27" base with SSD vs high end with Fusion

[imac275]

I was recently choosing a new iMac and decided on the 27" base model with an upgrade to a 512GB SSD.

I started ticking all of the options and the price started going up and up, and it was really a more powerful machine than I needed, so I unticked everything apart from the SSD.

Now I notice that John Lewis in the UK are offering £200 off the top spec 27" iMac bringing it down to the same price I paid for base + SSD. BTO is not available, so this comes with the 2TB Fusion Drive. On the upside, it comes with a two year warranty from John Lewis themselves, who have a good reputation.

Which would be the best overall spec?

 

[cynics]

Which would be the best overall spec?

Depends on how you'll be using the Mac. If its just core programs (email, safari, messages, etc) and a couple other little things the SSD will bring you the most real world benefits.

If you are doing much more specific things like video transcoding, various types of rendering, etc a faster CPU or GPU could be beneficial as well.

For me an SSD is the starting point of upgrades though.

 

[imac275]

Depends on how you'll be using the Mac. If its just core programs (email, safari, messages, etc) and a couple other little things the SSD will bring you the most real world benefits.

If you are doing much more specific things like video transcoding, various types of rendering, etc a faster CPU or GPU could be beneficial as well.

For me an SSD is the starting point of upgrades though.

Thanks for the reply. The most intensive use that I have for the iMac will be RAW photos and 4K video from my camera. Even then it is mainly watching them rather than editing them, although I might do the latter occasionally.

I have actually has a Fusion Drive in my previous iMac and I was quite happy with it, but I notice they come in for a bit of a hard time here. I wouldn't spec a 1TB Fusion based on it's small SSD portion, but 2TB might be ok?

My main reason for specifying a pure SSD in the first iMac was more about longevity than anything else.

 

[cynics]

Thanks for the reply. The most intensive use that I have for the iMac will be RAW photos and 4K video from my camera. Even then it is mainly watching them rather than editing them, although I might do the latter occasionally.

I have actually has a Fusion Drive in my previous iMac and I was quite happy with it, but I notice they come in for a bit of a hard time here. I wouldn't spec a 1TB Fusion based on it's small SSD portion, but 2TB might be ok?

My main reason for specifying a pure SSD in the first iMac was more about longevity than anything else.

1tb Fusion has a 24gb SSD portion, the 2tb/3tb have 128gb SSD portions. If you are going with a Fusion Drive DEFINITELY go with the 2 or 3gb models.

Longevity is a tough one. HDD mechanical failures are unpredictable at best. And while SSD have a finite amount of write cycles with proper garbage collection and TRIM they tend to outlast the useful life of a computer *. With a Fusion Drive you'll have both an SSD and HDD so regardless of which last longer you could be affect by either.

Personally I would save up a bit more and go for pure SSD with a little CPU and GPU.

* Assuming you don't abuse it (SSD), you can kill one in short order if you use it for constant write operations like video surveillance for example.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Definitely go with the SSD.

 

[velocityg4]

I'd go for the pure SSD. Your computer will feel fast for a longer period of time. An new iMac with a HDD is a dog in OS X now. How long until the Fusion drive feels the same.

The SSD can't be upgraded later unless you find an OEM unit on eBay.

Although daunting, you can upgrade the CPU. In all likelihood you won't need to. Even then by the time the i5 feels too slow. The i7 is only moderately faster. It wouldn't make a big difference in longevity.

If you need more storage you can always add an external HDD or SSD. You can also add RAM.

As far as reliability goes. The last I looked up statistics. Hard Drives had a half life of five or six years. They start out at 5% per year and reach 50% by then. While SSD have a failure rate below 1%. Samsung are more reliable than average which Apple normally uses. I don't know if that is still the case with current models.

 

[Foxglove9]

Hard Drives had a half life of five or six years. They start out at 5% per year and reach 50% by then. While SSD have a failure rate below 1%. Samsung are more reliable than average which Apple normally uses.

I have a Samsung Pro 850 and at 4 years old it now has 50% life left.

 

[jlseattle]

Just get SSD. Wonderful performance. iMac is quick and responsive.

 

[deeddawg]

I have a Samsung Pro 850 and at 4 years old it now has 50% life left.

Thats good. In 25+ years of computer ownership, I don't much trust HDDs past five years of regular use so that SSD life is on par.

 

[robeddie]

I have a Samsung Pro 850 and at 4 years old it now has 50% life left.

What tool do you use to guage the remaining lifespan of the SSD?

 

[Foxglove9]

What tool do you use to guage the remaining lifespan of the SSD?

I used DriveDX https://binaryfruit.com/drivedx

 

[robeddie]

I used DriveDX https://binaryfruit.com/drivedx

Ah, I've got that. Missed the line up top that estimates life left.

 

[Fishrrman]

"27" base with SSD vs high end with Fusion?"

Meet in the middle.

Get the midrange iMac with an SSD inside!

 

[J.Gallardo]

Is there on the web any good comparative between 2017 iMacs? I couldn't find any.
The base core i5 uses less power, against the upper i5. Both do not get too hot, and result in a quieter fan.
The i7 gives more power; quite noticeable in some apps. But it gets quite hot, and some users seem annoyed by fan noise.
I'm getting an iMac, and hesitant about getting the i7, as my old iMac broke due to high sustained temps (I suppose).

SSD seems the way... but I like the convenience of having all my very used files in an only logic disk, so going for a Fusion. External SSDs are going to transfer very fast through Thunderbolt 3, and I can wait a while. Apple SSDs are so expensive! (albeit they are wonderful and fastest storage around).

 

[themisfit]

Same situation:
#1
I’m in the process of purchasing a new iMac.

I use the machine for graphic design in photoshop and illustrator (not intensive) and for designing web sites.

I’m currently looking at the 27” iMac and trying to decide between 2 setup.

Setup #1
iMac 3.4ghz
With an 512ssd
4gb gpu

Or

Setup #2
Refurbished iMac 3.8ghz
2TB fusion
8gb gpu

Both setups are the same price. The ssd would be paired with a thunderbolt 3 external so storage is not an issue. Just wondering if the extra speed and better gpu will make much of a difference for what I do?

Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[kindaichi81]

I was recently choosing a new iMac and decided on the 27" base model with an upgrade to a 512GB SSD.

I started ticking all of the options and the price started going up and up, and it was really a more powerful machine than I needed, so I unticked everything apart from the SSD.

Now I notice that John Lewis in the UK are offering £200 off the top spec 27" iMac bringing it down to the same price I paid for base + SSD. BTO is not available, so this comes with the 2TB Fusion Drive. On the upside, it comes with a two year warranty from John Lewis themselves, who have a good reputation.

Which would be the best overall spec?

already go that far, no point to cheap out on the storage which limits the maximum performance you can get out of the machine,

 

[SaSaSushi]

I have a Samsung Pro 850 and at 4 years old it now has 50% life left.

Wow, you must have used the heck out of that drive.

I have a 512GB Samsung 840 EVO that is four years old which is currently in use for BootCamp. I was booting macOS off of it for three and a half years and it is still at 92% lifetime left.

PSA: Always enable TRIM.

 

[czacha]

I'd go with SSD.. you can feel it's faster than FusionDrive but you won't feel i7 vs i5 while normal every day use

 

[CaptRB]

Wow...lots of comments, but how many folks have used both in the same room?

The i7 DOES make a difference. Open 15 RAW camera files and start editing and then try the same on the i5. You will absolutely notice a difference in Lightroom and full photoshop. I have no idea why anyone would want the i5 at this point. It's so little money to bump the machine to an i7.

As for drives, I went for the i7 580 8GB-vid 2TB fusion. It has enough SSD memory at 128gb to get the job done and it CAN be updated down the road, so why worry?

For a few hundred bucks more go for the i7 and the 2TB drive. Then bump the machine to 32 GB and you'll be happy for a LONG time.

R.

 

[Foxglove9]

Wow, you must have used the heck out of that drive.

My computer is on almost 24/7, so yes Also it was used as the main drive for the OS and scratch disk for Final Cut X stuff.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Wow...lots of comments, but how many folks have used both in the same room?

The i7 DOES make a difference. Open 15 RAW camera files and start editing and then try the same on the i5. You will absolutely notice a difference in Lightroom and full photoshop. I have no idea why anyone would want the i5 at this point. It's so little money to bump the machine to an i7.

As for drives, I went for the i7 580 8GB-vid 2TB fusion. It has enough SSD memory at 128gb to get the job done and it CAN be updated down the road, so why worry?

For a few hundred bucks more go for the i7 and the 2TB drive. Then bump the machine to 32 GB and you'll be happy for a LONG time.

R.

The read speed on the 2TB drive is really slow (730 with fresh OS install). Fill that drive ton50% or more, and the read speed dips down into the lower 400’s.

It makes no sense to tell someone to get the i7, and then bottlenecking performance with a Fusion Drive. It makes more sense to get true SSD drive, even if that means going i5.

 

[CaptRB]

The read speed on the 2TB drive is really slow (730 with fresh OS install). Fill that drive ton50% or more, and the read speed dips down into the lower 400’s.

It makes no sense to tell someone to get the i7, and then bottlenecking performance with a Fusion Drive. It makes more sense to get true SSD drive, even if that means going i5.

There are specs and then there are real world results. The 2 TB fusion drive is NOT a slow drive. It has a 128GB flash drive as well. Half a terabyte if SSD may be fast, but it's too small. In two years a larger and superior SSD will be able to slapped into these machines for little money.

You have to look at what the machine is doing. For example, photo editing is VERY processor intensive. I used the i7 with the 2TB and it was BLAZING fast. I saw NO difference with the SSD drive, but this would probably not be the case if I was cutting 4K footage. If I was a video editor, I'd likely order the SSD and be annoyed by the size and run out to buy extra drives. Both machines had 40 GB of ram, so must have been the i5 slowing things down. The i7 did everything a bit quicker. In a drive intensive app it would flip the other way. BTW, my son has the 5K i5 27" with just the 8GB ram and 1TB drive. It's pretty darn fast too!

I think the smarter move is going with the properly large 2 or 3 terabyte and waiting for SSD tech to drip down. The only annoying part is that a lot of people will have to pay for the install as the new slim machines are harder to pull apart.

R

 

[SaSaSushi]

In two years a larger and superior SSD will be able to slapped into these machines for little money.

I highly doubt that. The price of flash storage will likely drop but it won't mean you can easily go out and buy an Apple proprietary SSD and slap it in.

The SSD is definitely higher on the checklist of critical upgrades than the processor for most users.

I disagree with 512GB being too small as well. Even parking Windows 10 and Linux virtual machines on my 512GB SSD, I am still using less than 300GB. For the past few years I was using 256GB of a 512GB Thunderbolt-attached SSD to boot macOS and never used more than half. All data/music/photos/backup are on external drives.

 

[Apple_Robert]

There are specs and then there are real world results. The 2 TB fusion drive is NOT a slow drive. It has a 128GB flash drive as well. Half a terabyte if SSD may be fast, but it's too small. In two years a larger and superior SSD will be able to slapped into these machines for little money.

You have to look at what the machine is doing. For example, photo editing is VERY processor intensive. I used the i7 with the 2TB and it was BLAZING fast. I saw NO difference with the SSD drive, but this would probably not be the case if I was cutting 4K footage. If I was a video editor, I'd likely order the SSD and be annoyed by the size and run out to buy extra drives. Both machines had 40 GB of ram, so must have been the i5 slowing things down. The i7 did everything a bit quicker. In a drive intensive app it would flip the other way. BTW, my son has the 5K i5 27" with just the 8GB ram and 1TB drive. It's pretty darn fast too!

I think the smarter move is going with the properly large 2 or 3 terabyte and waiting for SSD tech to drip down. The only annoying part is that a lot of people will have to pay for the install as the new slim machines are harder to pull apart.

R

I had the 2TB Fusion Drive. The read speed I stated was not some random number I picked out of the air. It was from the AJA test and Black Magic. After using read and write speeds of 1900+, I think a read speed of 732 - 740 is very slow. If one is coming from a HDD and uses the 2TB Fusion Drive, a read speed of 732 (give or take) might seem "blazing fast." And as I stated previously, that read speed goes down tremendously once the drive is half full or more.

What good is the i7 going to be when working with large files, if the Fusion Drive is can't hardly keep up with reading the file?

I think the better move is to remove the "bottleneck." And if there is still money in the budget, consider the i7.

In regards to your son's model, the 1TB drive is even slower, not to mention the SSD side only has 24GB. Once you load the OS, the rest of the apps and files have to be pulled from the spin drive. I know we are still going to disagree but, I don't agree with your reasoning or your definitions of "blazing fast or fast," in real world usage. Working with video almost every day, along with regular usage, I can attest to the Fusion Drive not being fast, especially if one is working with large video and photos on a regular basis.

If you are happy with your model, that is what matters to you.

 

[joema2]

....The read speed I stated was....from the AJA test and Black Magic. After using read and write speeds of 1900+, I think a read speed of 732 - 740 is very slow. If one is coming from a HDD and uses the 2TB Fusion Drive, a read speed of 732 (give or take) might seem "blazing fast."...What good is the i7 going to be when working with large files, if the Fusion Drive is can't hardly keep up with reading the file?...
I think the better move is to remove the "bottleneck." And if there is still money in the budget, consider the i7....Working with video almost every day, along with regular usage, I can attest to the Fusion Drive not being fast, especially if one is working with large video and photos on a regular basis....

As CaptRB said, he's talking about real-world photo and video editing performance -- not benchmarks. The goal isn't winning the "benchmark olympics" and getting higher numbers. Rather it's rationally assessing how much difference (if any) the system drive makes on the real-world video editing workflow at hand.

I have four iMac 27s, two with 3TD Fusion Drive and two with SSD. I spend many hours each day editing 4k video professionally using FCPX. I have 100 terabytes of Thunderbolt 2 RAID arrays covering my desk and 200 terabytes in the closet. I've tested Fusion Drive vs SSD extensively for video editing and in general I don't see much difference for H264.

If using long GOP formats the editing task is largely CPU-bound, not I/O bound. If using low compression intraframe formats like ProRes or DNxHD, and especially for multicam sequences, it can become I/O bound but that content won't fit on a boot drive so boot drive speed is a moot point.

That is really the argument for a SSD boot drive -- if external storage is inevitable, you may as well get the SSD drive. Not because it makes video editing faster, but because it helps a little and eventually you must use external storage anyway.

However I've seen many users in the intermediate zone where their content would (for a while) fit on a 3TB Fusion Drive, but they are persuaded to get a 512GB SSD iMac, then all they can afford is a little slow 5400 USB bus-powered external drive, which only has about 90MB/sec performance.