Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New IMac 27 Inch spec advice needed

A

Ade007

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 5, 2019
1
1
Good evening everyone,
I will be buying a new 27inch imac and I'm thinking of the following specs.
  1. 3.7 6 core i5 processor, 8gb ram to upgrade myself, 580x GPU, 2TB storage or 512GB storage.
  2. 3.6 8 core i9 processor, 8gb ram, 580x GPU, 2TB Fusion or 512GB storage
I'd prefer to stay away from upgrading the GPU to Vega 48 due to the steep price increase. I can use the money saved for memory upgrade and external storage.
It's going to used by the whole family but I will be editing photos in programs like photoshop and lightroom and some video editing. Depending on my configuration, I can save between $500 to $900.

Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jota.garcia
do option 2 with pure SSD storage. the extra cores and i9 are better for future proofing sake. clock speed difference is insignificant. reviews also seem to point out the i9 doesn't have any throttling or noise issues.
 
option 2 was exactly how I ordered mine, but w/ 512 SSD. $2750 shipped.

I debated going w/ the Vega and/or a 1TB SSD, but that pushed the price past $3,200-3,500.

So I'm happy w/ my choice.
 
Ade007 said:
Good evening everyone,
I will be buying a new 27inch imac and I'm thinking of the following specs.
  1. 3.7 6 core i5 processor, 8gb ram to upgrade myself, 580x GPU, 2TB storage or 512GB storage.
  2. 3.6 8 core i9 processor, 8gb ram, 580x GPU, 2TB Fusion or 512GB storage
I'd prefer to stay away from upgrading the GPU to Vega 48 due to the steep price increase. I can use the money saved for memory upgrade and external storage.
It's going to used by the whole family but I will be editing photos in programs like photoshop and lightroom and some video editing. Depending on my configuration, I can save between $500 to $900.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Im going with option 1 with 2tb fusion drive most likely, seems silly to spend extra money for HALF the storage space
 
F23 said:
do option 2 with pure SSD storage. the extra cores and i9 are better for future proofing sake. clock speed difference is insignificant. reviews also seem to point out the i9 doesn't have any throttling or noise issues.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I work in video production and photography, and I'll likely be getting the same model. I'm up in the air on the Vega, but I'm leaning away from it. And I know that it'll be a great machine for me, so I definitely think it'll take care of all of your needs.
 
Benz63amg said:
Why are you so against fusion drives?
Click to expand...

If you search for fusion you'll find many long threads. Most folks on these forums are very down on fusion drives. Main criticisms are they are slower, noisier, generate more heat, and because they have mechanical parts they are intrinsically less reliable. To some extent, all of these criticisms have merit. But keep in mind that most folks on these forums are computer enthusiasts. Typical users don't frequent these forums. Most people who buy iMacs buy the stock configurations with fusion drives and most are very happy with the performance. The 2 & 3 TB fusion drives have 128gb ssds (I wouldn't consider a 1tB fusion which has only 32 GB). The base mac mini has a 128gb SSD. So the fusion does a good keeping most used files on the SSD portion of the fusion drive and they are pretty fast. The pure SSDs have a faster interface, but the fusions are not slow for most daily use. If you start a program that hasn't been used in a long time it may load slowly because it's not on the ssd portion of the drive. My view is that a pure SSD is better. But if you can't afford a pure SSD the 2TB & 3TB fusion drives are well liked by the vast majority of people who have them and who don't read these forums. I can also see solid arguments in favor of a 2 or 3TB fusion than a 256gb SSD. In some ways the later is better but you're going to have keep larger files on external drives.
 
SkiHound2 said:
If you search for fusion you'll find many long threads. Most folks on these forums are very down on fusion drives. Main criticisms are they are slower, noisier, generate more heat, and because they have mechanical parts they are intrinsically less reliable. To some extent, all of these criticisms have merit. But keep in mind that most folks on these forums are computer enthusiasts. Typical users don't frequent these forums. Most people who buy iMacs buy the stock configurations with fusion drives and most are very happy with the performance. The 2 & 3 TB fusion drives have 128gb ssds (I wouldn't consider a 1tB fusion which has only 32 GB). The base mac mini has a 128gb SSD. So the fusion does a good keeping most used files on the SSD portion of the fusion drive and they are pretty fast. The pure SSDs have a faster interface, but the fusions are not slow for most daily use. If you start a program that hasn't been used in a long time it may load slowly because it's not on the ssd portion of the drive. My view is that a pure SSD is better. But if you can't afford a pure SSD the 2TB & 3TB fusion drives are well liked by the vast majority of people who have them and who don't read these forums. I can also see solid arguments in favor of a 2 or 3TB fusion than a 256gb SSD. In some ways the later is better but you're going to have keep larger files on external drives.
Click to expand...

If apple had the pre configured 27 inch 2019 iMac with the 512gb SSD storage option in store id probably buy that but they don't, they only have fusion drive configurations in stores and i wouldn't want to wait 2-3 weeks to get one delivered to me.

The $2299 2019 27 inch iMac with 2TB Fusion drive seems appealing to me much more than the $1799 27 inch with 1TB Fusion. Switching the storage to SSD Costs $300 if configuring on the $1799 Model and costs $100 if configuring the $2299 Model so the $2299 model seems like the better option overall and i might just get it with the 2TB Fusion Drive, i don't see how it could be any worse than the current old school spinning drive that is in my 2011 iMac right now? are the fusion drives LESS reliable than old school spinning drives?

Is there away to TURN OFF the "Smart" feature in Mac OS that is responsible for transferring files back and forth between the SSD and Spinning disc portion?
 
Last edited:
Benz63amg said:
Why are you so against fusion drives?
Click to expand...

A lot of people don't like HDD's due to bad past experience or just their stand alone speed in general. I feel the Fusion Drive is a fairly good compromise if you want internal storage.

While all my computers (even PS4 Pro) have SSD's for the OS to reside on I still have ~30tb of HDD in NAS and back up drives. They are great for situations where there is potentially network bottlenecks, require constant write operations (CCTV, constant back ups, etc) and for data that doesn't need to be accessed fast like viewing media (videos, movies) since read only needs to be a bit faster then playback.

Now that iMacs have TB3 I would just go with 512gb SSD and external storage (SSD or HDD depending on the datas requirements).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Mac Daz
Benz63amg said:
Why are you so against fusion drives?
Click to expand...
I just don’t like spinny drives had to many failures in pc’s , consoles etc and lost data at some point nothing important. Your buying a AIO and the drive is behind the screen so imagine the cost of a failure outside of the warranty. Me personally it be a SSD and use external for any large files
 
Benz63amg said:
If apple had the pre configured 27 inch 2019 iMac with the 512gb SSD storage option in store id probably buy that but they don't, they only have fusion drive configurations in stores and i wouldn't want to wait 2-3 weeks to get one delivered to me.

The $2299 2019 27 inch iMac with 2TB Fusion drive seems appealing to me much more than the $1799 27 inch with 1TB Fusion. Switching the storage to SSD Costs $300 if configuring on the $1799 Model and costs $100 if configuring the $2299 Model so the $2299 model seems like the better option overall and i might just get it with the 2TB Fusion Drive, i don't see how it could be any worse than the current old school spinning drive that is in my 2011 iMac right now? are the fusion drives LESS reliable than old school spinning drives?

Is there away to TURN OFF the "Smart" feature in Mac OS that is responsible for transferring files back and forth between the SSD and Spinning disc portion?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why Apple doesn't offer at least a couple of pre-built iMacs with SSD. If you want an SSD you have to order. Places like B&H do stock other configurations, though my guess is that they won't have stock until the mad early rush to buy is over and product is more readily available. The pricing of the tiers also makes little sense to me. Especially for the mid-tier. Upgrade any storage option on the mid-tier and it's very close to the cost of the i5 9600k / 580x configuration in price. If the lowest tier model had a 2TB fusion at $1799 I think it would be a good option for many. But as I indicated previously, the 1TB fusion would be a non-starter for me because of the very small 32gb SSD. I think I could live with the 2TB. I don't THINK there is any way to turn off the process for transferring files back and forth between the SSD and spinner. I don't know that for a fact, however. It seems to do a pretty good job making those decisions.
 
SkiHound2 said:
I don't understand why Apple doesn't offer at least a couple of pre-built iMacs with SSD. If you want an SSD you have to order. Places like B&H do stock other configurations, though my guess is that they won't have stock until the mad early rush to buy is over and product is more readily available. The pricing of the tiers also makes little sense to me. Especially for the mid-tier. Upgrade any storage option on the mid-tier and it's very close to the cost of the i5 9600k / 580x configuration in price. If the lowest tier model had a 2TB fusion at $1799 I think it would be a good option for many. But as I indicated previously, the 1TB fusion would be a non-starter for me because of the very small 32gb SSD. I think I could live with the 2TB. I don't THINK there is any way to turn off the process for transferring files back and forth between the SSD and spinner. I don't know that for a fact, however. It seems to do a pretty good job making those decisions.
Click to expand...
You can un Fusion them
 
SkiHound2 said:
I don't understand why Apple doesn't offer at least a couple of pre-built iMacs with SSD. If you want an SSD you have to order. Places like B&H do stock other configurations, though my guess is that they won't have stock until the mad early rush to buy is over and product is more readily available. The pricing of the tiers also makes little sense to me. Especially for the mid-tier. Upgrade any storage option on the mid-tier and it's very close to the cost of the i5 9600k / 580x configuration in price. If the lowest tier model had a 2TB fusion at $1799 I think it would be a good option for many. But as I indicated previously, the 1TB fusion would be a non-starter for me because of the very small 32gb SSD. I think I could live with the 2TB. I don't THINK there is any way to turn off the process for transferring files back and forth between the SSD and spinner. I don't know that for a fact, however. It seems to do a pretty good job making those decisions.
Click to expand...

Core storage is incredibly good at making the decision on what lives on the SSD and what moves to the HDD. It can do this on block level increments of data so portions of files can be on the SSD. Using this method it can maximize its storage since you don't need the entire OS, programs or even entire files on the SSD. That is a level of manipulation the user doesn't have access too. However its not psychic, there are situation where the HDD will be leveraged. With a FD I would also recommend a lot of RAM to keep data cached on a Mac that always stays on (if its not unreasonable).

De-fusing the fusion drive used to be a thing, while I've never messed with it I believe it still is. This would give you 2 drives an SSD and HDD.

As far as Apple not including an SSD option in the standard options. Cost from overhead is likely the reason. Options that are expensive for Apple (vs the standard option) are built to order. Building to order dramatically reduces overhead from stock of built systems and parts. Its very difficult to do on a large scale though without assembly taking too long and losing customers.
 
Both the CPU and the GPU BTO are overpriced. I don’t recommend either.

Since you are getting the top model though the 512GB SSD upgrade is a good deal and recommended.
 
cynics said:
As far as Apple not including an SSD option in the standard options. Cost from overhead is likely the reason.
Click to expand...

I think maybe the reason Apple doesn’t put a 512 SSD in the standard high-end model is that it would look weird to the average consumer that the model that costs more in “good, better, best” has less storage. It’s easier to explain that in a options tooltip.

I’m in the same boat as the OP. I ordered #1 with a 2TB SSD, but I keep wondering if I should call them and switch it to the i9, seeing as how that’s all everyone seems to be talking about and the charts are so drastic. The funny thing is, up until last month, I was going to by a refurb 2017 that had 4 cores, which seemed fine. And now it has 6! But given the option for 8, it seems like the initial upgrade has been ignored.
 
Miles Davis said:
I think maybe the reason Apple doesn’t put a 512 SSD in the standard high-end model is that it would look weird to the average consumer that the model that costs more in “good, better, best” has less storage. It’s easier to explain that in a options tooltip.

I’m in the same boat as the OP. I ordered #1 with a 2TB SSD, but I keep wondering if I should call them and switch it to the i9, seeing as how that’s all everyone seems to be talking about and the charts are so drastic. The funny thing is, up until last month, I was going to by a refurb 2017 that had 4 cores, which seemed fine. And now it has 6! But given the option for 8, it seems like the initial upgrade has been ignored.
Click to expand...
Well it’s gonna get to the point where Fusion drives are ditched when the iMac goes T2-3. Then I presume it start at 256GB SSD working it’s way up to maybe 512GB middle or high models
 
Miles Davis said:
I think maybe the reason Apple doesn’t put a 512 SSD in the standard high-end model is that it would look weird to the average consumer that the model that costs more in “good, better, best” has less storage. It’s easier to explain that in a options tooltip.

I’m in the same boat as the OP. I ordered #1 with a 2TB SSD, but I keep wondering if I should call them and switch it to the i9, seeing as how that’s all everyone seems to be talking about and the charts are so drastic. The funny thing is, up until last month, I was going to by a refurb 2017 that had 4 cores, which seemed fine. And now it has 6! But given the option for 8, it seems like the initial upgrade has been ignored.
Click to expand...

Might be some true to that. Especially considering the iPhone comes with 512gb.

They also have a very delicate pricing structure that is intentionally designed to get people to take that next step. You can max out an iMac and exceed the price of the iMac Pro, but a person that maxes the iMac out likely isn't going to want the piddly BASE model iMac Pro. So there is some Apple tax in there to make the pricing work between products.
 
Benz63amg said:
...they only have fusion drive configurations in stores and i wouldn't want to wait 2-3 weeks to get one delivered to me...
Click to expand...
What's so important in the next two weeks that you'll settle for an inferior spec than you needed to for the next five years?
 
Vjosullivan said:
What's so important in the next two weeks that you'll settle for an inferior spec than you needed to for the next five years?
Click to expand...
It’s “inferior” in your opinion, not to me. You’re the one that’s going to lack internal storage by getting a 512GB internal drive, Not me. Enjoy having an external drive connected to your computer.
 
Benz63amg said:
It’s “inferior” in your opinion, not to me. You’re the one that’s going to lack internal storage by getting a 512GB internal drive, Not me. Enjoy having an external drive connected to your computer.
Click to expand...
It all depends on your priorities. If internal storage space and immediate economy are you biggest concerns, by all means get a fusion drive. I don't think that they're any less reliable than a regular HDD at this point, although some might argue that the more components there are, the more likely you are to have some part of the drive fail (most likely the spinning part but even the SSD portion can have issues). If your priority is something else like reliability etc. then the SSD makes a lot more sense.
Since it's a desktop machine, and is probably going to sit in the same spot most of its life, I could really care less about having an external drive connected to it. An external SSD isn't physically that big, anyway, and can easily be hidden away somewhere out of sight if you're concerned about desktop aesthetics. I also see the external storage as a big advantage in case I want to take those files or a project somewhere else at any point, and as mentioned before, it doesn't matter how much internal storage you have once your drive fails and the computer is out of warranty. And I can vouch that most stock Apple HDDs that I've owned have eventually failed mechanically at some point before the 5 year mark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vjosullivan
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back