Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac refresh 2013. Larger SSD for fusion?
- Thread starter TwoBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
the flood in thailand put a stop to the lower SSD prices. it made the prices of HDDs go up, and suddenly there was not much incentive to forward push the price down on SSDs. but now, years later things are going up. Crucial is now launching a 480gb SSD for above 500 dollars. this is outstanding. its almost a 1 dollar per gigabyte. this is good. fantastic. 2 more years and it will really begin to look like something!
Yes, that's good, but it's actually much better than that for anyone who needs/wants large SSDs: 960GB for $599
Maybe....
depends how well fare the Fusion machines. Also, how the SSD prices perform, but still, Apple can get a hold or OEM discounts and pass it out to consumers.
depends how well fare the Fusion machines. Also, how the SSD prices perform, but still, Apple can get a hold or OEM discounts and pass it out to consumers.
I am just hoping there is a 2TB option by 2014 or 2015. That is when I'll replace my 2012 w/768.
/Jim
a 500GB for fusion? I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen, certainly not in the next couple of refreshes.
Do you actually USE all 100GB of your library? In other words, are you constantly viewing and working on all of your images all of the time, or just the ones that you recently shot? The beauty of FD is that only the stuff you frequently use stays on the SSD, and the rest gets moved to the HDD (assuming you've filled the SSD up). So only a little bit of your 100GB library will actually be on the SSD; the rest will reside on the HDD unless is gets used frequently, in which case it will then get moved.
It's amazing technology really....
With an application like Aperture... you create "collections" of photos at will from across your entire library. These collections can be based on ratings, geographic locations, keywords, specific people, specific cameras, etc. This is a very common "every day" experience for someone experienced at using Aperture. Hence... if your entire library is not on the SSD (or at least all of your previews and thumbnails)... then you will notice the performance difference when only part of your library is on the SSD portion of fusion.
If you are a casual user... then no big deal. But it is overstating the advantages of Fusion to claim the same experience.
In my personal case... my A3 library is approaching 400GB. By definition... at most 25% of my A3 library could possibly be on the FD. For me... it was worth it to get a 768GB SSD since I am an Aperture enthusiast who would gladly pay for the performance increase of having it all in the SSD. With this setup... Aperture is an "instantaneous" application... all the time. It is wonderful.
BTW: I think fusion is great technology... and I would always recommend it to someone trying to decide fusion vs HDD only (assuming they could afford it). However... full SSD is clearly superior.
/Jim
I"m not sure exactly what your point is, nor why you don't think that a 400GB Aperture library will all fit on a FD array.
"Collections" aren't "real" anyway; they are virtual. You can have your images in as many collections as you want. But they can only be in one project. It's the projects with their associated previews and thumbnails that take up that precious SSD space. But why force all of those previews and thumbnails onto an SSD if you may only routinely use 5% of them? Let the software optimize it. Besides, since FD moves things at the block level vs. file level, that 400GB of Aperture library you have may only need to have a portion of it on the SSD to give a very SSD-like experience.
And I think it's a mute point to claim that an all-SSD setup is superior - of course it is. That was ever being argued. However, when the 768GB SSD upgrade was, what, $1,200, that's a bitter pill to swallow. I wouldn't be able to get all of my files on a 768GB SSD anyway, and that's after running my Aperture Library as referenced and keeping 500GB of masters on an external drive. Besides, I never said that an FD is the "same experience" as an all SSD option. But I also know from experience of going from my referenced Aperture library on an internal SSD to now a FD I see no performance decrease. It's as instantaneous as a 5 year old iMac can be.
Mike,
I think you did miss my point. I know Aperture very well... and know that the collections are virtual. Your point about accessing only 5% of your library is what I take exception with.
While each collection uses only 5% (or likely much less) -- as new collections are created, they are constantly using a different 5% of the Aperture library. Hence, the HDD would be coming into play on every new "cut" through the library.
Realistically... less than 20% of my Aperture library could ever be resident on the 128GB SSD portion of a FD at any given time. Even if I could control (not that I would want to) which blocks were on the FD's SSD... it would constantly be hitting the HDD. For the few hundred dollar increment over a FD... I am happy with my decision. Everything is just a lot faster... even "semi-background tasks" such as "generating new previews for sharing".
Also as I mentioned... I am absolutely NOT anti-FD by any stretch of the imagination. I am constantly recommending FD to most people who come to me for advice on buying a new Mac.
/Jim
Mike,
I noticed in another thread you mention the 2008 iMac can take 6GB RAM... is that the absolute Max? I found your reference while looking at how to upgrade my iMac (same as yours) with an SSD and RAM upgrades.
I would like more info on this... if you care to divulge how you did so. Care to contact me for my email address?
Ed
Ed-
You just put in a 4GB stick and a 2GB stick. RAM is located beneath a little hatch on the bottom of the screen between the speaker grills. Apple states 4GB max, but folks had discovered that you can actually max out at 6GB. They have tested 8GB as well, but the machine doesn't work with 8GB.
Here is a link to OWC, just 1 retailer that sells older Mac RAM. They too indicate that 6GB is the max.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/iMac/Intel_Core_2_Duo_PC2-6400
It's a little pricey compared to RAM for current-day machines, but if you want 6GB you have to pay to play!
Just to give another perspective:
I put a 240GB SSD (OWC Data doubler) in my iMac I7 Late 2009 on top of the 1TB spinning disk.
I have everything on the SSD except the iTunes media (~200GB) and the actual referenced aperture originals (pictures). Still >50GB free on the SSD.
The Aperture library resides on the SSD ~80GB.
When you work with Aperture it accesses the library and only if you want to edit a photo it will go to the spinning disk. (referenced originals)
This gives me a significant speed boost on my iMac! I would bet 99% of the speed of an all SSD setup. And the price of the whole operation was ~ $260.
I have 24GB of RAM to keep large files in memory for applying filters etc.