7200 hhd vs 512gb ssd

[ravinder08]

how much speed difference is there between the 2?
Using iMac for general use no pro apps or heavy photo/video work.
Will be a family computer

 

[bmodi]

the difference is ...from xxx to xxx depending on the models you compare. And also depending on which file size you compare when you talk about read and/or write speed.

I would say the new SSD's of the IMAC's are 4 to 7 times faster than a 7200 hdd.....as i said...it depends....

 

[zhenya]

Get the SSD, no question. Any spinning platter, no matter how fast, feels absolutely glacial in comparison. Paying for the SSD is the best money you can spend on outfitting the computer.

 

[shaunp]

how much speed difference is there between the 2?
Using iMac for general use no pro apps or heavy photo/video work.
Will be a family computer

Lots of difference. I've been using SSD since 2007 and there's no way I'd ever go back to a standard HDD. SSD is not a scam, it does really make a real world difference even if you are just using the computer for 'family stuff'. The main speed difference that you will notice is how quickly your computer can find files, so just starting up and opening applications will be significantly quicker than any HDD - seek time of a HDD, ~30ms; seek time of an SSD 0.1ms. SSD's not only find your files quicker but they can read and write quicker too, typically 150MB/s for a HDD, over 500MB/s for a regular SSD, around 1GB/s for one of the newer SSD's.

Regardless of whatever anyone else's opinion is the maths don't lie. As for people saying there's no announced RPM for an SSD and this being dishonest, that's because SSD's don't contain a spinning disk for there to be an RPM! Show's how much some posters know!

HDD's have their place, mainly for keeping your data files as you typically don't need to access them as quickly as the operating system files. While they are slower they generally have higher capacities and cost less, and there's the decision you need to make. Fast, expensive (not that expensive really) with smaller capacity, vs high capacity, cheap and slow.

A common approach is to get an SSD as the main drive in your computer and then add a USB HDD for your files. If you can only have 1 however consider a fusion drive, this combines the two to increase the performance of a regular HDD, but without loading the price too much. It's a reasonable compromise.

If you are considering spending that much on a Mac, why not spend the extra £80 (or whatever it is in your currency) to make it perform properly. There is no point in 2015 buying a computer with a HDD as the main disk now the price of SSD's has come down so much.

 

[dotnet]

I recently took a punt on a 2010 21.5" iMac one of my kids was using. It ran frustratingly slow, hot and noisy (fan). I considered selling it but got a 240GB OWC Mercury Electra SSD instead. This rejuvenated the iMac beyond all expectations, we're going to keep it for some time to come now.

 

[keysofanxiety]

I am thinking of base 27" iMac with a 512gb SSD. and if extra storage is required move my large media files to external

That's a very good idea OP, definitely your best bet. An SSD will vastly increase the longevity of your machine too, no point in spending that amount of money and having a spinning HDD in there. It's worth the investment.

Where are the mods if we need them?

Click the 'report' button which is next to the 'like' on a comment, and they'll look into it.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

An SSD has no rpm (revolutions per minute) because it doesn't spin. On average the sequential read/write speeds of the 4 lane PCIe connected SSD's that apple uses are 8-12 times as fast as a 7200rpm HDD. The random I/O access is a lot faster 20x as fast. All this translates to very fast boot times, instantly opening applications and fast data transfer as well as smooth operation and a complete absence of spinning beachballs.

OP I would reccomend you have at least a fusion drive (1TB on older models 2TB on the new ones as the 1TB only have a small 24GB flash case rather than a full 128GB SSD like on the older models and biggger amounts on the new ones.)

 

[flopticalcube]

Personally, I would never have a mechanical drive inside a box I couldn't service myself.

 

[Kappsi]

An SSD has no moving components. It's digital storage. Therefore you have no moving components. As it's all digital, there's very little/no lag when accessing data. Things open instantly as a result. Furthermore, because the Mac SSDs are PCI-e, there isn't the bottleneck of the SATA III interface, which is a 6Gb/s interface (6 gigabit, which for argument's sake is around 650MB/s). As such you're easily getting 1.5GB/s read and write, because of the fast SSDs Apple use. As their Flash chips run in parallel, the higher the storage, the quicker the speeds.

To be pedantic, the maximum theoretical speed for SATA3 is 600 MB/s, as SATA uses 10 bits per byte.

 

[ravinder08]

An SSD has no rpm (revolutions per minute) because it doesn't spin. On average the sequential read/write speeds of the 4 lane PCIe connected SSD's that apple uses are 8-12 times as fast as a 7200rpm HDD. The random I/O access is a lot faster 20x as fast. All this translates to very fast boot times, instantly opening applications and fast data transfer as well as smooth operation and a complete absence of spinning beachballs.

OP I would reccomend you have at least a fusion drive (1TB on older models 2TB on the new ones as the 1TB only have a small 24GB flash case rather than a full 128GB SSD like on the older models and biggger amounts on the new ones.)

Think I'm gonna get the 512gb SSD and external HDDs if I need extra storage for media/data

 

[Fishrrman]

OP asked:
"how much speed difference is there between the 2?"

No contest. Not even worth trying to compare the two.

SSD runs away with it, leaving the HDD MILES BEHIND.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Think I'm gonna get the 512gb SSD and external HDDs if I need extra storage for media/data

Thats the way I would go myself, external storage is great on a desktop and with USB 3 speeds it makes no difference for accessing media and files etc.

 

[Coldmode]

Think I'm gonna get the 512gb SSD and external HDDs if I need extra storage for media/data

Excellent choice. That's what I will do myself.

 

[Cody1992]

If you are considering spending that much on a Mac, why not spend the extra £80 (or whatever it is in your currency) to make it perform properly. There is no point in 2015 buying a computer with a HDD as the main disk now the price of SSD's has come down so much.

This is a little misleading as Apple uses newer, much faster SSDs that have not come down in price at all. For all the flak it's getting I sure do wish the base models used a 512GB SATA III drive instead of the HDDs currently in it. For me, and I think for a lot of casual users, the jump from HDD to SSD is incredible, the jump from SATA III to PCI-e not so much.

 

[Melodeath]

This is a little misleading as Apple uses newer, much faster SSDs that have not come down in price at all. For all the flak it's getting I sure do wish the base models used a 512GB SATA III drive instead of the HDDs currently in it. For me, and I think for a lot of casual users, the jump from HDD to SSD is incredible, the jump from SATA III to PCI-e not so much.

Agreed. I'd be totally happy with SATA III SSD speeds, especially if it meant less cost. For my work, even 7200 RPM is enough, but SSD will be certainly be nice for boot times and opening/loading programs

 

[ucfgrad93]

Think I'm gonna get the 512gb SSD and external HDDs if I need extra storage for media/data

That sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[Travisimo]

SSD vs HDD will offer the greatest noticeable appreciation of speed of any upgrade, in my opinion. Your computer will boot faster, load apps faster, run cooler and quieter, and potentially last longer. File input/output has long been the bottleneck, but with SSD, it's much less so.

I think the 512gb option is the best bang for the buck too. I would have loved to have that 1tb SSD, but man that is a lot more extra money. The 256gb would be very limiting for me, especially once I have my apps loaded and considering the OS takes up some space as well. 512gb gives you enough room for the OS, plenty of apps, and some leeway for media.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I think the Fusion Drive is a great mix of space and speed, but why have they cut the SSD portion so much on the new 1 TB version? Instead of cutting it they should add a 256 GB SSD with a large standard hard drive and make an awesome Fusion drive.

Must be the bean counters making these decisions and not the engineers.

 

[Coldmode]

Must be the bean counters making these decisions and not the engineers.

Or they know that most people only use a few GB of storage on their computers anyway because what they're mostly doing is looking at Facebook and playing solitaire, and for the majority of users it doesn't make any difference if the SSD in the Fusion drive is 128 GB or 24 GB.

 

[Winfield]

I think the Fusion Drive is a great mix of space and speed, but why have they cut the SSD portion so much on the new 1 TB version? Instead of cutting it they should add a 256 GB SSD with a large standard hard drive and make an awesome Fusion drive.

Must be the bean counters making these decisions and not the engineers.

Totally agree with you.
I really hope that there was an option to increase the SSD part of the Fusion Drive.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Or they know that most people only use a few GB of storage on their computers anyway because what they're mostly doing is looking at Facebook and playing solitaire, and for the majority of users it doesn't make any difference if the SSD in the Fusion drive is 128 GB or 24 GB.

Well honestly if all you are doing is looking at Facebook and playing some solitaire you might as well go out and buy a 2008 iMac with a Core 2 Duo ensure you have about 4 GB of RAM... Load up 10.11... Do all your software updates and browse on.

 

[Coldmode]

Well honestly if all you are doing is looking at Facebook and playing some solitaire you might as well go out and buy a 2008 iMac with a Core 2 Duo ensure you have about 4 GB of RAM... Load up 10.11... Do all your software updates and browse on.

I am not the majority of users. I'm cursing the lack of NVIDIA cards in the new 27". But I'm sure Apple sells a lot of 21.5" iMacs to middle aged people who want to balance the checkbook and look at pictures.

 

[cynics]

how much speed difference is there between the 2?
Using iMac for general use no pro apps or heavy photo/video work.
Will be a family computer

Above all else an SSD will make the most noticeable difference in performance for a family computer. I'd also recommend at least 8gb of RAM.

Then you'll have to decide other factors based off usage. For example if you want to encode your entire DVD/Bluray collection into an iTunes format you'll want a faster processor. Or if you or someone else plays more graphically intensive games you'll want a better graphics card.

That said, if you are coming from a very old PC the base iMac is still a decent machine. I use a 7200 RPM HDD daily without problems. Fusion is always an option too.