Why can't Apple can't give us an option for a 1TB SATA SSD in the HDD Bay? It'd be much cheaper than the PCIe SSDs and still be miles faster than a HDD. Come on Apple.
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.
2TB fusion or 512 GB SSD (Lightroom and programming)
- Thread starter sbn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is an option for fusion, balanced and priced accordingly. the PCIe SSD is much faster than SATA and makes full use of available technology, it's better to have a faster option, when PCIe is miles faster than SATA, it's like asking apple to give just USB 2.0 and Thunderbolt 1 because it's cheaper.
as for the OP, the 512 SSD is a much better choice, look up threads and notice alot of people replacing HDDs to SSDs in older iMacs to boost performance, it makes a very big difference, I was a HDD to SSD switcher and was amazed.
i was always told the poor man pays twice, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Get the SSD, don't worry about upgrading to faster storage later on, and make full use of the available usb 3.0 and thunderbolt ports. I won't say SSD is fail-proof, what I can say is it's less likely to fail because there are no moving parts. that's prevention
Poor analogy; Apple is offering HDD-only iMacs, which are an even cheaper, slower option than a SATA SSD. I'm not saying Apple should remove the option for the PCIe SSDs in favor of SATA, but give the option to use SATA SSDs. The 1TB Fusion with only 24GB of SSD is hardly "balanced" and I'm sure most rather pay an extra $100-$200 for a 512GB or 1TB SATA SSD than a 1TB Fusion with only 24GB, especially for those on the low-end.
Last edited:
I agree on the 24GB ssd being low, and its a bad tactic to push people toward the 2TB or SSD option.
That would mean them offering HDD, SATA SSD, and PCIe SSD, knowing apple the price difference between the PCIe and SATA SSD would be marginal and mean even more customization options, logistically alot of work for a minor saving. Most people opting for an SSD want maximum performance, speed, and reliability, something PCIe offers.
You can always buy the lowest HDD option, and upgrade to a SSD yourself, that way the Connections and ports are there
where as if you buy a pure flash option, the only slot is for PCIe, as far as i know.
You can always buy the lowest HDD option, and upgrade to a SSD yourself, that way the Connections and ports are there
Replacing the SSD of an iMac is like doing eye surgery through anus...
I agree on the 24GB ssd being low, and its a bad tactic to push people toward the 2TB or SSD option.
That would mean them offering HDD, SATA SSD, and PCIe SSD, knowing apple the price difference between the PCIe and SATA SSD would be marginal and mean even more customization options, logistically alot of work for a minor saving. Most people opting for an SSD want maximum performance, speed, and reliability, something PCIe offers.
You can always buy the lowest HDD option, and upgrade to a SSD yourself, that way the Connections and ports are there
Too bad the new iMacs are so tough to get into. Seriously, the $100 premium for basically 24GB is robbery. You can get a 500GB EVO 850 SSD for less than $150. Come on Apple, this is ridiculous.
What i really would like to know, is:
BTO: 256 GB Flash
Is it a 2,5'Hard drive, or an PCIe Slot like in the Macbooks?
If it is PCIe, then will the 2,5' place be empty in the iMac, or is there a 2,5' "HDD"-SDD plugged in?
Iam asking, because the PCIe solution should be faster (up to 2GB/s ?).
BTO: 256 GB Flash
Is it a 2,5'Hard drive, or an PCIe Slot like in the Macbooks?
If it is PCIe, then will the 2,5' place be empty in the iMac, or is there a 2,5' "HDD"-SDD plugged in?
Iam asking, because the PCIe solution should be faster (up to 2GB/s ?).
All SSDs use the PCIe slot, whether it's fusion or pure flash. Yes, the PCIe will be faster.
Sad, but true, and one more reason to just get the fastest most reliable solution from the start. I couldn't afford a 512 GB SSD, so got the 256 GB and picked up the 500 GB Samsung EVO 850 as my external when I had cash, nice setup. But i paid $200 (Canadian dollar... Ugh!).
As far as i know, it's a PCIe slot only if you get the flash, so if you want to add a HDD later on, it's alot of surgery as you'll need the parts and connectors. So no, there's no empty 2.5" slot.
Adding an SSD hard drive doesn't look difficult at all. Maybe 20 minutes to 1/2 hour of work if you go very slowly. Warranty is the only concern.
The SSD blade is way in the back, but the hard drive is right there once the screen is off.
The SSD blade is way in the back, but the hard drive is right there once the screen is off.
And you need custom made cables and brackets before it will fit in the machine. And then you have the issue with fans spinning like crazy because your disk does not have apple's special firmware in it.
I haven't tried it myself but I read the guide at iFixit, and these issues are mentioned in the first couple of comments
(I guess it has something to do with the temperature sensor inside the HDD reporting incompatible data with the stock firmware)
AFAIK the fusion drive comes with everything while the SSD-only version doesn't come with the SATA brackets. I could be wrong though (and would love to be proven so). However even in the light of this, I still think the flash PCIe SSD is a superior deal, given that you would risk the warranty by opening up the Mac. Even with the fusion drive I'd probably only do it after 2-3 years once Applecare runs out. Also if you factor in the cost of a 1TB SATA SSD/repair, you're looking at about 200-300$ savings tops, for inferior speeds and power.
$200-$300 in savings is actually a lot. You could get a second 1TB SSD for that kind of cheese. I actually like Scorpion's setup of just getting the pure SSD option you can afford, then buy a cheaper SATA SSD later as an external.
The 21.5" iMac comes takes a 2.5" 5400RPM hard drive, the 27" iMac takes a 7200RPM 3.5" hard drive. The 27" would require bracketing, the 21.5" doesn't.
I think I need to have at least 1TB of storage for all the large file size video I shoot and for the access to my Lightroom catalogs. For me to go all solid state, it would probably put me up $350-$400 above quad-core base price. $250-$300 over what I paid. That's not something I could justify for what is essentially a hobby machine. I could use the older 7200RPM hard drives that I have my previous computer's files backed up on, but I have found through testing that speeds of the 5400 internal drive exceed the USB 3.0 speeds I would have. Getting a rough average in the mid-200 MB/s is fine for what I do. In two or three years, this thing is definitely going to get cracked open. Prices on all SSD components will be way down and I will full pimp it out with a new blade and internal SSD replacing the spinning drive.
You could get another 1TB SSD but it won't be the same speed or power as the internal blade.
Why not just get a 256 SSD and then get a 4TB Seagate backup plus fast (which has around 200 MB/s transfer speeds)? You get more SSD and you won't have to be worried about the files you need to work on being on the slower HDD portion of the fusion drive. Plus, working on your media while it's on the same drive as your OS and apps means your fusion drive is working twice as hard. It has to read/write at the same time - a pure SSD can handle that kind of I/O but a fusion drive may be inadequate.
That's back to $400 above base quad-core. $200 for the 256GB SSD + $200 for the external. $1700 vs. $1290. This is a great machine for $1300.
I chose the 512 SSD option with external option for photo storage. While the 2TB fusion would have met my needs I didn't feel good having everything in one enclosure. I have a current projects folder on the SSD where Lightroom imports images. When the project is complete I export it to my archive drive. At 3 am every day, CCC backs up the current projects to a separate drive.
Normally I'd say the simplest solution is probably the best. But when it comes to my work product, multiple copies spread over multiple drives protects me and lets me sleep at night.
Normally I'd say the simplest solution is probably the best. But when it comes to my work product, multiple copies spread over multiple drives protects me and lets me sleep at night.
I'm with you on not having the clutter.
However, splitting up the IO between 2 different paths can be beneficial.
My recommendation is pure flash internal. Prob 256 is ok but 512 GB best for longevity.
Then get a decent external TB drive. The spinning HDDs have improved in throughput in recent years. There is only so much they can do with latency given physics and all.
Install OS and Applications on the SDD. Move your user folder to the TB external.
Actually sorry to clutter your desk even more, but get another external for Time Machine backup. USB3 fine for Time Machine, USB2 prob be fine too, just get as big a drive as possible.
And RAM, get the MOST ram you can get. You'll thank me later…might take a while though…and there is a chance you won't even notice, but thats what you want!
However, splitting up the IO between 2 different paths can be beneficial.
My recommendation is pure flash internal. Prob 256 is ok but 512 GB best for longevity.
Then get a decent external TB drive. The spinning HDDs have improved in throughput in recent years. There is only so much they can do with latency given physics and all.
Install OS and Applications on the SDD. Move your user folder to the TB external.
Actually sorry to clutter your desk even more, but get another external for Time Machine backup. USB3 fine for Time Machine, USB2 prob be fine too, just get as big a drive as possible.
And RAM, get the MOST ram you can get. You'll thank me later…might take a while though…and there is a chance you won't even notice, but thats what you want!
Last edited:
Exactly, which is why I'm comfortable with the fusion drive
All things being equal, I'd like to have gotten a SSD, but I already have > 500GB of storage used up. Upgrading to the 512GB SSD didn't make sense to me, and to be honest, I grew tired of putting my files on an external drive. I like have everything in one place for the first time in years.
I just ordered the machine, with a 512 GB SSD
The easiest solution would have been the 2 TB Fusion, but as you guys point out, it can't guarantee the stable fast performance.
I actually tried making my own fusion drive yesterday, on my old 2010 MBP with a 160 GB SSD +750 GB HDD, and while it worked fine (I could see with iostat that data was moved forward and back between HDD and SDD when using various files), it was also significant that the performance dropped a little, as soon as I the SSD was filled with files.
I think I can live with an external HDD in a closet or drawer, so it's just a single extra cable behind the computer
WHY should I have two external disks, I could easily use the external data disk for time machine backups of the internal SSD as well.
Are you aware that RAM in the 27 inch imac is user accessible? I just ordered it with 8 GB and then I ordered 16 GB extra ram at the cheapest webshop I could find...
The easiest solution would have been the 2 TB Fusion, but as you guys point out, it can't guarantee the stable fast performance.
I actually tried making my own fusion drive yesterday, on my old 2010 MBP with a 160 GB SSD +750 GB HDD, and while it worked fine (I could see with iostat that data was moved forward and back between HDD and SDD when using various files), it was also significant that the performance dropped a little, as soon as I the SSD was filled with files.
I think I can live with an external HDD in a closet or drawer, so it's just a single extra cable behind the computer
WHY should I have two external disks, I could easily use the external data disk for time machine backups of the internal SSD as well.
Are you aware that RAM in the 27 inch imac is user accessible? I just ordered it with 8 GB and then I ordered 16 GB extra ram at the cheapest webshop I could find...