I have. I would buy a rMBP with a 2 TB SSD if it existed. Swapping files from internal to external and back is time-consuming and quite error-prone, at least when I do it. And I rely on the files for my income. One computer, all files on a ssd, two backup disks, OSX and free to work wherever I want. Perfect setup for me! I am very happy with it, so buying a 768Gb was smart!! In fact probably the smartest computer-related purchase I have ever done!
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.
Is the 768Gb drive really that stupid?
- Thread starter Yougotcarved
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have. I would buy a rMBP with a 2 TB SSD if it existed. Swapping files from internal to external and back is time-consuming and quite error-prone, at least when I do it. And I rely on the files for my income. One computer, all files on a ssd, two backup disks, OSX and free to work wherever I want. Perfect setup for me! I am very happy with it, so buying a 768Gb was smart!! In fact probably the smartest computer-related purchase I have ever done!
But then you'd have to live with the dramatic trouble of having something attached to your iMac besides the power cord...
(just teasing)
And windows without SSD speed
Are there any programs you like to use that aren't on a Mac? I suppose when I break it down that's my main concern, that I will want a program that doesn't work on a Mac.
For me it might only be very few games, and its been a long time and frankly I don't value this even remotely enough to have them at top speed. I really couldnt care less about a game level loading in 5secs instead of 1. i enjoy some random gaming even on an xbox...I don't know of any other program one would want/need to run on windows at ssd speed, but if there is, maybe it's worth considering having both an iMac and a way more upgradable/flexible/cheaper pc setup.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
But then you'd have to live with the dramatic trouble of having something attached to your iMac besides the power cord...
(just teasing
in my case this would be an awesome compromise, since my MBP 17"2011
has only one TB, could use the lacie for the interim period, and use the MDP throughput to drive my dell monitor!
i think i will wait till jan to buy the lacie 512gb sad drive, as my current hdd has 4gbs left (128gb verterx 3 max ions)
I have also decided to wait till summer before buying an iMac - unless apple magically introduce a silent update with better ssd selection.
In all honestly, i can live without a retina display, and really think touchscreen and siri would be to gimmicky for my personal use - however an affordable 258/512gb ssd as my primary drive is an absolute must!
the 768 Gb SSD can be a very smart move (see previous reply), but buying 16 Gb RAM, now that is really stupid!!
For some of the logic some people are pushing the internal ssd option, one could answer you that it's wise to get the apple ram as you don't want to fiddle with installing ram yourself and having to deal with other vendors...it's all subjective.
Ooh, I was referring to my own stupid decision to buy 16Gb RAM. Using menu meters I have never ever seen my rMBP use more than 6 Gb, meaning that at least 10 Gb is sitting there idle. This is using FCPX and Compressor and Excel and the usual internet stuff at the same time.
And 16 Gb delays the wakeup time after deep sleep from 4 or so to 7 seconds.
Talk about a first world problem!
Ooh, I was referring to my own stupid decision to buy 16Gb RAM. Using menu meters I have never ever seen my rMBP use more than 6 Gb, meaning that at least 10 Gb is sitting there idle. This is using FCPX and Compressor and Excel and the usual internet stuff at the same time.
And 16 Gb delays the wakeup time after deep sleep from 4 or so to 7 seconds.
Talk about a first world problem!
Why does more RAM delay wake up speed?
Personally, I don't think it is. I think that if you really want Windows running on an SSD, you could build a tower and get a cheapo monitor and you'd have a comparable Windows machine (and then some) for the cost of having your 2012 27" iMac be able to boot Windows on an SSD. Not that you necessarily would, but it does put the expense into perspective.
You've almost convinced me. Final question, is loading data from an external thunderbolt SSD going to seem the same speed as an internal one?
Micron/Crucial -- probably M4 model judging from the speeds I'm getting.
See:
http://www.storagereview.com/crucial_m4_ssd_review_256gb
and
http://www.crucial.com/store/m4ProductFlyer.aspx
Thanks! Are you getting that information from System Information, or did you possibly take yours apart?
If you took it apart, did it have the SATA data & power cable in place for the disk drive location? I see no reason for Apple to include that cable on this model, being that there are "no user serviceable parts inside", so adding a drive wouldn't be expected. But it sure would be great if it was in there....
-howard
Tested against the Fusion and it is not faster.
----------
I do.
Are you sure you tested "against the Fusion" and not just against the SSD part of it?
Though the same thing, but, again, NOT so. I've tested. Maybe if both were inside the imac, but TB SSD's are not running quite as fast as the internal SSD's or even Fusion Drives on the new imac. I've done extensive testing. Seems to be a slight bottleneck on the TB controllers currently being used on external TB drives and enclosures.
----------
I'm sure it test the SSD part of it because how else would it run a test? It starts out on the SSD I would assume and only bleeds to the other drive if it runs out of temp disk space needed to run the various test. I ran 4-5 disk i/o testers and geekbench. tests were conclusive and in agreement. The Fusion was faster in all tests than a variety of TB SSD's with a clone of the OS drive.
Given that Thunderbolt has a higher theoretical maximum speed than even 6Gbps SATA (III), your bottleneck will be the SSD drive within the enclosure itself. In short, yes, you will not be able to tell the difference in speed.
You would think that, and so did I, but it has now been established on sites like Annand/Toms etc that there is a TB controller (within the external drive holder) that slows down I/O in varying degrees. The speed difference is really only detectable in benches and not really in daily use, but I have benched some of the fastest drives out there and the results are similar. I was quite surprised.
After having actually used a 3TB fusion drive for a whole day i have to say im even more glad i didn't fork out the $1300 for the all SSD option or go the 1TB fusion option with the slow WD blue HDD. The 3TB fusion drive works incredibly well, better then most people probably realize. I guess the Seagate 7200.14 HDD in it makes a big difference as it is very fast for a platter HDD. 200MB+ transfer seq speeds!