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.
2012 iMac 27 with 256GB SSD + 2 Seagate 3TB External Hard-drive
- Thread starter Mac2133
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.)
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?
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:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16377370/
-howard
The difference between a decent size 100% SSD and a 128gb ssd coupled with fusion is way greater than 5%.
----------
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-hard-drives/wd-my-book-thunderbolt/4505-3190_7-35169645-2.html
and some screamers here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/external-hard-drives/wd-my-book-velociraptor/4505-3190_7-35429992-2.html
and a roundup:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57403566-1/thunderbolt-storage-roundup-its-a-pc-world-after-all/