New 27” iMac 2TB Fusion Drive

[robeddie]

the 2017 imac is simply fast – fusion drive or not.
you can upgrade later if you wish to do so and the costs of TB SSDs have gone down.

don't worry, really.

Bingo. The upgrade process isnt that hard. I did it on my own 2017 iMac.

In your case, after you've had the iMac for a year or two, then consider doing the upgrade. Then, just when the system is starting to feel a little 'aged' you'll be breathing new life into it.

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

We have all been saying for eight or nine years now SSD and TB drives will fall in price.

That is not the way the capitalist system works alas. I fear it is a pipe dream.

 

[robeddie]

We have all been saying for eight or nine years now SSD and TB drives will fall in price.

That is not the way the capitalist system works alas. I fear it is a pipe dream.

What an odd starement.
A 1tb SSD was around $1500 in 2011 (6 years ago - since numbers dont seem to be your 'thing') Now they're under $300.
Does that not count as a major price drop to you?

 

[CaptRB]

What an odd starement.
A 1tb SSD was around $1500 in 2011 (6 years ago - since numbers dont seem to be your 'thing') Now they're under $300.
Does that not count as a major price drop to you?

Yeah...not only that, but the SSDs are FAR better than they were. I have the small 512 SSD, in my desktop and MacBook Air, but the new iMac will get a new SSD down the road. I expect superior 2TB SSD's to be under 500.00 in roughly two years.

Every video editor I know told me to optimize CPU and worry about drives AS REQUIRED. Smart tip. I got the i7, 580, 24GB RAM and the 512 SSD, with external SSD as well. This is the logical way to build the system. You don't start with the lower-end processor.



R.

 

[kschendel]

I think you are way overstating the case for always upgrading to the fastest CPU. Not everyone is a video editor. You have to balance CPU and I/O or you're wasting your money and not making the machine significantly faster. When I upgraded my 2009 Mac Pro, the speedup was almost exactly divided in half between CPU and SSD (I did the two separately). Some workloads, like mine, are I/O intensive, not necessarily CPU intensive.

We're not going to see under-$500 2Tb SSD until flash production catches up with demand. Two years, maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[tn-xyz]

We're not going to see under-$500 2Tb SSD until flash production catches up with demand. Two years, maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.

crucial and sandisk sell one for $550 already. it won't take 2 years.

 

[CaptRB]

I think you are way overstating the case for always upgrading to the fastest CPU. Not everyone is a video editor. You have to balance CPU and I/O or you're wasting your money and not making the machine significantly faster. When I upgraded my 2009 Mac Pro, the speedup was almost exactly divided in half between CPU and SSD (I did the two separately). Some workloads, like mine, are I/O intensive, not necessarily CPU intensive.

We're not going to see under-$500 2Tb SSD until flash production catches up with demand. Two years, maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.

I'm not in the least overstating this. Even Photoshop Elements (a somewhat stripped down version of PS) runs better on the i7. Games play better. If you have more apps open, the i7 is better. There's really not a whole lot that doesn't benefit from a faster CPU. It's the SSD that has the lesser impact and this has even been reported by folks editing video, who reported that the SSD impact was not as significant as the CPU. This is based on the 2 TB FD with does have a fairly fast operation via the 128GB SSD that's built in. But even the 1TB FD drive on my son's new iMac is very capable.

I'm rather stunned that people are walking around thinking that the superior i7 is not worth the relatively small extra charge, while the SSD is something you can add, improve and build upon.

If you want a long happy lifespan from your new iMac, the i7 is a better choice. Looking back at other threads, there's zero logic (and clearly less comparative experience) being shown. so we have a bunch of folks who made the i5 mistake and are actually trying to get others to make the same mistake.

Video, photography, illustration, publishing, games, multi app usage, and MOST applications short of MS Word will run better with the i7.


R.

 

[kschendel]

Video, photography, illustration, publishing, games, multi app usage, and MOST applications short of MS Word will run better with the i7.

I guess what I'm saying is that for the iMac users that DON'T do any of those things, but DO mostly or exclusively do email, web browsing, and office apps, the i7 is a waste of money, and the SSD will have more of an impact. I strongly suspect that such users are a significant fraction of the total iMac population, and might even be a majority.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone with nontrivial needs from moving up to the i7. I just think that there are plenty of users for which it's a waste of money. That would certainly be the case for our iMac, which is basically an office machine, and I really don't think we are all that unusual.

 

[robeddie]

I guess what I'm saying is that for the iMac users that DON'T do any of those things, but DO mostly or exclusively do email, web browsing, and office apps, the i7 is a waste of money, and the SSD will have more of an impact. I strongly suspect that such users are a significant fraction of the total iMac population, and might even be a majority.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone with nontrivial needs from moving up to the i7. I just think that there are plenty of users for which it's a waste of money. That would certainly be the case for our iMac, which is basically an office machine, and I really don't think we are all that unusual.

Also, the hyperthreading of the i7 gives you at BEST about a 20% advantage over a same clocked i5. And that's assuming your software fully leverages all the hyperthreading (not likely). Additionally, the i7 creates more heat, and uses more power.

Even with Premiere Pro, the bigger deal is having a video card that can leverage the GPU acceleration aspects, not the small gain from having an i7.

So I'll stick with my i5. Thanks.

 

[CaptRB]

I guess what I'm saying is that for the iMac users that DON'T do any of those things, but DO mostly or exclusively do email, web browsing, and office apps, the i7 is a waste of money, and the SSD will have more of an impact. I strongly suspect that such users are a significant fraction of the total iMac population, and might even be a majority.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone with nontrivial needs from moving up to the i7. I just think that there are plenty of users for which it's a waste of money. That would certainly be the case for our iMac, which is basically an office machine, and I really don't think we are all that unusual.

For that usage, a Mac mini or Air with a monitor makes perfect sense.


R.

 

[kschendel]

For that usage, a Mac mini or Air with a monitor makes perfect sense.
R.

Agreed. Except when "all in one" is part of the equation, which is going to be another frequent buying criterion for this class of user: family iMac's, generic office iMacs. Apple offers multiple models for a reason... (their configuration selections are sometimes a bit weird, but that's another thread.)

 

[CaptRB]

Agreed. Except when "all in one" is part of the equation, which is going to be another frequent buying criterion for this class of user: family iMac's, generic office iMacs. Apple offers multiple models for a reason... (their configuration selections are sometimes a bit weird, but that's another thread.)

I agree and the iMac form factor is key in its success.

My point, which is inarguable, is that an i7 machine will have greater speed and longevity vs. an i5. PERIOD.

The nonsense about drives isn't important because they are UPGRADEABLE. In two years or less I'll pop out the 512 SSD and swap in and even faster 2TB SSD and I won't be stuck with an i5 machine. The i7 power/speed will last longer in ANY usage envelope. This has always been the case and it has not changed.

If the i7 was a hugely expensive upgrade, I'd see some logic in skipping it. But it's not. 15-25% speed increase is a LOT and with many apps it's visible all of the time.

Again, i5 users are defending an inferior choice. It's like the guy who says not to get the 392 engine in his Challenger because the 5.7 is fast enough for his needs and he saves 1 MPG. But everything about the bigger engine is better right down to resale. Macs are no different. Always MAX out non-upgradeable hardware.



R.

 

[tn-xyz]

Always MAX out non-upgradeable hardware.

i couldn't have said it better.
it should be the mantra for every new apple product you buy when these days most components are soldered.

 

[kschendel]

We're using different metrics. You're talking about speed and longevity. I'm talking about value. If a machine is fast enough for the uses it's going to be put to for its lifetime, and there is no intention of selling it while it retains any value, making the machine faster is a waste of money. Likewise, your example Challenger with the 5.7, if fast enough, and if there is no intent to resell, is the better VALUE for that user.

Your arguments are often applicable. But you keep saying ALWAYS, and I'm trying to get through to you that it's NOT ALWAYS.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I agree and the iMac form factor is key in its success.

My point, which is inarguable, is that an i7 machine will have greater speed and longevity vs. an i5. PERIOD.

The nonsense about drives isn't important because they are UPGRADEABLE. In two years or less I'll pop out the 512 SSD and swap in and even faster 2TB SSD and I won't be stuck with an i5 machine. The i7 power/speed will last longer in ANY usage envelope. This has always been the case and it has not changed.

If the i7 was a hugely expensive upgrade, I'd see some logic in skipping it. But it's not. 15-25% speed increase is a LOT and with many apps it's visible all of the time.

Again, i5 users are defending an inferior choice. It's like the guy who says not to get the 392 engine in his Challenger because the 5.7 is fast enough for his needs and he saves 1 MPG. But everything about the bigger engine is better right down to resale. Macs are no different. Always MAX out non-upgradeable hardware.



R.

Your point, which you keep constructing as fact, is merely opinion and is certainly arguable.

There is nothing inferior about the i5 model. Just because you want to label it as such, doesn't make the label accurate or objective.

I agree with several others. There are some people who don't do the kind of daily work you do. As such, there is really no need for the i7 model.

As to longevity, that too is not written in Apple stone. The i5 can run the same applications the i7 can. And depending on the app and individual use and needs, the i5 may (or may not) be slower in completing the same task(s) as the i7.

Touting the i7 buy option to people here, as some kind of guarantee to longevity is not accurate. Either model can have an intermittent, individual hardware problem, or manufacturing defect. And having the i7 (in and of itself) does not guarantee one more money on resale.

I have no problem with you enjoying your new i7. However, I do have a problem with you making a point to constantly bash us i5 owners as having an inferior product, or trying to manipulate prospective buyers of the i5 to see a bad product that isn't there, compared to your pedestal placed i7.

 

[robeddie]

Your point, which you keep constructing as fact, is merely opinion and is certainly arguable.

There is nothing inferior about the i5 model. Just because you want to label it as such, doesn't make the label accurate or objective.

I agree with several others. There are some people who don't do the kind of daily work you do. As such, there is really no need for the i7 model.

As to longevity, that too is not written in Apple stone. The i5 can run the same applications the i7 can. And depending on the app and individual use and needs, the i5 may (or may not) be slower in completing the same task(s) as the i7.

Touting the i7 buy option to people here, as some kind of guarantee to longevity is not accurate. Either model can have an intermittent, individual hardware problem, or manufacturing defect. And having the i7 (in and of itself) does not guarantee one more money on resale.

I have no problem with you enjoying your new i7. However, I do have a problem with you making a point to constantly bash us i5 owners as having an inferior product, or trying to manipulate prospective buyers of the i5 to see a bad product that isn't there, compared to your pedestal placed i7.

Well said. This i7 fanboyism here far exceeds the justification for it. The advantages of byperthreading are mild, and few programs actually leverage much or any of it

 

[CaptRB]

i couldn't have said it better.
it should be the mantra for every new apple product you buy when these days most components are soldered.

Hey, man....yup....I try to get this through to people. And look at the responses. Total denial and lack of knowledge.

I'll put it in simple terms. In 2011 through 2015 my friend ordered hundreds of iMacs and MBP units for the NY Board of Education. Some were put into classroom usage and others were for staff. The buying process is ongoing of course.

It's now 2017 and virtually every i5 machine has been replaced with i7's. As she explained, by the end of 3-4 year cycles, the i7 units were just much more capable and the i5's are retired a year or two earlier. Now they ONLY buy i7 machines.

I've got the new i5 and i7 under the same roof. The CPU matters. So does the drive, but you can address that at any point you like. Sorry i5 users, I don't agree with the idea that the i5 represents much value against a the i7. Not in the least.


R.

 

[mar58]

Really glad to see some other opinions on this i7 is superior to an i5 B.S. I just don't understand how others can preach to so many different folks, with so many different needs in a computer, as to which one is the right or wrong. Totally depends on what one is willing to compromise. I mean I choose to drive a Toyota, does the same exact thing as a Porsche, rolls down the road getting me where I need to go. Maybe not as fast, although neither can really go to much over the speed limit without consiquences, maybe not as flashy, but I eventually get there. Never considered that anyone could care less. I'm ecstatic that others are over the top delighted with their iMac choice but know what.....so am I. As I stated in another thread, I spent almost three months pouring over every blog, video, review, etc., trying to decide what was the best configuration for MY use. Never considered video editing or anything else that might require hyper threading, etc., as I never do those things. In fact I never even worried about anyone else's approval or having any kind of bragging rights. I've always, in the past, maxed out pretty much every computer I've ever purchased and never felt like I was ever using all those upgrades, that I paid good money for, to their fullest. I Did however want this incredible 5K screen. So what if it takes an extra 10/15/20 seconds for a photo to finish up an edit I'm working on. I'm usually enjoying whatever Cabernet I've chosen to partake of as I work anyway so why be in a hurry. I'm just an amateur enjoying his hobby at a leisurely pace. This particular configuration iMac that I chose is still the fastest computer I've ever enjoyed. For what it's worth, and I really, really, hate to go here, but I can afford any configuration I want, and have several other Macs that I use, so no I'm not in the least trying to justify ANY decision(s) I make. I actually WANTED the 3.5 i5, the sixty whatever watt processor, the less power consuming, less heat producing, less fan revving model. I really think one would be surprised at the abilities of this model although I will, and do, admit that the SSD is a must. That was the one thing I wasn't going to compromise on. Just enjoy whatever you decided was right for you and be happy that all the others with different needs are enjoying theirs. Thanks for listening.

 

[robeddie]

Hey, man....yup....I try to get this through to people. And look at the responses. Total denial and lack of knowledge.

I'll put it in simple terms. In 2011 through 2015 my friend ordered hundreds of iMacs and MBP units for the NY Board of Education. Some were put into classroom usage and others were for staff. The buying process is ongoing of course.

It's now 2017 and virtually every i5 machine has been replaced with i7's. As she explained, by the end of 3-4 year cycles, the i7 units were just much more capable and the i5's are retired a year or two earlier. Now they ONLY buy i7 machines.

I've got the new i5 and i7 under the same roof. The CPU matters. So does the drive, but you can address that at any point you like. Sorry i5 users, I don't agree with the idea that the i5 represents much value against a the i7. Not in the least.


R.

Confimation bias at its best. You just cant stand it that we find an i5 perfectly good. The advantages of the i7 are marginal. But you make up a fake fact about i7's lasting longer.
As if people are selling off their i5 systems because theyre 15% slower in a small munber of rare tasks.
Delusional.

 

[rotlex]

LOL at the i5 vs i7 discussion and arguments in this thread. Seriously? Your already dropping close to 2K for a machine. Why in the name of anything would you not just spend another $200 or so to get the best proc available at the time? Makes zero sense not to.

 

[CaptRB]

Confimation bias at its best. You just cant stand it that we find an i5 perfectly good. The advantages of the i7 are marginal. But you make up a fake fact about i7's lasting longer.
As if people are selling off their i5 systems because theyre 15% slower in a small munber of rare tasks.
Delusional.

Dude...it's your money. Spend it as you please or don't.

Here's the crazy logic:

GET THE SSD because it will make SOME apps run better/faster.

DON'T GET THE i7 because it will make ALL apps run better/faster.

That makes a LOT of sense! LOL. Every test shows the i7 outrunning the i5. Let's stop pretending that no one here is running photoshop and FDX or number crunching apps or video games. They are COMMON usages that are aided by the i7.

And yeah, my friend in NY works for the Board of Ed and orders systems for several Brooklyn schools. It was with her help that I tackled Apple over the Touchbar keyboard problems as they has returned nearly a 3rd of the laptops with bad keyboards.

Yeah, if your usage is very light (and will stay that way), the i5 might not matter. But on average the i7 will be a better choice because it's better to HAVE the power when needed than NOT.



R.
[doublepost=1506645424][/doublepost]

LOL at the i5 vs i7 discussion and arguments in this thread. Seriously? Your already dropping close to 2K for a machine. Why in the name of anything would you not just spend another $200 or so to get the best proc available at the time? Makes zero sense not to.

Actually...it makes zero point zero sense!

I was talking to a guy at the Genius Bar two weeks ago. His favorite buyers are the ones who spend for the top machine, then cheap out on the processor. Crazy sauce.

Actually I DID cheap out with the 512 SSD (got it for free actually), but I knew I'd want a better SSD soon, so it was a silly purchase now as I can add later. 512 TB with external SSD.

My 27" 5K i7 with the 580 and 24 GB RAM is insanely fast and a joy to use. My 13-year-old's 27" 5K i5 does everything nicely, but always a bit slower regardless of the app. I get him an i7 machine in a few years.



R.

 

[jeffbax]

Sorry, but this just shows how little you know...follow the bouncing ball...

1) i7 is the top processor and substantially and VISIBLY faster on many apps.
2) i5 is slower than i7 and few will try to upgrade their CPU.
3) SSD is ONLY faster on apps that make significants use of the drive. With a proper amount of RAM, drive usage is minimal much of the time.
4) I just watched my friend do a SSD install on a new Mac and it's easy, assuming you know how. This is a very easy upgrade, so you're NOT STUCK with the drive.

IF the fusion drive slows you down, it can be corrected with a faster drive. But you're STUCK with the i5 processor. Upgrade the items NOW that you CAN'T upgrade later!

My son has the new i5, but it's clearly slower. The drive is not the issue because I've worked with the top level i5 with a 1 TB SSD and it was slower as well, even against the i7 with the 2TB FD.

This silliness about choosing the SSD over a faster processor is BAD INFO. I think people with remorse over choosing the i5 are the main storytellers on this issue. 200 or 300 bucks to get the i7 is a "crazy if you don't" upgrade, especially with folks here planning to get some longevity out of these machines.

Skipping the i7 is a mistake. You can always change the drives. I have the top level i7 machine with the SSD, but even I plan to swap it out for a better/faster version in a year or two.



R.

Well, for one I'm a professional software engineer so think I know a thing or two about computers.

Yes, for certain applications/actions, the i7 will be faster -- but an i7 with a spinning disk will be universally slower in the vast majority of cases of using a computer. File transfers, boot times, that tiny little seek that will happen if you try to play a song that isn't cached on the solid state part of the fusion drive.

Every computer is so fast, that there's no single overall performance boost that will match what going from a non-SSD to an SSD will do. For many, its like getting an entirely new computer.

Do what you want, but if I had to choose between spending $2-300 on an i5 -> i7 or a magnetic disk -> SSD it would be silly to skip the SSD which improves so much more.

Will an encode on a large movie take longer? It probably depends a lot, perhaps if the encoding is still slower than the magnetic drives throughput it could be, but the throughput of an SSD overall for actions large and small are generally going to be much much faster overall.

 

[CaptRB]

Well, for one I'm a professional software engineer so think I know a thing or two about computers.

Yes, for certain applications/actions, the i7 will be faster -- but an i7 with a spinning disk will be universally slower in the vast majority of cases of using a computer. File transfers, boot times, that tiny little seek that will happen if you try to play a song that isn't cached on the solid state part of the fusion drive.

Every computer is so fast, that there's no single overall performance boost that will match what going from a non-SSD to an SSD will do. For many, its like getting an entirely new computer.

Do what you want, but if I had to choose between spending $2-300 on an i5 -> i7 or a magnetic disk -> SSD it would be silly to skip the SSD which improves so much more.

Will an encode on a large movie take longer? It probably depends a lot, perhaps if the encoding is still slower than the magnetic drives throughput it could be, but the throughput of an SSD overall for actions large and small are generally going to be much much faster overall.

It's rather stunning that people can't absorb a simple fact.

You don't CHOOSE between the SSD and the i7.

You CHOOSE the i7 and add the SSD at your leisure.

YOU CAN'T DO IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

And a 2TB FD is NOT slow. It may be slower than a pure SSD, but most of the time there's no difference. I had/have BOTH.

They shoot horses, don't they?


R.

 

[robeddie]

It's rather stunning that people can't absorb a simple fact.

You don't CHOOSE between the SSD and the i7.

You CHOOSE the i7 and add the SSD at your leisure.

YOU CAN'T DO IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

And a 2TB FD is NOT slow. It may be slower than a pure SSD, but most of the time there's no difference. I had/have BOTH.

They shoot horses, don't they?


R.

We just feel like your making way too big a deal about a performance gain thats moderate at best (15-20%) and in real world usage rarely leveraged to its full 20%, if at all.
Youre acting as if bumping up to an i7 is some kind of holy godsend. Its not even close.

 

[CaptRB]

We just feel like your making way too big a deal about a performance gain thats moderate at best (15-20%) and in real world usage rarely leveraged to its full 20%, if at all.
Youre acting as if bumping up to an i7 is some kind of holy godsend. Its not even close.

On average processors see speed bumps of 8-10% every two years.

So going to an i7 could buy you two extra years of very competitive performance, not to mention the better performing machine out of the gate.

You keep ignoring the fact that I have the new i5 and i7 machines right here. Both are great machines, but the i7 is clearly superior. That doesn't make the i5 a bad machine, just not as good.

I don't understand the premise of not buying the better machine, unless there's a serious budget limitation. When it comes to ANY level of future proofing, buying the lower end stuff is rarely the best way to go.


R.