark on a 2012 with 5400 RPM drive was around 100 MB/sec. I measured 120 MB/sec on my 2011 with 7200 RPM drive. So, around 20% slower on that particular benchmark.
News to me. Not only have I never read or seen that online, my experience (with probably a dozen or more 2.5" drives) is that the 5400 drives have mostly failed and the 7200 ones have not.
But that's my experience and it's anecdotal.
The 5400 love I see on MacRumors has always been a mystery to me.
I've never seen a single spec or study attesting to this. 7200rpm drives btw, are considerably faster not a bit faster, and hubrid 7200rpm drives, given time for the caching to start working, approach ssd speeds.
Sadly i cant go any deep because of language barrier but i will leave these link so you take a look, concept its the same:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/how-higher-rpm-hard-drives-rip-you-off/322
Btw 7200rpm are not really that fast, you probably wont even notice (they do will load games and software a bit fast) other than that the 5400 are far better for storage of big files/bulky.
thanks for the link, I 'll have a look at it.
Your opinion of them however is really divergent from the common view of them.I don't see all the hype for flash storage. Perhaps for the faster boot time I'd understand, but my machine stays on unless I need to restart for updates or if the power goes out. I'm sure that my opinion is a minority among tech enthusiasts, but I prefer to limit my spending wherever possible.
Again, it is not the rpm that is important here, it is the speed drop AND the reduction in platter size. These are very slow drives for a late-2012 desktop computer.
Restarts are only part of it. If your machine ever hangs for whatever reason, it is almost certainly due to disk access times. SSD's make every part of using a computer better.
Even with my media library stored on an external 3.5" 7200rpm drive, it is clear when I'm waiting for a program to access data from that drive.
I agree with you for the most part. There is the "elite haxxor" contingent that obsess over 1.5% differences in benchmarks and scream that things are "heartbreakingly slow" when in reality we are often talking about fractions of a second.
My company has it's share, and they will always clamor for the fastest/latest/greatest. My boss shuts them down 99% of the time when he asks them to show how the slowness actually affects there productivity doing real work. If they start out with a benchmark they don't get far, nor do they when they try to present "real work" scenarios such as having 10 applications all open at the same time or 37 browser tabs open.
The two places where I can see real tangible benefits are in things like portables where for example wake from sleep is greatly improved and some apps (like photoshop or some compilers) that are constantly writing or reading from the drive.
But in a desktop I prefer capacity, since mine holds my music.movies and games as well.
Eventually this will be a moot point with SSD being cheap enough that it's not an issue. Last I checked though a 1TB SSD was not wallet friendly
Last edited:
We put SSD's in all of our new machines starting a couple of years ago at the owner's decree. It's not just restart times, but wake from sleep, every place that your computer normally hangs is generally due to disk access. Individual wait times may be small, but they aggregate quickly, and more than anything it is the break in concentration that is caused. How many of your employees take a 15 minute coffee break every time they need to restart their computer?
It sounds like you have much more wrong than just buying a SSD will resolve. If the employees are restarting their computers multiple times a day that's a whole different issue.
The same thing with 15 minute boot times. The systems in our offices all boot up in less than a minute
I'm not saying SSD's don't have their place, they do and we have some users that have them (like the aforementioned programmers) but what gets lost often is cost/benefit ratio. The reality is that per GB SSD is still pricey.
If it's your machine and you can afford it, then no justification needed, But for most of us, it's always a trade off. Not to put to fine a point on it, but for the cost of one fully SSD equipped iMac you can nearly buy two of the base units. With multiple kids fighting over the computer, which makes the more practical sense?
PS: I just timed the boot of my base model 21 inch 2012 iMac- 37.5 seconds from startup chime to desktop
Last edited:
You misunderstand. It's not multiple times per day, but it is not uncommon - even if its just to start the computer in the morning. And I never said anything about 15 minute boot times. I said that the waits cause lapses in concentration. Most machines older than a year or so don't boot in a minute on a platter drive. If its long enough to be an irritant, people will go find something else to do in the meantime. The total break in concentration may be 15 minutes.
I was going back and forth, but ultimately got the base 21.5" iMac. I wasn't sure how reliable fusion drives were going to be, and I didn't want a 27". This is my first time with a 5400 rpm hard drive. The boot up is about 35 seconds, but my computer goes into sleep mode when I am finished, so it really isn't an issue. I use Word, Excel, Pages, Numbers, Safari and haven't noticed any slowdowns. My MBP has a 7200 rpm hard drive. I have no experience with an SSD.
I m sorry, and I mean no offense, but this reads like such a huge pile of horse manure to me. Desktop or notebook, the os and applications need to reside on flash in 2013, the speed difference is incomparable and it translates to very obvious perfomance increases and productivity gains. It costs next to nothing for a top notch (not the garbage that apple ships the imacs with) 64-128gb ssds, it can go in one bay and you have the rest of them (or the other in the case of dual bay scenarios) for storage, with 3tb and soon 4tb hard drives you are a good as golden. There's no point for a 1tb ssd, there's not even a point if you can manage a 128gb one there for os, apps, and most used data. That's why predictably apple dont offer the rmbp with another bay for an hd, because then no one would buy their overpriced flash, pay an arm and a leg and still only be left with 750gb storage.
I'm sorry that you are such an obvious arrogant ###. Love those "i am superior to thou pronouncements" Go back to your fantasizing while running blackmagic 37 times in a row.
lol 45 second boot must seem forever comparing with that rMBP 15 sec boot
i cant live with anything but my rMBP now. the rMBP just so damn quick I've actually been surprised at how fast my new iMac operates with the 5400 rpm hdd.
For security reasons, I went to a usb 3.0 external SSD (Crucial m4) and, when waking from sleep there is no difference. Loading apps are, from a practical perspective, very tolerable. Browsing, email, Keynote / Pages - no differences to worry about.
Capture One Pro, Final Cut X, large file transfers - probably a different story.
For security reasons, I went to a usb 3.0 external SSD (Crucial m4) and, when waking from sleep there is no difference. Loading apps are, from a practical perspective, very tolerable. Browsing, email, Keynote / Pages - no differences to worry about.
Capture One Pro, Final Cut X, large file transfers - probably a different story.
lol 45 second boot must seem forever comparing with that rMBP 15 sec boot
Most people dont turn off desktops or even laptops (i only do it if im away for travel and dont need remote access) so they dont care how long it takes for it to boot unless it takes 30 minutes
lol 45 second boot must seem forever comparing with that rMBP 15 sec boot
I have been trying hard to talk myself into returning the iMac. The usual stuff. Can I find fault with the screen, the boot time with the traditional hard drive, the usual. But, I find myself just not bothered by any of this. The screen is great even though its not retina, the boot time gives me just a few more swigs of coffee before I set out to surf. Yes it took two more minutes than my retina to transfer a 2gb file but that didn't seem to matter either. For what I use it for it is just great. Fun to use. But still glad I have my rMBP too
Whatever you were seeing there, it looks like they fixed it - you can do 16GB as 2x8GB, or 8GB as 2x4GB, but there are only two RAM slots. I think I was mis-remembering the stock RAM in the mini (it's 4GB, not 8GB as I was thinking), so if you just want 8GB, you're fine, but you'll have to pull the existing 4GB and replace it with whatever you want.
Most people dont turn off desktops or even laptops (i only do it if im away for travel and dont need remote access) so they dont care how long it takes for it to boot unless it takes 30 minutes
ditto on that - I have some Macs in my operations that maybe get turned off 3 to 5 times a YEAR.