iMac refresh 2013. Larger SSD for fusion?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by TwoBytes, Apr 13, 2013.

  1. TwoBytes macrumors 68020

    TwoBytes

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #1
    So we currently have a 256SSD. My iPhoto library is 100GB! Do you think apple will include a larger SSD in the refresh? Maybe a 500GB one? I wouldn't imagine a 750GB one as that would make the SSD only option redundant
     
  2. Nuke61 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #2
    Yes

    No. I think what Apple will do is double the SSD size and keep the price the same.
     
  3. TRAV9614 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    #3
    Did they update it from a 128 to 256?
     
  4. mushroomtip macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    #4
    no ! I believe he means , he personally has a computer with 256 GB
     
  5. luffytubby macrumors 6502a

    luffytubby

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    #5
    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!
     
  6. Nuke61 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #6
    Yes, that's good, but it's actually much better than that for anyone who needs/wants large SSDs: 960GB for $599
     
  7. TwoBytes thread starter macrumors 68020

    TwoBytes

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #7
    Great replies here. My mistake, the SSD portion of the fusion drive is only 128GB. That's disappointing. Prices change so rapidly.
     
  8. phoenixsan macrumors 65816

    phoenixsan

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    #8
    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.

    :):apple:
     
  9. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    I am just hoping there is a 2TB option by 2014 or 2015. That is when I'll replace my 2012 w/768.

    /Jim
     
  10. Outrigger macrumors 68000

    Outrigger

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    #10
    a 500GB for fusion? I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen, certainly not in the next couple of refreshes.
     
  11. toddzrx macrumors 6502a

    toddzrx

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    #11
    I'd be surprised to see an increase in memory size for the SSD portion of the Fusion drive in the next refresh. My money's on the one after next.
     
  12. luffytubby macrumors 6502a

    luffytubby

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    #12
    man thats an awesome deal.
     
  13. RoastingPig macrumors 68000

    RoastingPig

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
  14. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #14
    No chance. Quote me on that in 3 months.
     
  15. RoastingPig macrumors 68000

    RoastingPig

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
    #15
    450$ in 4
     
  16. Mike in Kansas macrumors 6502a

    Mike in Kansas

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #16
    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....
     
  17. lulla01 macrumors 68020

    lulla01

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    U.S
    #17
    How much does flash storage cost to produce in comparison to HDD?
     
  18. steinercat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
  19. TwoBytes thread starter macrumors 68020

    TwoBytes

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #19
    Shame today's update didn't make the fusion portion 512GB.
     
  20. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #20
    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
     
  21. Mike in Kansas macrumors 6502a

    Mike in Kansas

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #21
    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.
     
  22. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #22
    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
     
  23. elresleff macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 22, 2013
    #23
    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
     
  24. Mike in Kansas macrumors 6502a

    Mike in Kansas

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #24
    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!
     
  25. eduardrw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page