I need help with which new 27" iMac to order

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Kimmie92592, Oct 22, 2015.

  1. Kimmie92592 macrumors newbie

    Kimmie92592

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #1
    Need to know which configuration of iMac to get. I do photo editing and some video editing. I keep my computers for a really long time so I kind of want the closest to the best I can afford right now. I want the 27" iMac and am considering getting the core i7 model or is a core i5 model good enough for my needs? Does it matter what graphics card I get? I can install the extra memory myself. Which Fusion drive should I get, the one or two TB? Does that make a difference in speed? I just don't want to end up with any spinning beachballs because they drive me mad. Thank you, sorry if my questions sound dumb, I'm no computer expert.
     
  2. DotCom2 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    #2
    This is easy to answer.
    If you are going to keep it a long time, then get the most you can possibly afford.
    You won't regret it.
    And yes, do your own memory later.
     
  3. dud3tt3 macrumors newbie

    dud3tt3

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #3
    Forget the Fusion drive and go for the SSD. It'll be much quicker. Personally i went the i7 over the i5 as well.
     
  4. Kimmie92592 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Kimmie92592

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #4
    Does the graphics card make much of a difference? I'm not doing gaming.
     
  5. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    I'd go with: i7, 2TB fusion or 1TB ssd, and the best graphics card. Or the best you can afford.
     
  6. ravinder08 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    #6
    go with what dud3tt3's advice
    I'm going with that 512Sssd and base iMac 27" which should be good and can always add external HDDs for extra storage.
     
  7. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #7
    Well do some research then, you know what software you run, spend half hour looking at what will run that software best on the forums for the software and make a decision based on that.

    The 1TB fusion on the new imacs only has 24GB of SSD and is not worth it, I would say the 2TB fusion or 256GB SSD and external storage for files, data, media etc.
     
  8. Sirmausalot macrumors 6502a

    Sirmausalot

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    #8
    Please check out my thread http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/answers-which-retina-imac-do-i-get.1929275/ and read it, then reply. But, in sum

    Video benefits from both the i7 (for outputs) and the graphics card (for real time playback and effects). So as others said, you need/want the highest end. Get the 512GB Flash drive. There. Done. If you have to prioritize the graphics upgrade versus the CPU upgrade, well, it depends on what you are doing. But I'd go for the better graphics card over the i7. Also, if every penny counts, you could get a 2TB Fusion instead of a Flash drive -- stay away front he 1TB fusion. (But don't get the 256 Flash drive as it's too small)


     
  9. whodatrr macrumors 6502a

    whodatrr

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    #9
    From what I've seen, this year's Fusion drive (3TB & 2TB) reads about 90% as fast as the pure SSD, while writes are about 50%. But really, what does that mean? This year's Fusion drive will write faster than last year's SSD. These specs are good for test and benchmarks, but what does this mean in our real lives? You'll probably only notice the difference once, when you're migrating your old system over to the new one, it should be a bit faster. Other than that, write speed will probably not be an issue at all. Again, this year's Fusion sites as fast as last year's SSD, which was screaming fast!

    So you'll pay $100 more for a 512SSD that reads about the same and has 1/6 the capacity of the Fusion. This means more external drives, with data management headaches and slower writes to those libraries. If, for example, you're doing video and photos on an external drive, the internal SSD won't matter much. you'd be better off with that big iPhoto library on your internal Fusion drive. Just a thought...

    Oh, and the 1TB SSD is crazy expensive. And still, if I bought one, it's not big enough for my iPhoto and iTunes libraries. So, those would have to be on external volumes. YMMV.
     
  10. sluggishadj macrumors newbie

    sluggishadj

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Location:
    Italy
    #10
    True, but nevertheless some people don't like the idea of a spinning drive in their late '15 iMacs (me included)
     
  11. whodatrr, Oct 23, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2015

    whodatrr macrumors 6502a

    whodatrr

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    #11
    from a practical standpoint, it has the performance of an SSD. The vast majority of users will notice no difference.

    Form a reliability standpoint, this site os on spinning drives. Your bank account is on spinning drives. The files and info Big Brother has on you are all on spinning drives. The iPhoto and iTunes libraries that you'll be hanging off your iMac because its SSD is too small will also be a spinner, unless you pony up more big bucks for en external SSD. Yes, they will eventually fail, but they're usually nice enough to let us know before they do, unlike SSDs. I back everything up and but Applecare (things break).

    I don't know about you, but I've got pretty close to 2TB of data. This is about to explode, as I'm now playing with 4k video. So, I'd have to buy the 1TB internal plus a 1TB SSD for my libraries, if I wanted to avoid spinners. Shucks, since my data is growing, make that 2x1TB of external drives, to have the same capacity and roughly the same noticeable performance as a 3TB Fusion. Actually, the reads on my external drives will be significantly lower. So, if you really didn't want any spinners, prepare to cough up ($600 for the Apple 1TB upgrade, plus about $1,000 for two external SSDs. An extra $1,600 for the same capacity and roughly the same performance. Internal writes will be a bit faster, but all the external work will be slower.

    I say again, It will cost you about $1,600 to meet same capacity and roughly the same noticeable performance as a 3TB Fusion drive, using SSDs. And still, you'll be backing all that data up on spinners. Now, if you chose to save money by directly attaching spinners for your external libraries, you've just robbed Peter to save Paul. Transferring photos and videos back & forth will be painfully slow. So, I guess the question is - Are you sure you'll only need 512G or 1TB of data, several years from now? If the answer is yes, then SSD away. if the answer is no, consider a Fusion drive.

    A Seagate went bad on my iMac, about 5yrs ago. It barked at me for months telling me it was;t happy, before it pooped. I kept backing stuff up until I brought it into Apple (Part of a recall). Problem solved.

     
  12. sluggishadj macrumors newbie

    sluggishadj

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Location:
    Italy
    #12
    Ok, good point but what about internal heat? (btw all my data since 8 years ago barely is half a GB)
     
  13. whodatrr, Oct 23, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2015

    whodatrr macrumors 6502a

    whodatrr

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    #13
    I assume you mean half a TB, or 500GB? If that's the case, then you may do well with an SSD. But I'd plan for growth, so at least look at getting a 1TB SSD. It's a royal pain to have to start throwing stuff away when you're running out of space. Things like 4K video are about ready to increase data requirements as well.

    Internal heat as well as noise are a bit of an issue, but these drives don't get as hot as drives in years past. I don't notice noise or heat on my 2012 iMac with a 3TB at all.





     
  14. ^^BIGMac macrumors 6502a

    ^^BIGMac

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    #14
    The other thing is if you have external SSDs whatcha gonna use to back them up?
     
  15. sluggishadj macrumors newbie

    sluggishadj

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Location:
    Italy
    #15
    Yes my mistake, I meant TB. We'll see what temperature difference there is then…
     
  16. DotCom2 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    #16
    I agree with everything you've said here.
     
  17. whodatrr macrumors 6502a

    whodatrr

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    #17
    Time Machine makes that part fairly easy. You just have to ensure to include any external drives in your backup.

    It's negligible. It's one of those things that may look significant on paper, but means squat in real life. Like many here, I've been running spinners on desktops for 30 years, and today's disks are no problem. Furthermore, the spinning part is rarely really working anyhow, because the SSDs are doing the lifting. The CPU & GPU are your heaters.
     
  18. ^^BIGMac macrumors 6502a

    ^^BIGMac

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    #18
    Actually, going along with the discussion of having say a 1 TB external SSD for storing large RAW files and maybe video you still have to have yet another drive to back that one up. So what do you want to get? Another SSD or a spinner? Catch22 + more money required. :confused:
     
  19. whodatrr macrumors 6502a

    whodatrr

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    #19
    Yep...


     

Share This Page