iMac choices...

[Bobo123]

Hi,

I am buying a new iMac 27" and wondering about which model to go for.

I mostly use it for CAD (Vectorworks), office stuff, and some Adobe: photoshop, indesign, dreamweaver, illustrator, etc.

Not video editing though.

Software system requirements tend to say 8 GB RAM recommended. Vectorworks suggests 8-16 GB for larger files and rendering. This is ok as I can upgrade the RAM if I need to in any of the 27" models. But the first question is, am I likely to regret not being able to upgrade to 64 GB RAM if I went for the entry level model (restricted to 32 GB)?

Next is graphics. I may watch some online TV on it, but won't be doing video editing or gaming. Am I likely to regret not going for the 8 GB video memory top of the range option? Or would either of the 4 GB options be fine for what I am using it for?

Lastly, fusion drive. The two lower models have 1 TB fusion drive; top model 2 TB. I understand the 1 TB versions have 32 GB SSD, and the 2 TB version has a 128 GB SSD, accessible for frequently used files. I appreciate that SSD are noticeably better, but for my use is this likely to matter?

I tend to keep computers for 6-7 years if I can. Maybe it's impossible to say, but is the entry level model likely to leave me wanting after a few years?

Any thoughts welcome! Thanks!

 

[kdoug]

Hi,

I am buying a new iMac 27" and wondering about which model to go for.

I mostly use it for CAD (Vectorworks), office stuff, and some Adobe: photoshop, indesign, dreamweaver, illustrator, etc.

Not video editing though.

Software system requirements tend to say 8 GB RAM recommended. Vectorworks suggests 8-16 GB for larger files and rendering. This is ok as I can upgrade the RAM if I need to in any of the 27" models. But the first question is, am I likely to regret not being able to upgrade to 64 GB RAM if I went for the entry level model (restricted to 32 GB)?

Next is graphics. I may watch some online TV on it, but won't be doing video editing or gaming. Am I likely to regret not going for the 8 GB video memory top of the range option? Or would either of the 4 GB options be fine for what I am using it for?

Lastly, fusion drive. The two lower models have 1 TB fusion drive; top model 2 TB. I understand the 1 TB versions have 32 GB SSD, and the 2 TB version has a 128 GB SSD, accessible for frequently used files. I appreciate that SSD are noticeably better, but for my use is this likely to matter?

I tend to keep computers for 6-7 years if I can. Maybe it's impossible to say, but is the entry level model likely to leave me wanting after a few years?

Any thoughts welcome! Thanks!

Call me crazy but I went overboard with the 4.2Ghz i7, 3TB FD and Radeon 580. I will do none of what you described except maybe some office stuff and light gaming. I can live with spending extra $$$ but regret haunts you forever.

 

[green86]

Hi,

I am buying a new iMac 27" and wondering about which model to go for.

I mostly use it for CAD (Vectorworks), office stuff, and some Adobe: photoshop, indesign, dreamweaver, illustrator, etc.

Not video editing though.

Software system requirements tend to say 8 GB RAM recommended. Vectorworks suggests 8-16 GB for larger files and rendering. This is ok as I can upgrade the RAM if I need to in any of the 27" models. But the first question is, am I likely to regret not being able to upgrade to 64 GB RAM if I went for the entry level model (restricted to 32 GB)?

Next is graphics. I may watch some online TV on it, but won't be doing video editing or gaming. Am I likely to regret not going for the 8 GB video memory top of the range option? Or would either of the 4 GB options be fine for what I am using it for?

Lastly, fusion drive. The two lower models have 1 TB fusion drive; top model 2 TB. I understand the 1 TB versions have 32 GB SSD, and the 2 TB version has a 128 GB SSD, accessible for frequently used files. I appreciate that SSD are noticeably better, but for my use is this likely to matter?

I tend to keep computers for 6-7 years if I can. Maybe it's impossible to say, but is the entry level model likely to leave me wanting after a few years?

Any thoughts welcome! Thanks!

I truly believe 32GB will be fine for a 6 year life span with what your doing. The base model's CPU is likely more then enough for your needs as well. People on here really hate fusion drive, I haven't much experience with it honestly. I bought a 27" (2012) and ripped the fusion drive out in favor of a SSD. Which is what I would suggest you do from the start if you can afford it. If you can't, the 2 TB will be magnitudes better.

Upgrading to the 580 w/8Gb of VRAM is the harder call. I'm not overly familiar with vector works. Does it use the GPU for rendering? if not, the 575/570 should be fine. Especially if your not gaming.

 

[Bobo123]

I truly believe 32GB will be fine for a 6 year life span with what your doing. The base model's CPU is likely more then enough for your needs as well. People on here really hate fusion drive, I haven't much experience with it honestly. I bought a 27" (2012) and ripped the fusion drive out in favor of a SSD. Which is what I would suggest you do from the start if you can afford it. If you can't, the 2 TB will be magnitudes better.

Upgrading to the 580 w/8Gb of VRAM is the harder call. I'm not overly familiar with vector works. Does it use the GPU for rendering? if not, the 575/570 should be fine. Especially if your not gaming.

The VRAM question is what is moving me towards the upper range model. Vectorworks recommend 2-4GB VRAM, but they also recommend 4GB "or more" VRAM "for larger displays". I am just wary that requirements seem to double every couple of years and what seems excessive now won't seem enough at some point in the future - just wish I knew when that would be! Think I'll contact Vectorworks and see what they suggest; maybe they are thinking of rendering for VR, as I can't see how straightforward single image renders rely heavily on the GPU.

 

[green86]

The VRAM question is what is moving me towards the upper range model. Vectorworks recommend 2-4GB VRAM, but they also recommend 4GB "or more" VRAM "for larger displays". I am just wary that requirements seem to double every couple of years and what seems excessive now won't seem enough at some point in the future - just wish I knew when that would be! Think I'll contact Vectorworks and see what they suggest; maybe they are thinking of rendering for VR, as I can't see how straightforward single image renders rely heavily on the GPU.

In that case go for the 580, top end choice. Their requirements can only increase and your driving a 5k display.

You can always upgrade to an SSD down the line. Your going to be stuck with the graphics processor and video memory forever.

 

[jerwin]

The 32 GB limit may be a marketing restriction, rather than a technical one. Apple charges big bucks for installing RAM, and a $1400 upgrade on the lowest spec machine raises some interesting questions about the buyer's sanity.
In any case, some Vectorworks features do use the GPU; a 570 isn't optimal.

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index...es/vectorworks-2018-system-requirements-r723/

 

[MadDane]

As jerwin said, the 32GB restriction is purely a restriction from a marketing point of view. In reality, all 27" 2017 models support up to 64GB RAM.

I am not familiar with Vectorworks, but I do work professionally with Solidworks so I have some idea of CAD performance. Obviously, the better the hardware, the faster the response. However, I believe the single most important choice in terms of the perceived performance of the computer is to go for the SSD. It almost doesn't matter what the rest of the specs are. If you don't have an SSD, I believe you will perceive it as being sluggish. So it it were me I would prioritize this when considering a Mac used as a CAD machine:
1) SSD
2) GPU
3) CPU

 

[robeddie]

Call me crazy but I went overboard with the 4.2Ghz i7, 3TB FD and Radeon 580. I will do none of what you described except maybe some office stuff and light gaming. I can live with spending extra $$$ but regret haunts you forever.

Agreed. But definitely replace the archaic fusion drive with a full-on SSD in a couple years. Like once a 3tb ssd is a few hundred bucks, that fusion drive is going to seem pretty lame.
The only other thing I would say is theres anecdotal evidence that the i7's create a fair bit more heat and therefore more fan noise. Plus the advantages of hyperthreading are somewhat dubious imo. Even in tests that show its full potential, HT gives the processor maybe 20% more umph, and its unlikely most if any of your software will leverage much of that 20%.

 

[kdoug]

Agreed. But definitely replace the archaic fusion drive with a full-on SSD in a couple years. Like once a 3tb ssd is a few hundred bucks, that fusion drive is going to seem pretty lame.
The only other thing I would say is theres anecdotal evidence that the i7's create a fair bit more heat and therefore more fan noise. Plus the advantages of hyperthreading are somewhat dubious imo. Even in tests that show its full potential, HT gives the processor maybe 20% more umph, and its unlikely most if any of your software will leverage much of that 20%.

Both of my Mac Mini's are running Dual SSD's and I've been using them for well over 4 years so I know how fast the system boots and how fast it copies. I'm most definitely the minority here but spending $600 more for a 1TB SSD over a 3TB FD that boots as quickly and reads fractions slower is senseless (opinion). It's a home computer so copying large files fast isn't a priority, size is.

 

[robeddie]

Both of my Mac Mini's are running Dual SSD's and I've been using them for well over 4 years so I know how fast the system boots and how fast it copies. I'm most definitely the minority here but spending $600 more for a 1TB SSD over a 3TB FD that boots as quickly and reads fractions slower is senseless (opinion). It's a home computer so copying large files fast isn't a priority, size is.

For what it's worth, 2tb SSD's are now in the $600 range, but that's neither here nor there. For now, I do agree with you that the price/capacity/performance ratio is a reasonable thing to debate.

My point, however is that in just a couple of years, once ssd prices have dropped considerably more, the argument for fusion drives won't hold nearly as much water.

By then we'll be looking at fusion drives as quaint relics of the past. That's when it'll be time to swap out that FD with an SSD.

 

[SaSaSushi]

It's a home computer so copying large files fast isn't a priority, size is.

Which is why my suggestion is to go with a 512GB SSD and use inexpensive external spinning drives for all storage purposes thereby keeping the heat-generating, failure-prone spinning drives outside the Mac where they can be easily dealt with.

 

[VinOrdinaire]

Call me crazy but I went overboard with the 4.2Ghz i7, 3TB FD and Radeon 580. I will do none of what you described except maybe some office stuff and light gaming. I can live with spending extra $$$ but regret haunts you forever.

I also bought the 4.2 GHz i7 but with 1 TB SSD and 16 GB RAM. Previous machine was an early 2009 Mac Mini that was thoroughly obsolete by the time I upgraded. Intolerably slow components in the Mac Mini (5400 rpm drive, 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM) made even the most routine operations a painful exercise of watching the spinning ball. The only thing slower than the 2009 Mac Mini was the Apple upgrade cycle; hope they announce something new for the Mac Mini faithful next Tuesday.

Why make such a big jump in specs? Part of my thinking was this: OS and software requirements don't stand still. I want to enjoy this computer five years from now. I don't want to be memory constrained or wish I had bought a better graphics card. I don't want to buy a new computer every couple of years. I don't want to be frozen in the Mac Mini world of waiting for something new that is almost certainly coming. I want the choice to run software, including games, that have high hardware requirements. The other consideration for me was the 5K wide color gamut screen.

The 2017 iMac with SSD is essentially silent in normal operation and my energy monitor says it pulls between 35 watts and 65 watts during light use, depending on screen brightness. It gets into the 180-190 watt range with games that stress the graphics card and CPU, when the fan becomes noticeable. But so far it has run everything beautifully. It's a responsive computer with a gorgeous monitor.

Better computers will come along. But this configuration will hold up well for several years.

 

[kdoug]

Which is why my suggestion is to go with a 512GB SSD and use inexpensive external spinning drives for all storage purposes thereby keeping the heat-generating, failure-prone spinning drives outside the Mac where they can be easily dealt with.

I've have very few if any mechanical drives fail. Matter as fact, I have an old 10 year old Maxtor hooked to my Dish still spinning away. Both my backups are well over 5 years old and working perfectly. If/when the HD fails I'll cut the adhesive and install an SSD.
Also not a fan of of external storage. To me, it defeats the purpose of buying an all-in-one machine.
Would I rather have an internal SSD vs a FD? Absolutely! Is the trade off worth $600 considering the upgrade was only 1TB? Not in my opinion.

 

[SaSaSushi]

I've have very few if any mechanical drives fail. Matter as fact, I have an old 10 year old Maxtor hooked to my Dish still spinning away. Both my backups are well over 5 years old and working perfectly. If/when the HD fails I'll cut the adhesive and install an SSD.

That's lucky. I had the HDD component of the 1TB Fusion Drive in my prior Late 2013 iMac fail and be replaced under AppleCare only to have the brand new replacement HDD fail again 6 months later when I sold it (out of AppleCare this time)

Also not a fan of of external storage. To me, it defeats the purpose of buying an all-in-one machine.

To each their own I suppose. I'd much rather have an all-in-one machine with no spinning drives inside.

Would I rather have an internal SSD vs a FD? Absolutely! Is the trade off worth $600 considering the upgrade was only 1TB? Not in my opinion.

Again, I recommend (and purchased myself) the 512GB SSD. With all photos/videos/music/backup on USB3 external HDDs and both Linux Mint and Windows 10 virtual machines on the internal SSD I am still using less than 300GB.

 

[CaptRB]

I just ordered the i7 27"with the 580 and 2 TB drive.

My buddy just got rid of several Touchbar MBP units due to keyboard failures and replaced them with what I just ordered. He's editing feature films costing millions and he suggested NOT getting the SSD for now.

As others said...the processor and graphics car are what you're stuck with. Adding an SSD will be no problem and in two years you'll get a LOT more for the money.

Ignore folks who talk about the Fusion drive being slow. The 2TB version has a 128GB SSD and the machine FLIES. In fact there is very little difference when he works on the various versions cutting footage from Red System and Dragon. I can't pay attention to hobbyists when friends are cutting features on iMacs that are 3 years old, let alone the faster new models which are even faster.

I read the same nonsense from phony photographers claiming you need SSD and 16 GB to work. Total nonsense. I do catalogue work using 36mp, 50mp cameras, so I have no idea of what they're even talking about. Two years ago I was doing post on a 4 year old iMac (i7 with only 8GB) with the still current state-of-the-art cameras and it was perfectly fine. Do you really think these folks know something? LOL

The Apple SSD drives are a poor value for most users. 512GB is pretty silly for a desktop and it was weak on my 15" Touchbar. The Fusion drives (especially the 2 and 3TB) are fine for 99% of users. In two years you can put a 2TB SSD in your iMac for MUCH less of course.

I have already tested the SSD vs. 2TB fusion. i5 with 1TB SSD vs. i7 with 2TB fusion. I was able to open a whopping 30 RAW Nikon files from the D810 on both machines. The i7 was faster, though the i5 was very capable.

People need to calm down about defining themselves via benchmark scores that mean virtually nothing in the real world. Another fellow, who's using various versions of these machines to cut video reported the same thing.

Get the i7 and 580. Don't drink the SSD koolaid. It IS faster, but you can always add it and get more value when you do. If money doesn't matter, get the 1TB SSD now and be happy.


R.

 

[kdoug]

I just ordered the i7 27"with the 580 and 2 TB drive.

My buddy just got rid of several Touchbar MBP units due to keyboard failures and replaced them with what I just ordered. He's editing feature films costing millions and he suggested NOT getting the SSD for now.

As others said...the processor and graphics car are what you're stuck with. Adding an SSD will be no problem and in two years you'll get a LOT more for the money.

Ignore folks who talk about the Fusion drive being slow. The 2TB version has a 128GB SSD and the machine FLIES. In fact there is very little difference when he works on the various versions cutting footage from Red System and Dragon. I can't pay attention to hobbyists when friends are cutting features on iMacs that are 3 years old, let alone the faster new models which are even faster.

I read the same nonsense from phony photographers claiming you need SSD and 16 GB to work. Total nonsense. I do catalogue work using 36mp, 50mp cameras, so I have no idea of what they're even talking about. Two years ago I was doing post on a 4 year old iMac (i7 with only 8GB) with the still current state-of-the-art cameras and it was perfectly fine. Do you really think these folks know something? LOL

The Apple SSD drives are a poor value for most users. 512GB is pretty silly for a desktop and it was weak on my 15" Touchbar. The Fusion drives (especially the 2 and 3TB) are fine for 99% of users. In two years you can put a 2TB SSD in your iMac for MUCH less of course.

I have already tested the SSD vs. 2TB fusion. i5 with 1TB SSD vs. i7 with 2TB fusion. I was able to open a whopping 30 RAW Nikon files from the D810 on both machines. The i7 was faster, though the i5 was very capable.

People need to calm down about defining themselves via benchmark scores that mean virtually nothing in the real world. Another fellow, who's using various versions of these machines to cut video reported the same thing.

Get the i7 and 580. Don't drink the SSD koolaid. It IS faster, but you can always add it and get more value when you do. If money doesn't matter, get the 1TB SSD now and be happy.


R.

There's the reassurance I was looking for. Real world usage from somebody that "works" their computer.

 

[SaSaSushi]

There's the reassurance I was looking for. Real world usage from somebody that "works" their computer.

Well, you never asked but I use my computer for my work as well.

Video production is not the only business application for an iMac last I checked.

Not to mention, what do you need reassurance for? If you're happy with the Fusion Drive in your iMac that is all that matters. Does it meet your needs? Then it's perfect. I'm not trying to make you feel bad or doubt your purchase. I would advise you, if you haven't already, to purchase AppleCare coverage though. I recommend it for all Mac users, not just those with spinning drives.

[doublepost=1504860958][/doublepost]

The Apple SSD drives are a poor value for most users. 512GB is pretty silly for a desktop and it was weak on my 15" Touchbar.

For all of the files that need SSD speed on a Mac, 256GB is probably enough much less 512GB. Desktop has nothing to do with it. A lot of professionals use external storage with Macs by choice.

Don't make the mistake of assuming your own opinion is the widely accepted truth or that anyone who isn't making feature films with their iMacs are hobbyists.

It really comes off as arrogant. A lot of us are using our Macs for our jobs.

 

[robeddie]

...As others said...the processor and graphics card are what you're stuck with. Adding an SSD will be no problem and in two years you'll get a LOT more for the money...

...The Apple SSD drives are a poor value for most users. 512GB is pretty silly for a desktop and it was weak on my 15" Touchbar. The Fusion drives (especially the 2 and 3TB) are fine for 99% of users. In two years you can put a 2TB SSD in your iMac for MUCH less of course...

People need to calm down about defining themselves via benchmark scores that mean virtually nothing in the real world. Another fellow, who's using various versions of these machines to cut video reported the same thing.

Get the i7 and 580. Don't drink the SSD koolaid. It IS faster, but you can always add it and get more value when you do. If money doesn't matter, get the 1TB SSD now and be happy.

Agree absolutely with your first two points. And your last about adding an SSD later. That's an excellent suggestion for those who can't swallow the current prices. The fusion drive is 'ok' for now. But in a couple/few years time, that drive will be the albatross around the neck of that otherwise still nice computer.

As far as defining oneself by benchmark scores, I wouldn't have gotten the 21.5 inchi iMac if that's how I rolled. However, I can ABSOLUTELY 'feel' the difference in speed with an SSD, it has nothing to do with benchmarks ... I know RIGHT AWAY when I'm using one vs a fusion drive.

I was in the Apple store last week with a friend looking at the iMacs, and I was playing with a 27" model with fusion drive, and every time I opened a file or ran a program I was like 'geez, what's the deal ... oh yea."

I suppose it's kind of like the situation with retina screens. Some people swear by them and tell you for them it's a massive difference, while others say the standard screens are perfectly fine.

 

[CaptRB]

Agree absolutely with your first two points. And your last about adding an SSD later. That's an excellent suggestion for those who can't swallow the current prices. The fusion drive is 'ok' for now. But in a couple/few years time, that drive will be the albatross around the neck of that otherwise still nice computer.

As far as defining oneself by benchmark scores, I wouldn't have gotten the 21.5 inchi iMac if that's how I rolled. However, I can ABSOLUTELY 'feel' the difference in speed with an SSD, it has nothing to do with benchmarks ... I know RIGHT AWAY when I'm using one vs a fusion drive.

I was in the Apple store last week with a friend looking at the iMacs, and I was playing with a 27" model with fusion drive, and every time I opened a file or ran a program I was like 'geez, what's the deal ... oh yea."

I suppose it's kind of like the situation with retina screens. Some people swear by them and tell you for them it's a massive difference, while others say the standard screens are perfectly fine.

I'm curious as to what software you ran to feel such a difference.

On two iMacs with SSD and 2TB I opened batch RAW camera files and the I7 with fusion was faster than the i5 with SSD. With 32 GB memory and the 128 GB SSD of the 2TB drive, I want to know what apps are operationally effected by the FD.

30 raw files from a Nikon D810 running in photoshop with plugs ins is a tough task, especially with layers and effects. My buddy is cutting footage for feature films. Frankly he was surprised how little difference the SSD made, though rendering is faster. Keep in mind that the rendering is a set-it-and-forget-it stage where

Many tasks are processor intensive and make less use of the drives and more use of processor and graphics. A little research as to what will be effected would be in order. I mentioned to my friend that some people here were suggesting an i5 with SSD over and i7 with FD and he laughed for good reason. It's TERRIBLE advice unless you plan to never upgrade your drive AND know that your specific apps will be helped by an SSD.

A SSD based system "opening" an app faster is NOT part of workflow. The operational timeline is what's important.

My iMac will be here tomorrow. i7, 580, 24GB, 2TB. I'll be running photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere and FCP. I'll report the results after a few days of setup and burn-in.


R.

 

[robeddie]

I'm curious as to what software you ran to feel such a difference.

On two iMacs with SSD and 2TB I opened batch RAW camera files and the I7 with fusion was faster than the i5 with SSD. With 32 GB memory and the 128 GB SSD of the 2TB drive, I want to know what apps are operationally effected by the FD.

30 raw files from a Nikon D810 running in photoshop with plugs ins is a tough task, especially with layers and effects. My buddy is cutting footage for feature films. Frankly he was surprised how little difference the SSD made, though rendering is faster. Keep in mind that the rendering is a set-it-and-forget-it stage where

Many tasks are processor intensive and make less use of the drives and more use of processor and graphics. A little research as to what will be effected would be in order. I mentioned to my friend that some people here were suggesting an i5 with SSD over and i7 with FD and he laughed for good reason. It's TERRIBLE advice unless you plan to never upgrade your drive AND know that your specific apps will be helped by an SSD.

A SSD based system "opening" an app faster is NOT part of workflow. The operational timeline is what's important.

My iMac will be here tomorrow. i7, 580, 24GB, 2TB. I'll be running photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere and FCP. I'll report the results after a few days of setup and burn-in.


R.

Yea if in your use case, the fusion drive is good for you, that's fine. But I am also strongly in agreement with SaSaShushi on these forums that in this day and age, I would never want a drive with spinning components inside my iMac. Even if you don't notice the performance differences, a mechanical drive is much more likely to fail.
I personally would just feel like that fusion drive is a ticking time bomb. Again - it's entirely possible that wouldn't come back to bite you either, so it's not like I'm condeming you for your choice.

 

[CaptRB]

Yea if in your use case, the fusion drive is good for you, that's fine. But I am also strongly in agreement with SaSaShushi on these forums that in this day and age, I would never want a drive with spinning components inside my iMac. Even if you don't notice the performance differences, a mechanical drive is much more likely to fail.
I personally would just feel like that fusion drive is a ticking time bomb. Again - it's entirely possible that wouldn't come back to bite you either, so it's not like I'm condeming you for your choice.

Your entire machine is a "ticking time bomb." SSDs, screens, graphic cards...all will wear. The "spinning" drive will usually outlast the the usability window of a machine.
Here's another point: I did have an SSD and standard disk failure on a MacBook and iMac. In the case of the SSD, I was unable to rescue data. With the old style drive I rescued over 90% of the data.
Drives can be EASILY upgraded. My iMac will get a 2 or 3TB SSD in a couple of years. For now I'll use the 2TB FD and external SSD that I have waiting.


R

 

[kdoug]

Yea if in your use case, the fusion drive is good for you, that's fine. But I am also strongly in agreement with SaSaShushi on these forums that in this day and age, I would never want a drive with spinning components inside my iMac. Even if you don't notice the performance differences, a mechanical drive is much more likely to fail.
I personally would just feel like that fusion drive is a ticking time bomb. Again - it's entirely possible that wouldn't come back to bite you either, so it's not like I'm condeming you for your choice.

I have one of those "ticking time bomb" iMac's here at work that's going to have a 10 year b-day next year and it's still going strong. I will agree spinning HD's have a higher failure rate then SSD's, it's proven and I'm not going to argue.
IMHO, the SSD 1TB option that Apple charges $600 for isn't a wise choice considering in 2-3 years a much larger SSD can be installed for probably much less (speculation). I'm also taking into account the people who are installing the 512 SSD's spending/investing a great deal of money and energy into external storage.
Let's all assume we can get 5 years out of our machines before upgrading our HD's. Which one is the better value?

 

[robeddie]

I have one of those "ticking time bomb" iMac's here at work that's going to have a 10 year b-day next year and it's still going strong. I will agree spinning HD's have a higher failure rate then SSD's, it's proven and I'm not going to argue.
IMHO, the SSD 1TB option that Apple charges $600 for isn't a wise choice considering in 2-3 years a much larger SSD can be installed for probably much less (speculation). I'm also taking into account the people who are installing the 512 SSD's spending/investing a great deal of money and energy into external storage.
Let's all assume we can get 5 years out of our machines before upgrading our HD's. Which one is the better value?

No question spinning drives can, and at times will, last as long as you could ever need them. But it's indisputable that they are, on average, considerably less reliable than SSD's.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2856052/grueling-endurance-test-blows-away-ssd-durability-fears.html

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

 

[CaptRB]

I have one of those "ticking time bomb" iMac's here at work that's going to have a 10 year b-day next year and it's still going strong. I will agree spinning HD's have a higher failure rate then SSD's, it's proven and I'm not going to argue.
IMHO, the SSD 1TB option that Apple charges $600 for isn't a wise choice considering in 2-3 years a much larger SSD can be installed for probably much less (speculation). I'm also taking into account the people who are installing the 512 SSD's spending/investing a great deal of money and energy into external storage.
Let's all assume we can get 5 years out of our machines before upgrading our HD's. Which one is the better value?

And, as was pointed out by my friend who owns both versions of these machines, many folks will get the 2TB fusion and come to realize that it's just fine. Maybe they won't ever upgrade or upgrade in 3-5 years and get a MUCH better value out of the machine overall.

Based on current trends, a 2TB or 3TB internal SSD will be about 200-300 bucks in 24-30 months. It may be an even faster drive.

I'd MUCH rather upgrade to that than spend more money on a tiny drive today. It's pretty simple math UNLESS you absolutely know you need the SSD now. Based on what read here, I feel most users have no idea at all.

R.
[doublepost=1504883862][/doublepost]

No question spinning drives can, and at times will, last as long as you could ever need them. But it's indisputable that they are, on average, considerably less reliable than SSD's.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2856052/grueling-endurance-test-blows-away-ssd-durability-fears.html

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

Yes, but standard drives are still VERY reliable tech. Most professionals these days are protected by backup tech, thus failure of a drive is more of a inconvenience than anything else.

In my case the SSD failure was a disaster because I had not properly backed up at the time. In the cased of the standard drive, data was recoverable for a small fee.

The ticking time bomb bit is a laughable exaggeration. Once again older tech is suddenly judged as horrifically inadequate against the new stuff and that's just silly. I was watching animatics at an effects house last week (they do work for Pixar) and they are using older Macs with spinning drives right along side the new stuff. I have a feeling the faster new Machines will be just fine!

And again...MUCH more value if you max out processor, memory, graphics and get a larger superior SSD a bit later. SSD tech is moving faster than the machines themselves.


R.

 

[robeddie]

And, as was pointed out by my friend who owns both versions of these machines, many folks will get the 2TB fusion and come to realize that it's just fine. Maybe they won't ever upgrade or upgrade in 3-5 years and get a MUCH better value out of the machine overall.

Based on current trends, a 2TB or 3TB internal SSD will be about 200-300 bucks in 24-30 months. It may be an even faster drive.

I'd MUCH rather upgrade to that than spend more money on a tiny drive today. It's pretty simple math UNLESS you absolutely know you need the SSD now. Based on what read here, I feel most users have no idea at all.

R.

Agreed! Buying an iMac now with a fusion drive, but with an eye on updating that to an SSD in a couple years is an excellent idea.

Personally, I put a 2TB crucial SSD into my 2017 iMac a couple weeks ago. The price was $549, which for me, was tolerable. So in my case, in a couple years when the 4tb SSD's are that price, I'll upgrade to that.

The great thing about these newest iMacs is that they still use standard size SATA drives, there's no temp sensor to complicate things, and the upgrade really isn't all that hard.