Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 26, 2012, 08:07 PM   #26
Squeak825
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAkD View Post
So your saying its gonna go from 1tb to 3tb I hope not based on the price of the 3tb time capsule
Yes...those are the only 5 options for storage on the 27" iMac.
Squeak825 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 08:12 PM   #27
CrAkD
macrumors 68030
 
CrAkD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Makes no sense to offer just 768 unless they are trying to push the fusion. 256 doable. 512 expensive. 768 obscenely expensive by regular standards forget about the apple tax
__________________
iPhone 5S 64GB Macbook Air TV iPad Mini Retina 16gb LTE Hackintosh i7 920
CrAkD is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 08:15 PM   #28
Squeak825
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAkD View Post
Makes no sense to offer just 768 unless they are trying to push the fusion. 256 doable. 512 expensive. 768 obscenely expensive by regular standards forget about the apple tax
That is exactly what they are doing. People who need that much Flash storage are willing to pay for it.

Others will get 95% of the benefit via Fusion.

Plus, it limits the number of SKU's they have to build.
Squeak825 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 08:20 PM   #29
CrAkD
macrumors 68030
 
CrAkD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston, MA
The more I think about it this setup is going to kind of screw me. I always planned on getting a 27" iMac with 256 ssd and 2tb. Fusion drive won't work for me cause I need 2 sep drives for protools. 1 for system and 1 for recording. I guess i could get the fusion and split it but 128 is cutting it close.
__________________
iPhone 5S 64GB Macbook Air TV iPad Mini Retina 16gb LTE Hackintosh i7 920
CrAkD is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 08:23 PM   #30
Squeak825
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrAkD View Post
The more I think about it this setup is going to kind of screw me. I always planned on getting a 27" iMac with 256 ssd and 2tb. Fusion drive won't work for me cause I need 2 sep drives for protools. 1 for system and 1 for recording. I guess i could get the fusion and split it but 128 is cutting it close.
Buy it with the 1TB Hard Drive, and get a Thunderbolt drive with an SSD in it. Solves that problem.
Squeak825 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 08:34 PM   #31
mchoffa
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeak825 View Post
Buy it with the 1TB Hard Drive, and get a Thunderbolt drive with an SSD in it. Solves that problem.
I was thinking of doing a 1TB fusion myself + 256GB external SSD for photos
mchoffa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 08:44 PM   #32
CrAkD
macrumors 68030
 
CrAkD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston, MA
I dunno about an external system drive.
__________________
iPhone 5S 64GB Macbook Air TV iPad Mini Retina 16gb LTE Hackintosh i7 920
CrAkD is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 09:41 PM   #33
Hasn'tbeensober
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
What about this????
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	56
Size:	138.5 KB
ID:	379892  
Hasn'tbeensober is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 09:43 PM   #34
mchoffa
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasn'tbeensober View Post
What about this????
it says:

Up to 768GB of flash storage.
For maximum performance, you can configure a 27-inch iMac with 768GB of flash storage instead of a traditional hard drive.

which sounds again like it's only the 768GB SSD that can replace the standard HDD
mchoffa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 10:00 PM   #35
Squeak825
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasn'tbeensober View Post
What about this????
It's because you get 128GB with the fusion drive.
Squeak825 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 11:09 PM   #36
Scrapula
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasn'tbeensober View Post
What about this????
Maybe it's because you cannot physically store 768GB on a 768GB SSD. The drive cannot rewrite the same area on disc, so data needs to be relocated each time you rewrite. So it is up to 768GB of storage, but most people will not ever get that much storage unless it is archived data that will never get rewritten. It is good for photo archiving, etc.
Scrapula is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2012, 01:59 AM   #37
lucasfunkt
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
What are we expecting the price being for the 768gb SSD and the 3TB fusion drive?

If the 3TB Fusion Drive is much cheaper it seems like a great deal (as long as it's not too much more than 1TB Fusion.)
lucasfunkt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2012, 08:50 AM   #38
radman2020
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
newbie question

I am in a similar position... photographer with terabytes of files...going from PC to imac.

Why not use one of the usb ports instead of the thunderbolt with its expensive adapter? I will use thunderbolt with adapter for my firewire but planned to hook all my ext hard drives through usb....

advice?
radman2020 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2012, 08:55 AM   #39
kaelell
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
curious,

In the example of maintaining your Userfiles on an external drive, how would you go about backups?
kaelell is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2012, 10:21 AM   #40
hfg
macrumors 68020
 
hfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radman2020 View Post
I am in a similar position... photographer with terabytes of files...going from PC to imac.

Why not use one of the usb ports instead of the thunderbolt with its expensive adapter? I will use thunderbolt with adapter for my firewire but planned to hook all my ext hard drives through usb....

advice?
There is no advantage of Thunderbolt over USB-3 when using hard disks as both interfaces are limited by the speed of the disks. If you are using external SSDs then you probably will want to use Thunderbolt.

Here are some results of tests I did recently:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...70&postcount=9


-howard
hfg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2012, 11:10 AM   #41
Mac2133
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfg View Post
There is no advantage of Thunderbolt over USB-3 when using hard disks as both interfaces are limited by the speed of the disks. If you are using external SSDs then you probably will want to use Thunderbolt.

Here are some results of tests I did recently:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...70&postcount=9


-howard
Thanks, Howard - this is exactly the kind of advice I was hoping to get. Another question - do you have any reason to believe the Seagate Backup Plus 3TB external HDDs will NOT work smooth with my (future) iMac 2012?
Mac2133 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2012, 11:59 AM   #42
xgman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeak825 View Post
That is exactly what they are doing. People who need that much Flash storage are willing to pay for it.

Others will get 95% of the benefit via Fusion.

Plus, it limits the number of SKU's they have to build.
The difference between a decent size 100% SSD and a 128gb ssd coupled with fusion is way greater than 5%.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by hfg View Post
There is no advantage of Thunderbolt over USB-3 when using hard disks as both interfaces are limited by the speed of the disks. If you are using external SSDs then you probably will want to use Thunderbolt.

Here are some results of tests I did recently:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...70&postcount=9


-howard
Your 7200 drives on internal are a bit slow at 80's. I've seen most in the low 100's. Internal 7200 drives will be a little faster than the same drive on a usb 3 port I think. Also 7200 drives on TB would probably do a bit better than usb 3 also (real world). As far as ssd's, yes TB only would make sense.

Anyway, some good info here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/external-har...5169645-2.html
and some screamers here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/external-har...5429992-2.html
and a roundup:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...rld-after-all/
__________________
{2012 27imac-3.4i7-680mx-32gb ram-768SSD+External TB Samsung840pro ssd + TB velociraptors-UAD Apollo/Marantz/Amphion/Bowers&Wilkins Sound-Impulse 61}
{ipads}{iphones}
xgman is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your 2012 iMac non fusion hard drive, Seagate(faster) vs WD...which do you have? flavr iMac 21 Sep 30, 2013 03:57 PM
Replacing internal 3TB HHD from Fusion Drive with a SSD and using 3TB HHD as external lazlo kovac iMac 3 Jun 17, 2013 08:25 AM
3TB External Hard Drive WilliamDu iMac 12 Feb 5, 2013 06:03 PM
okay took a while but I am running my 2012 with a 256gb ssd via usb3 seagate cable philipma1957 Mac mini 12 Oct 30, 2012 11:54 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC