1TB Fusion / 24GB SSD

Discussion in 'iMac' started by marty1990, Oct 27, 2015.

  1. marty1990 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Location:
    England
    #1
    Ordered the Retina iMac 27" mid one, with the 1TB Fusion Drive.

    Main uses are for PS, AI and InDesign.

    Have I made a mistake, in terms of, will the small amount of SSD be enough for me or will it make no difference with what I'll be using my Mac for?

    It was right in my budget and I was under the assumption it had 128GB of SSD, until I was told in another thread.

    Thanks
     
  2. JustMartin macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Personally, if I was to go Fusion on this model, I would go for the 2Tb/128Gb option. 24Gb just seems a little constrained to me. But, it all depends on your work pattern. If you tend to work for long periods on the same file or set of files and those files add up to less than (just a guess, 10Gb) - then you're probably going to be ok.
     
  3. twilexia macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2015
    #3
    I think unless you are using the mac solely for websurfing and email you should go for the 2TB fusion at minimum. With 24GB SSD most if not all of that will be taken up by your OS, and the rest will be taken up by the applications you have installed, leaving you 0 SSD for your media files. As you're doing some PS work it just doesn't seem enough for your purposes.
     
  4. fathergll macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2014
    #4
    I would get the 2TB version or 256 GB SSD at minimum.
     
  5. Sirmausalot macrumors 6502a

    Sirmausalot

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    #5
    Yes. It was a mistake. Fortunately, you can cancel and re-order with the 2 or 3TB fusion. Each of those have 128GB of Flash coupled with the hard drive. Although I went with the 512GB myself, people who have the fusions speak highly of them.
     
  6. marty1990 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Location:
    England
    #6
    So I've already had the Mac delivered. I can't justify paying the extra for the extra SSD space just yet, but I'm wondering.

    Couldn't I, in the future, attach an external SSD and have heavy stuff run off that? So in the end it works out similarly?
     
  7. Cody1992 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    #7
    Yes, people on the forums here and elsewhere have seen read and write speeds anywhere between 200-500 on external SSDs, even the USB 3 ones.
    Apple is super easy when it comes to returns, and if its an exchange, I doubt they even care. You might have some downtime with no computer, but when it comes to justifying the price difference. Yes it's a higher up front cost but do you think you'll be bummed you spent an extra 100$ and change on the better storage 3 years from now? I highly doubt it. You are much more likely to regret NOT paying for the extra storage.
     
  8. ericv macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    #8
    I can agree that Apple doesn't care about returns, especially within the 14 day window. I returned 2 computers in a ~28 day window.

    1 - Returned a max out 15" rMBP after using it for a few days and realizing it was going to be too heavy to travel with.
    2 - Replaced the rMBP with 12" rMB and an in-store high end iMac, on day 14 Apple released the new iMacs. I took it to the store and they asked 0 questions. They didn't even look in the box. I forgot to bring the power cable and left my after market memory in the computer. Called and went back 2 days later to get my memory, they didn't want the cable. Ordered online and got the late '15 27" 5K iMac, i7 4GHz, 8GB, 512GB SSD, 395X...

    I don't normally return stuff like this, just wasn't happy.
     
  9. blueeggs macrumors member

    blueeggs

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #9
    I got the 1999 model a few days ago, didn't realize that it only had 24 gig ssd. I can get the next up model for 2099 plus tax with my military discount. Seems to take along time to wake up from sleep compared to my nmp. Other than that I love it.
     
  10. ericv macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    #10
    It's experiences like this that make me question the 5400, 7200, & 1TB Fusion. I would expect that Apple wouldn't want to put their name on this kind of performance.
     
  11. blueeggs macrumors member

    blueeggs

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #11
    I plan on splitting my fusion drive and using the 128 as my os drive. On my new mac pro I have the 256 gig ssd and only use about 50 gigs of space for my os and apps. The other stuff I put on external drives.
     
  12. marty1990 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Location:
    England
    #12
    I didn't buy from Apple, bought it from a local department store as they offered 2 years warranty/guarantee, and it's only the standard builds they sell, so I'd need to pay another £250/$380 for the next iMac up, which I don't really want to do.

    So, if I noticed any slowdown in the next couple of years, I can hook up an external SSD and that'll show improvements?
     
  13. JustMartin macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Why?
    Do you know which bits of your OS belong on the SSD and make a difference to your workflow?
    Do you have time to manage moving files backwards and forwards off the SSD to the hard disk?
    I hear about people getting a fusion drive and splitting it, I just haven't heard any good reasons for doing so
     
  14. Golfer00ksu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    #14
    I'm in the same boat trying to decide if 2TB fusion is worth extra $300 for me.

    Did you decide to keep?

    How are the wake from sleep and application start up times?

    Can you run the black magic speed test?
     
  15. TechZeke macrumors 68020

    TechZeke

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Location:
    Rialto, CA
    #15
    I'd honestly just spend the extra $300 for the top tier model. 128GB of flash with 2TB of storage as a fusion drive, and a faster GPU and CPU.
     
  16. TechZeke macrumors 68020

    TechZeke

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Location:
    Rialto, CA
    #16
    This. I wouldn't getting anything less than these two options on a new computer in 2015. I love my 2011 iMac, but after having a cMBP and rMBP with pure SSD, I suffer everyday with the horribly slow 1TB HDD in my iMac.
     
  17. Thrilledge macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    #17
    The 1TB in the new imac is super slow for some reason. I had to return it. The 2013 version I had was much faster
     
  18. PaulFitz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    #18
    Is this complete conjecture? What are you basing this on? Do you have any evidence of how much space the operating system uses on the drive?
     
  19. brofkand macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    #19
    I have the 1TB Fusion model and the 24GB SSD has been no issue for me. It seems that all the apps I use most frequently (Mail, Safari, iTunes, and Affinity Photo) are on the SSD and boot time is quick. I expect Apple only offloads some boot files to the SSD, certainly not the entire OS.

    I haven't had any issues with the machine. I'm glad I didn't upgrade, in fact, because I see no difference in my use and I saved a decent amount of money.

    Boot times: Rebooting from live desktop to login screen: 17 seconds. From login screen to desktop (with FileVault 2 enabled): 7 seconds.
     
  20. PaulFitz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    #20
    Thanks for the info brofkand!
     
  21. henry72 macrumors 65816

    henry72

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #21
    Thanks for the input guys, it doesn't sound too bad at all. Let's hope this will be the standard next year, HDD is just ridiculous :rolleyes:
     
  22. torana355 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #22
    Apple's move to downgrade to a 24GB SSD in the 1TB Fusion drive is one of the reasons im starting to dislike Apple. They charge top bloody dollar then give us specs like this....128GB should be the minimum they offer, with options to go even bigger. I can understand having a spinner in the iMac as most people need the storage space but the Fusion drive needs to have a decent size SSD.
     
  23. blueeggs macrumors member

    blueeggs

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #23
    I agree, kinda like putting 16 gig in the base iPhone to get you to buy 64. Thats what made me buy the 2299 model over the 1999 one. Im sure they do studies on how to get you to go up to the next model to increase there profit margins.
     
  24. torana355 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #24
    Yep, i was a little pissed off when i got my 2012 iMac with the 3Tb fusion drive due to only having a 128gb SSD, imagine my shock when i saw they have reduced it even further lol. My next iMac will have the largest SSD they offer in it, ive got no time for SSD's in my desktop machines now that all my media ect is on my Synology NAS.
     
  25. loekf macrumors 6502

    loekf

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2015
    Location:
    Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    #25
    I have a 2014 Retina with 1TB/128GB and those speeds are not far off mine. Maybe boot time is slightly faster.
     

Share This Page