Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

iMac late 2015 - HDD vs SDD

petergood

macrumors newbie
Original poster
May 20, 2016
1
0
Hello,
In a few weeks I`m planning to buy my first ever Mac computer, the 27 inch 5k iMac. My main concern is the disc - should I get the HDD or SSD version? I know that the SSD is much faster, but will it actually affect performance apart from faster boot speeds/some apps loading faster etc? And if it does, then how big is the impact? I`m not looking for read/write speeds, I know that the HDD has much lower i/o speeds - I want to know exactly how it will affect my experience with the computer.
 

redheeler

macrumors 604
Oct 17, 2014
7,663
7,513
Get one with the SSD or Fusion drive. It does make a noticeable difference with general system performance.
 
Comment

rworne

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2002
572
45
Los Angeles
Hello,
In a few weeks I`m planning to buy my first ever Mac computer, the 27 inch 5k iMac. My main concern is the disc - should I get the HDD or SSD version? I know that the SSD is much faster, but will it actually affect performance apart from faster boot speeds/some apps loading faster etc? And if it does, then how big is the impact? I`m not looking for read/write speeds, I know that the HDD has much lower i/o speeds - I want to know exactly how it will affect my experience with the computer.

Here's a tidbit:

! have a late 2013 iMac with a Fusion drive. In most respects, it's just as fast as an SSD-based computer for everyday use. A couple of days ago, the HDD started to generate bad clusters and I had to revert to a clone backup on a Thunderbolt-based HDD, which should be just as fast as a non-Fusion, non-SSD, iMac.

Considerable difference in performance, especially watching it boot up.

The only drawback I see with Fusion drives is that it's more complex - and with two pieces of critical hardware, your chances of a failure go up. In my case, it happened to me. I just got lucky and caught it in time and brought it in. Where, by the way, Apple has the most hilarious test software:

IMG_0866.jpg
 
Comment

Pakaku

macrumors 68020
Aug 29, 2009
2,305
2,471
The only drawback I see with Fusion drives is that it's more complex - and with two pieces of critical hardware, your chances of a failure go up. In my case, it happened to me. I just got lucky and caught it in time and brought it in.
SSDs are pretty unlikely to fail as far as I know, so it's really just one part (the platter drive) you have to worry about.
 
Comment

rworne

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2002
572
45
Los Angeles
SSDs are pretty unlikely to fail as far as I know, so it's really just one part (the platter drive) you have to worry about.

With my experience with other flash based memory, any failure is likely to be catastrophic - though I have yet to suffer a failure of an SSD. I've been able to coax a lot of data off of failing platter drives. I do agree that an SSD will likely outlast an HDD - and in certain applications like laptops, they are a no-brainer.

Any new machines I purchase in the future will be SSD based. My 2012 rMBP sold me on that.
 
Comment

ivantwilliams

Cancelled
Nov 30, 2014
2,060
1,388
...just this week, I bought an iMac. And, this is coming from someone that has never owned a Mac. I bought the 27", cheaper model, with the SATA 1TB drive. I was under the impression with the extra processing power, up from a MacBook Pro (I bought that last week), it would help.

As soon as I powered it on, I noticed how s l o w the iMac was. I got an SSD from work, and used an enclosure, closed the OS from the 1TB drive, and used the SSD as a the default drive. Talk about night and day, or Apples to Oranges.

Get it with SSD, even more so 'for the future'. To give you an example:
Boot with SSD = 27.36 seconds
Boot with 1TB SATA = 34.22
Opening Outlook 2016, with SSD = 5.0
Opening Outlook 2016, with 1TB SATA = 8.63

I know you weren't looking for 'stats', but...
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.