iMac with 5K Display Update?!

[andy9l]

I must admit I don't know how to make one bootable disk with my system and my datas in one opeation with the external storage option

Sorry, I don't follow? You just set it in TM settings?

And I just don't wan't to buy a +3K computer with the capacity of computers that were sold 10 years ago. If Apple offer the FD as an option, I'm sure that it fits the need of some people better than a (very) small SSD... Or the (very) expensive 1TB.

I don't mean this to come across rude - but you're thinking 10 years ago too! External and network storage is much, much more broadly used now, and much faster.

and the heat argument, it's very funny... A HDD consume less than 10W nowaday, the 295 GPU it's more than 100W...

Yep, so an increase of 10% in the iMac.

Like I said, I can hear my Seagate spinning in my external Lacie drive, but I can't hear the HDD in the iMac, just because the noise is more contained in the iMac chassis.

Ah, I assumed you meant an Apple TM.

And yes, an external SSD is silent, but very expensive if you wan't big capacity. I have 3TB in my machine (I love my FD!!), if I wan't that on an external SSD volume, it's not just 40$ like you said

We can't really compare an external SSD against your Fusion drive, though. The SSD would blow it out the water, and thus you pay a price. I do get your point, though.

Wow man. Some people DON'T want external hard drives, yet you keep arguing your point like it works for everyone. Network storage?? Just no.

Thanks for the insight. Many others in the thread have also commented on the obvious choice of an SSD.

For your reference:

Network storage = 162MB/s
Fusion drive HDD = ~180MB/s (last benchmark I can find is actually 80MB/s, but 5400rpm)

 

[nj-mac-user]

It would work for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's preferred by everyone.

Lol, wow.

 

[AppleFan360]

Wow man. Some people DON'T want external hard drives, yet you keep arguing your point like it works for everyone.

Perfectly said!

Still no tangible advantages to a Fusion drive.

Just let it go man.

 

[Alesc]

Sorry, I don't follow? You just set it in TM settings?

No, I use a software called Carbon Copy Cloner, to make an encrypted bootable drive with all my datas and my up to date system in one click.

I don't mean this to come across rude - but you're thinking 10 years ago too! External and network storage is much, much more broadly used now, and much faster.

I don't wan't external or network storage, even if it's trendy.

Yep, so an increase of 10% in the iMac.

The R295 is not the iMac, just the GPU.
A rImac can consume 288w, the Seagate is 8W when it is working (5 W idling). I'm very sad but my Fusion Drive won't help me to save on my heating fees

 

[andy9l]

No, I use a software called Carbon Copy Cloner, to make an encrypted bootable drive with all my datas and my up to date system in one click.

Ok, part of CCC functionality too.

I don't wan't external or network storage, even if it's trendy.

Macro trends don't happen based on what's "trendy", they happen based on what's beneficial. You know that.

The R295 is not the iMac, just the GPU.

Indeed not, it was simply an example based on the figures you gave me. Again, we're talking facts here, not subjective comments. Your Fusion drive causes more heat inside your iMac.

 

[Alesc]

Ok, part of CCC functionality too.



Macro trends don't happen based on what's "trendy", they happen based on what's beneficial. You know that.



Indeed not, it was simply an example based on the figures you gave me. Again, we're talking facts here, not subjective comments. Your Fusion drive causes more heat inside your iMac.

Fact: my iMac temps are not a problem (cooler than the rImac with the 295 and no HDD).

 

[andy9l]

Fact: my iMac temps are not a problem (cooler than the rImac with the 295 and no HDD).

That's not what I said, nor suggested.

Trust me - I know how hot a M295X iMac gets

 

[steve62388]

For your reference:

Network storage = 162MB/s
Fusion drive HDD = ~180MB/s (last benchmark I can find is actually 80MB/s, but 5400rpm)

How are you getting that speed on network storage, do you mean an external drive?

 

[Mraj01]

How are you liking you r-iMac? I am basically going to be going to a similar config. 4.0 / 4Gb Video / will buy a crucial 32GB ram Kit going to stay with the 1TB fusion drive though.

Yes I like it. But just bought a 16 Go ram kit from Crucial, and since I put this next to the original Apple 8 Go, the iMac has the SleepWake problem.
I removed the kit, it works fine again... the problem is that the machine really needs more than 8Go to work fine.

The 5k retina screen is a killer. Even for text work, not only for photo or video work.

 

[andy9l]

iMac with 5K Display Update?!

How are you getting that speed on network storage, do you mean an external drive?

No, an external drive would be anywhere up to 1.1GB/s-1.3GB/s (1100MB/s - 1300MB/s). But you pay a price for that. More typical external SSD speeds would be 380-400MB/s, limited by USB 3/Thunderbolt 1 interface.

Network storage is limited by the common wireless AC transfer rate of ~1.3Gb/s. 1300Mb/s is roughly equivalent to 160MB/s (divide by 8). That's what I based my number on.

By the way, my 1.3Gb transfer rate is actually a bit harsh. I was being realistic. In theory, that number could be as fast as 7Gb/s. I originally said the 1.3Gb network speed is only going to get faster, whilst the Fusion drives are only going to feel exponentially slower, relative to the new tech coming out.

 

[steve62388]

No, an external drive would be anywhere up to 1.1GB/s-1.3GB/s (1100MB/s - 1300MB/s). But you pay a price for that. More typical external SSD speeds would be 380-400MB/s, limited by USB 3/Thunderbolt 1 interface.

Network storage is limited by the common wireless AC transfer rate of ~1.3Gb/s. 1300Mb/s is roughly equivalent to 160MB/s (divide by 8). That's what I based my number on.

By the way, my 1.3Gb transfer rate is actually a bit harsh. I was being realistic. In theory, that number could be as fast as 7Gb/s. I originally said the 1.3Gb network speed is only going to get faster, whilst the Fusion drives are only going to feel exponentially slower, relative to the new tech coming out.

Oh right. That's what I wondered, because you were talking about realistic home situations and how people could set up their storage.

The vast majority of home users will never get anywhere near these transfer rates over wireless for all sorts of reasons. I'm only one guy but have been mucking about with home networks for a number of years and have never got anywhere near max rated speeds over wifi. It seems most people accept these limitations.

 

[andy9l]

Oh right. That's what I wondered, because you were talking about realistic home situations and how people could set up their storage.

The vast majority of home users will never get anywhere near these transfer rates over wireless for all sorts of reasons. I'm only one guy but have been mucking about with home networks for a number of years and have never got anywhere near max rated speeds over wifi. It seems most people accept these limitations.

My current connection speed is 300Mb/s, and never dips below that. That is because my current 2010 iMac does not support AC, so it's sticking to the lower band.

Whilst I had my Retina iMac, my transfer rate seemed to fluctuate between 1.18-1.27Gb/s, and I'm sitting on a different floor to the Apple Time Machine - probably about 15-20 metres away diagonally through walls and floors. When I set up my iMac in the room next to the router, it was a consistent 1.27Gb/s. Of course, I'm relying on OS X to be reporting correctly with these figures.

Reason I know these figures is because I bought the Apple TM at the same time as the 5K iMac and was intrigued to see performance gained over the BT Homehub 3. The TM is a brilliant piece of kit, old as it might be.

Three years ago I would have agreed with you, but today I personally believe it's quite easy to achieve advertised speeds within a regular household. There are a lot of variables though, I'll give you that!

 

[Alesc]

Any solution of external storage faster than a spinning HDD cost a lot more than the Fusion Drive solution. For me it is a very good compromise between speed, space and cost. And If I buy a Mac next year, it will have a Fusion Drive in it, unless an affordable +2TB SSD option is proposed.

 

[cynics]

Any solution of external storage faster than a spinning HDD cost a lot more than the Fusion Drive solution. For me it is a very good compromise between speed, space and cost. And If I buy a Mac next year, it will have a Fusion Drive in it, unless an affordable +2TB SSD option is proposed.

My thoughts exactly except internal SSD would need to be 3+ TB. I don't see an affordable (or at least justifiable) 3+ TB SSD from Apple for a very very very long time.

I end up having drives all over the house for normal storage and TM backups. I can justify the TM connected to my Airport Extreme because it moves it away from the computer and securely hides it. However I'm not a fan of cluttering up my desk with even more drives.

3 TB Fusion is currently the most appealing option Apple offers for me.

 

[tears2040]

Great, you're happy living with it. But that's all subjective and personal to you. That wasn't what we were discussing here.

Fact is, the internal 7200rpm standard-issue HD of your Fusion drive will be the primary bottleneck on your machine for more common tasks (general read/write).

Somebody should give this guy a talk radio show...........

My HD has NOT been a bottleneck in my computer as I have been using it for at least 2 years with any and everything and never had a problem with slowdown, that's not "subjective" that's a FACT. Unless you're the software engineer who designed the "SOFTWARE" used to manage files and constantly swap back and forth to fully understand how "Fusion" drives work you need to reevaluate your opinion....

Also it's Fact my HD is silent and most external HD make noise due to the fan enclosure.

I would recommend any and everyone to save money and buy a fusion drive, you get the SSD speeds for your most used files and all of your files you general don't access gets moved onto the other portion and everything is internal.

My actual "Bottleneck" in my system and yours and really everyone here who has an iMac is the graphics card. Too many times my 2Gb memory runs out and I need to reboot. 4Gb cards are better but still run into these problems which is why the only and main reason I have been considering a Mac Pro.

I remember reading/seeing the use of external GPU via thunderbolt, but honestly have never looked to see what has happened with that technology?

Case in point, I'm done Here

Peace

 

[cain772]

Help buying a new iMac Retina

I need some some on purchasing a new iMac 27” Retina. I would like some advise on what to buy and not to buy. I also would like advise in buying a NAS for my growing collection of pictures, music and movies. This is how I have it configured:

4.0GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.4GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB (I am going to replace it with Crucial 32GB kit in the future
3TB Fusion Drive
AMD Radeon R9 M295X 4GB GDDR5

I have an old iMac from 2008 that is starting to show its age and that is the reason I have this new iMac configured with the latest chip,graphics, and storage. I mostly do web browse and do light photo editing. Any advise will help in this investment that I hope will last me at least 7 years.

Thank you all in advance

 

[andy9l]

iMac with 5K Display Update?!

My HD has NOT been a bottleneck in my computer as I have been using it for at least 2 years with any and everything

Your HD is connected to a SATA 3 6Gb/s, or 750MB/s interface. The spinning HD fails to saturate this, and you lose up to 75% of potential read/write speed due to the limitations of that specific piece of hardware (7200rpm drive).

That is the very definition of a bottleneck. Losing potential due to a single hardware limitation.

Here is a quote from this article:

If you’re trying to move a lot more than the SSD can hold, you will eventually hit a hard drive bottleneck, where the Fusion Drive has to slow down to the speed of the 5400-rpm hard drive.

So, back to our original discussion about users with 700GB or more of data, they will likely spend a chunk of time reading and writing at the speed of the 7200rpm HD. This is because they have way more data than the SSD can store. The Fusion Drive will be frequently moving files between the drives - at the 7200rpm bottleneck speed - unless the user works on the same ~70GB of files repeatedly. Something that was fairly widely agreed is unlikely. They will, in short, experience a frequent bottleneck.

 

[AppleFan360]

Somebody should give this guy a talk radio show.

LOL! Yeah not kidding. Facts seem to not matter to some people but I think these are fact that everyone can agree on:

1. A spinning hard drive is slow compared to an SSD.

2. A pure SSD system is the fastest option.

3. A Fusion drive, while not quite as fast as a pure SSD system, is faster in general than just a spinning hard drive system.

4. Some people prefer not to deal with external hard drives.

5. Some people think that whatever they are using is what everyone else should be using.