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 Dec 17, 2012, 04:17 PM   #176
bill phillips
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozentoast View Post
27-inch iMac
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM-4X8GB
768GB Flash Storage
NVIDIAGeFrc GTX 680MX 2G GDDR5

Maxed out club. January seems forever away.
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..

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozentoast View Post
27-inch iMac
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM-4X8GB
768GB Flash Storage
NVIDIAGeFrc GTX 680MX 2G GDDR5

Maxed out club. January seems forever away.
bill phillips is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 02:07 PM   #177
Richard Peters
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, UK
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!
__________________
My photography portfolios | blog | 500px
Richard Peters is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 02:24 PM   #178
NJRonbo
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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.
NJRonbo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 02:47 PM   #179
hfg
macrumors 68020
 
hfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA.
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
hfg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2012, 02:53 PM   #180
snugja
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfg View Post
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.
snugja is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 10:13 AM   #181
JakeE
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
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
__________________
Jake Ehrlich. CEO and Designer of www.BulletTrain.com

Last edited by JakeE; Dec 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM.
JakeE is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 10:30 AM   #182
snugja
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeE View Post
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...

Merry Christmas!!!

Jake
"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
snugja is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 10:46 AM   #183
cloudyo
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
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.
cloudyo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 10:49 AM   #184
gpat
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Italy
For a cheaper solution, you don't even have to use a Thunderbolt connection.
A 2.5" SSD in a USB 3.0 enclosure is plenty fast, and doesn't have any drawback apart from having a box permanently attached to your otherwise all-in-one computer.
__________________
13" MBA 2013, Nexus 7 2013, LG G2 (oh noes i automatically become an apple hater)
(Sorry for bad english, not my mother tongue!)
gpat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 11:45 AM   #185
lozpop
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by gagaliya View Post
$1300 price point is a complete fail.
It's a complete fail because we can't choose 256GB and 512GB options.
__________________
iMac 27" 2012 MacBook Air 13" 2012 iPhone 5 iPad
lozpop is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 11:57 AM   #186
Mac32
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudyo View Post
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.
Mac32 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 01:08 PM   #187
bplein
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin, TX USA
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.
__________________
Family Macs: late 2012 iMac 27, MBP 13 and 15 Unibody, MB Air, Mac Pro 4,1, and a couple of Mac minis.
bplein is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 01:34 PM   #188
vannibombonato
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
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.
vannibombonato is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 05:41 PM   #189
NJRonbo
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Glad I went with the complete SSD option and that the benchmarks show that was the right choice to make if you want absolutely no drop in data transfer speed.
NJRonbo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 05:57 PM   #190
hfg
macrumors 68020
 
hfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJRonbo View Post
Glad I went with the complete SSD option and that the benchmarks show that was the right choice to make if you want absolutely no drop in data transfer speed.
Yep ... That spacious SSD is fast, silent, and the whole system runs cool.

Really enjoying my purchase too!



-howard
hfg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 05:58 PM   #191
NJRonbo
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Howard,

This is an amazing machine.
NJRonbo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 06:22 PM   #192
snugja
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfg View Post
Yep ... That spacious SSD is fast, silent, and the whole system runs cool.

Really enjoying my purchase too!



-howard
Same here.
snugja is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 06:53 PM   #193
torana355
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJRonbo View Post
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.
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.
__________________
2012 27" iMac with 680mx | 2011 13" MBA 128gb | iPhone 4 32gb | Nexus 7 16gb | Nexus 4 on Carbon and Trinity.
torana355 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 07:44 PM   #194
Yougotcarved
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by torana355 View Post
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.
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?
Yougotcarved is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 07:52 PM   #195
torana355
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yougotcarved View Post
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.
__________________
2012 27" iMac with 680mx | 2011 13" MBA 128gb | iPhone 4 32gb | Nexus 7 16gb | Nexus 4 on Carbon and Trinity.
torana355 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 07:57 PM   #196
Yougotcarved
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by torana355 View Post
$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!
Yougotcarved is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 07:57 PM   #197
hfg
macrumors 68020
 
hfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yougotcarved View Post
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?
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!
hfg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 08:01 PM   #198
torana355
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfg View Post
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 Unless you are using the machine professionally with large image collections ect the Fusion drive for all intents and purposes acts like an all SSD machine.
__________________
2012 27" iMac with 680mx | 2011 13" MBA 128gb | iPhone 4 32gb | Nexus 7 16gb | Nexus 4 on Carbon and Trinity.
torana355 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 08:12 PM   #199
hfg
macrumors 68020
 
hfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by torana355 View Post
I have the fusion 2012 iMac and a all SSD iMac and the fusion is just as fast in day to day operations Unless you are using the machine professionally with large image collections ect the Fusion drive for all intents and purposes acts like an all SSD machine.
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.
hfg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2012, 08:57 PM   #200
torana355
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfg View Post
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.
__________________
2012 27" iMac with 680mx | 2011 13" MBA 128gb | iPhone 4 32gb | Nexus 7 16gb | Nexus 4 on Carbon and Trinity.
torana355 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
Are all 768GB Flash Drive made by Samsung? cramazing MacBook Pro 5 Mar 13, 2013 01:49 PM
768GB Flash down to $900 wmy5 iMac 61 Mar 5, 2013 08:22 PM
768GB Flash Option haddy iMac 17 Feb 6, 2013 02:53 PM
Has anyone got the maxed out 2.7ghz i7 16GB RAM 768GB Flash model? iFanboy MacBook Pro 0 Jun 30, 2012 07:50 AM
Is 768gb flash going to be faster than 512 one? conandoyle MacBook Pro 14 Jun 27, 2012 11:16 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 AM.

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

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