Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Any regrets going for 768SSD?

MiniD3

MiniD3

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 9, 2013
739
264
Australia
Pulling the trigger next week, finally! Been falling over fiscal cliffs for a while but this time, all good!

My main use is image editing, hopefully, in the new year, I will be able to upgrade to a Nikon D800E, which will be 36mp and large files so hope the SSD would speed things up a lot and be a whole lot quieter, most images are stored in portable drives

Have any ops here regretted going for the 768SSD? Thought I'd better ask as the safety catch is off and pulling the trigger in a matter of days
Regards,
Gary
 
MiniD3 said:
Pulling the trigger next week, finally! Been falling over fiscal cliffs for a while but this time, all good!

My main use is image editing, hopefully, in the new year, I will be able to upgrade to a Nikon D800E, which will be 36mp and large files so hope the SSD would speed things up a lot and be a whole lot quieter, most images are stored in portable drives

Have any ops here regretted going for the 768SSD? Thought I'd better ask as the safety catch is off and pulling the trigger in a matter of days
Regards,
Gary
Click to expand...

Not at all. I got the maxed out imac, and when I was first getting it I felt guilty about spending that much on a computer. I just really wanted all flash memory and didn't want a disk platter drive.

A month down the road, my girlfriend got me an awesome new DSLR camera, and I found I had a passion for photography and photo-editing. What at first seemed like spending way too much on more storage than I needed turned into me being thankful I pulled the trigger and got the large flash storage option.

Also, fwiw, my iMac is always cool to the touch and always completely silent unless while gaming. Even then it is barely noticeable.
 
Thank you for the heads-up!

Much appreciated,
The only thing Im not maxing out is the ram, going to upgrade to 32GB myself with Crucial ram, as recommended by forum members here
....Gary
 
I use a D800 and upgraded from a 2010 MacBook Pro with 256gb SSD to the new 27" iMac with the 1tb fusion drive. Honestly I can't tell much diff when it comes to hard drive speed - the fusion drive seems to be just as fast as the SSD when working in Lightroom. Where I am seeing the speed increase is going from a 2.66ghz dual core i7 to a 3.4ghz quad core i7 :D I'm sure the SSD still outperforms the fusion drive when it comes to benchmark testing though.
 
MiniD3 said:
Much appreciated,
The only thing Im not maxing out is the ram, going to upgrade to 32GB myself with Crucial ram, as recommended by forum members here
....Gary
Click to expand...

Sounds wise. Did the same, but chose 512 instead of 768. Plenty of on board space since I have large externals for media.

Biggest impact here (aside from speed) is the silence and cool temps. UASP externals are nice too ;)
 
Absolutely no regrets here in getting the 768GB SSD and i7 3.4GHz with 680MX. :cool: Filled it with 3rd party RAM and it runs quiet, cool, and fast. A very nice machine.

I partitioned the SSD as 512GB OS X and 256GB Windows. I keep my photo library on the SSD for speed, most everything else goes on a Thunderbolt RAID-0 hard disk (Pegasus J4 with 4x 1TB disks).
 
No regrets here either.

My advice... get a large enough SSD to hold 100% of your projected data, minus any streaming media (movies and music). Optionally, you can keep your photo master on external drives (DAS array's are best).

If you are using LR or Aperture w/referenced masters... than make sure the SSD is large enough for your library, plus all of the thumbnails and previews.

Plan for data growth... and plan to keep some of the SSD (maybe 20%+) empty, for better performance.

/Jim
 
Tks guys,

Appreciate the feedback,
Sounds good, next week can't come soon enough:)
Now the learning curve from windows to Mac :)
....Gary
 
jetjaguar said:
Yea true. But if I would have gotten the ssd .. I wouldn't be considering selling my current imac when the new one comes out.
Click to expand...

In my experience, Fusion Drive comes just as fast as pure SSD at most tasks. Admittedly :apple: is stingy by limiting FD only with 128GB SSD considering the price point. Plus FD won't let me install Windows on the SSD part unless I break the Fusion but that defeats the purpose.

But for the most part, for much less $$ to spend I'm satisfied with how Fusion performs under OSX because it emulates SSD really well.
 
yea it is definitely faster than a non fusion drive but based on the new drives in the mba I would think that the new imac will have the faster flash as well
 
Again, fusion owners gloss over the fact that you also get slow spinups, potentially more noise (some HDs make more noise than others), and more heat (not a good thing while gaming). Also HDs are more prone to data errors and crashes - that's at least my experience now using SSDs for 5 years.
Yes, fusion is a good compromise, but if you can afford it - get SSD every time.
 
I figured start with 256GB SSD and then upgrade it myself once the warranty has run out. The larger SSD's will be cheaper in a year or two. I have all my programs and some often used files on the SSD and everything else on external hard disk, and 256GB is more than enough for that. But since I have well over 1 TB of content, putting everything on SSD is a bit of a non-starter with today's technology and pricing.
 
Mac32 said:
Again, fusion owners gloss over the fact that you also get slow spinups, potentially more noise (some HDs make more noise than others), and more heat (not a good thing while gaming). Also HDs are more prone to data errors and crashes - that's at least my experience now using SSDs for 5 years.
Yes, fusion is a good compromise, but if you can afford it - get SSD every time.
Click to expand...

Meh. Fusion drive is definitely one of the best technologies Apple has come out with for desktop computers in recent years. If Fusion drives did not exist, I surely would have gone for the SSD.
 
Mac32 said:
Again, fusion owners gloss over the fact that you also get slow spinups, potentially more noise (some HDs make more noise than others), and more heat (not a good thing while gaming). Also HDs are more prone to data errors and crashes - that's at least my experience now using SSDs for 5 years.
Yes, fusion is a good compromise, but if you can afford it - get SSD every time.
Click to expand...

Oh I can afford it alright, but I can't justify spend my hard earned $900 for a mere 768GB SSD considering a 960GB one costs around $600, and it uses SATA interface rather than proprietary Apple SSD blade
 
Interesting feedback,

Starting to look like 2 camps, the SSD and Fusion
Yes I was concerned about the SSD size but hope to later have a larger SSD portable drive for faster access, unfortunately the pony-up for this purchase will put a portable SSD of decent size on the wish list for a while
....Gary
 
FD is good for the vast majority of users. I would not recommend going less than a FD in today's systems.

I still prefer full SSD... It is better than FD... but it is also a lot more expensive. For me, the 768GB was worth the premium.

/Jim
 
iSayuSay said:
...Plus FD won't let me install Windows on the SSD part unless I break the Fusion but that defeats the purpose.
...
Click to expand...

If you're willing to reformat the drive & do some other work, you can split the SSD between fusion and normal. I wouldn't recommend it on the 128GB SSD that is in the apple setups (IMAO too small for both fusion & windows), but I split a 480GB ssd to use 240GB fused with the stock 1TB, and 240GB for windows.

You may have to bootcamp install to the hard drive first, then winclone it over to the SSD - its been a long time since I did the setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back