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 May 4, 2011, 01:24 PM   #1
robertpetry
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
SSD or faster CPU/GPU? Can't afford both.

I posted this in another thread but it is really a different topic.

I don't have the $3k my ideal system would require so I am trying to decide between the base 27' with the 2.7 i5 and 6770m + SSD/1TB HD for $2299 or the 3.4 i7 6970m + 1TB for $2199.

So both are about the same price and this maxes out my price range. I am wondering when it makes more sense to spend the money on an SSD vs. a faster processor and GPU?

My usage will be:

1- Office apps
2- Web
3- Steam games CSS, maybe Portal 1/2 and the like
4- Handbrake/MTR a couple of times per week
5- iMovie/iPhoto

I don't reboot often so that is not a big deal but I want to future proof as much as possible. I am a fairly typical user I think who spends most of the day opening, editing and saving work documents, browsing the web, email (also on web - Google apps).

I have been leaning toward the SSD after seeing how impressive even the MBA is with SSD and a slower processor. However, if I decide on a new game or something down the road I want to be covered. Resale value matters too.

I think a lot of people will be in this situation. There is a budget and so I must decide between faster components or an SSD based on which will have a bigger impact on my day-to-day usage.

Thanks!
robertpetry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 01:27 PM   #2
ballgeoff
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
If I were you I would go for the processor now and attack the SSD issue later. With the thunderbolt port you could easily connect an external SSD in the future, with the processor your basically stuck with it until you buy a new computer.

Just my 2 cents.
ballgeoff is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 01:33 PM   #3
scoobydiesel
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: California
This is my problem as well, I keep seeing people saying thunderbolt will help down the line with an external SSD, which does sound good but makes me wonder when it will happen.

But either way SSD is a bit pricey still so :-/
__________________
2011 iMac i7 27'
17' MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB Ram, Still chugging
iPhone 4
scoobydiesel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 01:38 PM   #4
turbobass
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
I'm getting both and am going to quit smoking cigarettes both to punish myself and also out of necessity.
turbobass is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 01:39 PM   #5
Lord Appleseed
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Apple Manor
Depending on your needs its either

GPU > CPU > HDD
or
CPU > GPU > HDD

SSDs are far to expensive just yet, so I too would rather buy a CPU and/or GPU upgrade rather than a SSD for a horrendous price.
__________________
sent from my MacBook using Keyboard
Retina MacBook Pro 2.3/16/256
iPhone 5
Lord Appleseed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 05:26 PM   #6
robertpetry
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Appleseed View Post
Depending on your needs its either

GPU > CPU > HDD
or
CPU > GPU > HDD

SSDs are far to expensive just yet, so I too would rather buy a CPU and/or GPU upgrade rather than a SSD for a horrendous price.
As a MBA 13 owner, I am guessing you would know the relative benefits of an SSD v. better processor. Unless you have an older model. Do you have the SSD version?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobydiesel View Post
This is my problem as well, I keep seeing people saying thunderbolt will help down the line with an external SSD, which does sound good but makes me wonder when it will happen.

But either way SSD is a bit pricey still so :-/
I am not sure about an external boot drive added down the road. I doubt that will be much cheaper than an internal now. It would be easier to just add it now I think. Just not sure it is the best use of my $$.
robertpetry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 05:56 PM   #7
phpmaven
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpetry View Post
I posted this in another thread but it is really a different topic.

I don't have the $3k my ideal system would require so I am trying to decide between the base 27' with the 2.7 i5 and 6770m + SSD/1TB HD for $2299 or the 3.4 i7 6970m + 1TB for $2199.

So both are about the same price and this maxes out my price range. I am wondering when it makes more sense to spend the money on an SSD vs. a faster processor and GPU?

My usage will be:

1- Office apps
2- Web
3- Steam games CSS, maybe Portal 1/2 and the like
4- Handbrake/MTR a couple of times per week
5- iMovie/iPhoto

I don't reboot often so that is not a big deal but I want to future proof as much as possible. I am a fairly typical user I think who spends most of the day opening, editing and saving work documents, browsing the web, email (also on web - Google apps).

I have been leaning toward the SSD after seeing how impressive even the MBA is with SSD and a slower processor. However, if I decide on a new game or something down the road I want to be covered. Resale value matters too.

I think a lot of people will be in this situation. There is a budget and so I must decide between faster components or an SSD based on which will have a bigger impact on my day-to-day usage.

Thanks!
IMHO, you'll get the most bang for your buck getting a SSD. It's not just boot up times, but the whole system will be much snappier. You could put one in yourself if you are really adventurous.

As far as using an SSD via TB, no one knows at this point if you will be able to boot off of a TB device, unless I missed something.
phpmaven is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 06:26 PM   #8
pcguru83
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
There is an easy way to approach this decision. Always purchase now what you can't reasonably, easily replace/upgrade in the future.

Installing an SSD is not incredibly difficult and for all intents and purposes is something that you can upgrade later. The CPU/GPU? Not so much. While technically possible, they almost certainly would be cost prohibitive (possibly with the exception of the GPU, but that remains to be seen).
__________________
2011 27" iMac, 3.1 Ghz Quad i5, 16GB RAM
Black iPhone 5 32GB
Black iPad Mini 16GB
pcguru83 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 06:32 PM   #9
RedReplicant
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcguru83 View Post
There is an easy way to approach this decision. Always purchase now what you can't reasonably, easily replace/upgrade in the future.

Installing an SSD is not incredibly difficult and for all intents and purposes is something that you can upgrade later. The CPU/GPU? Not so much. While technically possible, they almost certainly would be cost prohibitive (possibly with the exception of the GPU, but that remains to be seen).
Exactly.
Get the CPU/GPU now and upgrade to a SSD later.
RedReplicant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 06:49 AM   #10
robertpetry
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Looks like 5 to 1 in favor of the CPU/GPU. I really thought for my usage the SSD might have a more noticeable impact.
robertpetry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 06:52 AM   #11
eawmp1
macrumors 601
 
eawmp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpetry View Post
Looks like 5 to 1 in favor of the CPU/GPU. I really thought for my usage the SSD might have a more noticeable impact.
It's more of a practical issue. You should think of the SSD as something that CAN be added latter. You only have one chance to order the faster CPU/GPU. And TB may allow you to get as good performance from and external SSD as an internal one, so you may not have to crack the case at all.
eawmp1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 07:04 AM   #12
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpetry View Post
Looks like 5 to 1 in favor of the CPU/GPU. I really thought for my usage the SSD might have a more noticeable impact.
A SSD is the best and most beneficial upgrade you can do for your computer. The prices Apple is charging is quite competive even cheaper in most cases than a third party SSD. They used to charge 600.00 now they are charging 500.00. Price a 256SSD and see what prices you get. The Toshiba drive is very reliable and has very good GC due to their very aggressive controller. The difference between processors is the queston.

The base on the 27 i5 2500S is not much different than the i5 2400 on the higher end. Not worth the money. Only a 400 point difference in the geekbench scores.

The i7 2600 has a much bigger geekbench score, but a base 27 with the 2500S + SSD with the 6770M will be faster than 27 a i72600 with the better GPU. Most likely much faster.

Yes you can boot off a external, but in my experience it is not a good solution. I added a esata to my old 27 and booted off a SSD with a enclosure.

After every update it would look for the OS on the HD instead of the SSD, and yes I set the SSD as the startup boot disk. After a update OSX would add folders that messed up the system. No I could fix it but it is a pain. It is not the most elegant solution.

And take into the fact Apple does not support trim, and you will have to hack the OS to add it.

We still don't know if you can boot off the external thunderbolt yet.

Any one saying that a CPU upgrade and GPU upgrade is better than a SSD most likely never used one. You're right in assuming a SSD will have more of a impact, because it will.

Last edited by iamthedudeman; May 5, 2011 at 07:09 AM.
iamthedudeman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 07:41 AM   #13
jamisonbaines
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: CA
i'd choose the ssd.

ssd wins for your 1, 2, and 5.
cpu & gpu will help for gaming and shave some time off handbrake encodes.

from my point of view, after routinely using a machine with ssd, there's no way i would buy a new computer in 2011 without an ssd. cpu and gpu upgrades are like adding a few horsepower, ssd is like steering with your mind while using a free hand to wave goodbye to inertia and physics leaving your other free hand to do something productive at any instant.
jamisonbaines is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 07:48 AM   #14
pcguru83
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Those suggesting SSD are missing the point here. SSD will no doubt give the most noticeable improvement now, there is absolutely no disputing that. You'll "feel" an SSD the moment you first fire up the computer with one. But once you choose SSD over CPU/GPU in the beginning--that's it, your stuck with that CPU/GPU for the life of the machine.

But if you go CPU/GPU now, you can very easily add an SSD drive later. Not to mention, the lead times on the SSD BTO configs are 4-6 weeks I believe (and I'm not a patient person).
__________________
2011 27" iMac, 3.1 Ghz Quad i5, 16GB RAM
Black iPhone 5 32GB
Black iPad Mini 16GB
pcguru83 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 07:51 AM   #15
MythicFrost
macrumors 68040
 
MythicFrost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
From what I've read the SSDs Apple uses just aren't that great. They're not worth the money imo.

I'd definitely say get the better processor and graphics card. You can't upgrade them later. The SSD will make the system a bit snappier, but that's no good when you're getting too low FPS to max out settings on your nice big 27" (depending on game, of course).

I'd also pick up an additional 2x2GB RAM from OWC so you'll have 8GB. That'll only cost you $50.
MythicFrost is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 07:57 AM   #16
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcguru83 View Post
Those suggesting SSD are missing the point here. SSD will no doubt give the most noticeable improvement now, there is absolutely no disputing that. You'll "feel" an SSD the moment you first fire up the computer with one. But once you choose SSD over CPU/GPU in the beginning--that's it, your stuck with that CPU/GPU for the life of the machine.

But if you go CPU/GPU now, you can very easily add an SSD drive later. Not to mention, the lead times on the SSD BTO configs are 4-6 weeks I believe (and I'm not a patient person).
Good point, I get that. I ordered a 27 With SSD and it's killing me. I don't know if I want to wait that long for my machine. With Thunderbolt adding a SSD might be faster than the SSD Apple puts in. We don't know yet. Thunderbolt is faster theoretically than either Sata 2 o 3. But can we boot from thunderbolt?

Run the os without upgrades messing up your machine. I don't really want to use a computer without a SSD. Once you go SSD, you want nothing else. Period. Apple is not shipping them for six weeks with the SSD built in, but the SSD enclosures are not whipping until the Summer!
iamthedudeman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 08:09 AM   #17
rnb2
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: West Haven, CT, USA
You can add a FW800 SSD for the OS and Applications at any time, and it has very noticeable benefits. You don't need the crazy-high sustained transfer rates of an internal SATA3 SSD to get a tremendous benefit - the times when an OS/Apps SSD would actually be asked to transfer a very large file are pretty rare.

What you get, even via FW800, is zero latency and seek time and the ability to transfer ten files (or parts of ten files) at the same time with no read head thrashing all over. You can get this benefit for much less than the $600 that Apple wants to add an internal SSD - the calculation might be different if they offered a smaller, cheaper SSD in the iMac, and it remains to be seen if Apple will be implementing some of the features of the Z68 chipset. If they do implement the hard drive caching to SSD feature, that could also tip the scales.

So, I would go with the CPU/GPU combo you want now - you can add a good 64GB SSD in a FW800 enclosure for about $200-250. If you are curious about exactly how Apple will implement the internal SSD, you can wait until they are available before making your decision.
rnb2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 08:26 AM   #18
Rapscallion
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbobass View Post
I'm getting both and am going to quit smoking cigarettes both to punish myself and also out of necessity.
Oh man that was awesome! LOL
Rapscallion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 08:41 AM   #19
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnb2 View Post
You can add a FW800 SSD for the OS and Applications at any time, and it has very noticeable benefits. You don't need the crazy-high sustained transfer rates of an internal SATA3 SSD to get a tremendous benefit - the times when an OS/Apps SSD would actually be asked to transfer a very large file are pretty rare.

What you get, even via FW800, is zero latency and seek time and the ability to transfer ten files (or parts of ten files) at the same time with no read head thrashing all over. You can get this benefit for much less than the $600 that Apple wants to add an internal SSD - the calculation might be different if they offered a smaller, cheaper SSD in the iMac, and it remains to be seen if Apple will be implementing some of the features of the Z68 chipset. If they do implement the hard drive caching to SSD feature, that could also tip the scales.

So, I would go with the CPU/GPU combo you want now - you can add a good 64GB SSD in a FW800 enclosure for about $200-250. If you are curious about exactly how Apple will implement the internal SSD, you can wait until they are available before making your decision.
I recently had that exact same setup. Not the worst but not the best. Ran a OWC 240GB SSD running off of firewire 800 than off esata from a added esata port. After a update OSX would look for the OS on the HD and then on the external. Sleep times were also bad. There was always a delay for the imac goiing to sleep.

Added library folder after every update? I ran this setup up over a year. Worked ok, seek times were non existant. But the write times took a hit over FW 800. FW 800 is useless since thunder bolt is on the new macs.

I think I will wait it out. Ordered a custom 27 base with combo SSD and 1TB HD. I could have gotten the i7 with better GPU for the same price. But I need reliably. And Apple SSDS are no longer $600.00, they are $500.00, a $100.00 price drop. $500.00 is a very good price for a SSD that is 256GB. Apple might surprise us.
iamthedudeman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 10:00 AM   #20
Chupa Chupa
macrumors G3
 
Chupa Chupa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
CPU/GPU. You can't upgrade those later. In a few months there will be TB enclosures to put an SSD in.
__________________
Walled Garden ≠ Prison:
"People who use Apple products considered their options, and chose Apple. If they regret their decision, they can dump it at any time." -- Harry McCracken, Technologizer.com
Chupa Chupa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 11:06 AM   #21
Jazwire
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Don't forget that the SSD option will mean no IMac till mid-June.
__________________
|| 27" iMac i7-3.4, 32 GB, 3TB Fusion, Nvidia 680MX 2GB w/ 27" TB Display (Dual Mon) ||
Macbook Air 11" i7, 8GB, 256GB || 15" MacBook Pro Retina 2.7, 16GB, 512GB||
Jazwire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 11:07 AM   #22
iamthedudeman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Well I went with the faster CPU/GPU. Just cancelled my 1TB + SSD combo drive BTO. June 22 is too long.

Went with BTO i7 and better GPU for same price.

Reasons.

Don't know what type of Apple SSD, Sata 2 SSD like in the MacBookPro's? No thanks.

Thunder bolt external may be faster than internal Sata 3. Can upgrade the SSD whenever you like via powered enclosure.

A 27 i7 2600 booting off a 6Gbs SSD will be the ultimate imac. That did it for me. I called Apple they said you can boot off the thunderbolt SSD but they will not support the OS running off the external, which is no big deal.

Problem with imac unhook the SSD reload OS on HD and take it in. Problem solved.

Lion will support Trim. If not third party SSD use trim enabler. Problem solved.
iamthedudeman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 11:25 AM   #23
robertpetry
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Well, you guys are hitting on my main concerns with the external route. I don't want to screw around with configuration issues when updating or upgrading the OS or installing or using apps. Re-pointing things to my home directory or resetting configuration settings is a hassle.

I have no problem waiting till the middle of June. Still, if these are minor issues I woul love the i7 and 6970m.
robertpetry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2011, 07:43 AM   #24
dan.87
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
I am in a similar quandary, however I would be upgrading from last years 2.8ghz i7 model. I will be using it for predominantly video encoding at both 720p and 1080i/p resolution as well as music production using Logic and Ableton as well as graphics work on CS5. I also use Traktor DJ'ing software and iPhoto and iMovie.
I guess what I'm asking is:
1) Is the upgrade worth it from my current model? (Hopefully I will be able to sell my current model to offset a significant portion of the expense!)
2) If so, is it more worth it with the SSD or faster CPU/GPU?

From what I've read so far, the CPU/GPU way seems to be the most worthwhile expenditure however I'd be interested to hear some opinions on my particular situation?
dan.87 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2011, 07:50 AM   #25
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Please don't try to run a ssd drive of fw800. It's just silly. It's like putting a Ferrari engine into a 10 ton truck. A decent 7200 rpm is faster than fw800 can do.

Ssd connected via TB? Sure, that should work.
__________________
What is Other on my HDD?
Throttling, overheating and Geekbench

Last edited by theSeb; May 6, 2011 at 07:52 AM.
theSeb 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
Do bigger SSD's make laptops faster? What effects speed the most: SSD, RAM or CPU? Sandwich Jumper MacBook Air 9 Jan 24, 2014 11:43 AM
Does GPU make CPU faster for audio apps? Mactrunk Mac Pro 3 Mar 20, 2013 11:14 AM
For faster Aperture >Faster CPU or SDD? blanket86 MacBook Pro 1 Nov 25, 2012 11:20 AM
Is it true that some CPU from 2012 is 3 times faster than CPU from 2008? nec207 Community Discussion 6 Jul 24, 2012 09:24 AM
SSD vs. CPU/GPU Gimyslog Buying Tips and Advice 12 Jun 10, 2012 07:49 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 AM.

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

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