New iMac: which drive

[roland.g]

Since cost are equal would you go for a new 27" iMac (lower base model) with the 1TB Fusion drive or 256GB SSD.

Old iMac was 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD - pre Fusion model.
Based on my Time Machine backup my SSD had 65.3GB which can be pared down to 47.75GB
And my HDD had 165GB which 65GB can be offloaded to an external and the 100GB iPhoto library can be pared down to 63GB, removing all video and putting that on an external. But I would want to move my main photo library to the SSD.

That would leave me with 111GB of internal storage.

Get the Fusion and let it manage essential apps and parts of the photo library but hopefully get good speed on what I do need on it. (Also probably going to switch to Aperture as well).

Or

Get the SSD and hope that the 256 fills my onboard storage needs. I can offload the data I need to, but would like to keep the entire photo library on the SSD if possible. Though I understand that Aperture can have various parts of the library in different places. (internal/external). But I would still want iPhoto to be able to cross open the library for things like Calendars, etc. I haven't really used Aperture so I don't know how much of the consumer level iPhoto functionality, calendar ordering, Photostream, faces, etc. is built in.

Thanks.

 

[talmy]

Nothing as pleasant as having everything in one place and not having to worry. Go with the fusion drive.

 

[Old Muley]

I agree it is nice to have the size of a fusion drive to keep everything in one place. My new iMac has the 3tb fusion drive and I am plenty pleased with the speed, especially when compared to my prevous iMac.

 

[firedept]

Fusion drive. This way you get the best of both. You get the speed of the SSD and never have to worry that you have some storage.

 

[roland.g]

Thanks for the few responses. While I am somewhat concerned about performance on the Fusion vs. pure SSD, and am somewhat bummed about losing out on my old config - boy do I wish they upped Fusion with a 256 and not 128 SSD built into with the 2013 refresh - I think I will go for the Fusion drive.

BTW - something like 575 views, I don't expect responses, but if you read the OP, why are people so lazy they don't even throw a vote into the poll. 7 total votes. Whatever.

 

[talmy]

BTW - something like 575 views, I don't expect responses, but if you read the OP, why are people so lazy they don't even throw a vote into the poll. 7 total votes. Whatever.

Would you rather have 7 thoughtful votes or 575 crappy ones (such as quickly voting without reading your needs? )

 

[gnasher729]

Thanks for the few responses. While I am somewhat concerned about performance on the Fusion vs. pure SSD, and am somewhat bummed about losing out on my old config - boy do I wish they upped Fusion with a 256 and not 128 SSD built into with the 2013 refresh - I think I will go for the Fusion drive.

The drive may be smaller, but it is used much more effectively. Take iTunes. About 200 megabyte or so. Without Fusion, it's either on the SSD or the HD. All 200 megabyte. But of that 200 megabyte, there are 100 megabyte translating stuff into 20 different languages, and you only ever use 5 of these 100 megabyte. And they have images of every possible iPod / iPhone / iPad so when you plug in your device, you get the right image - 99% of these images are never used. Fusion only copies those bits of the 200 megabyte that you actually use. The OS has 200 printer drivers, and you only use one or two. Fusion puts those two on the SSD drive. 100 fonts and you only ever use five or so. You get the picture.

And Fusion actually uses 124 GB (4 GB is for write cache which makes it work faster) unless your total data is less than 124 GB. Of your 256 GB, a lot isn't even used.