Photoshop supersedes Fusion? If so, does the SSD then make sense?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by i-Rich, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. i-Rich macrumors member

    Jan 9, 2013
    As I primarily use photoshop - should I be buying the SSD based on this review? I'm thinking yes but please tell me if I'm wrong ... I'm sure someone will!!

    With the help of Lori Grunin, our digital imaging editor, I then tried timing how long it took Photoshop to load a multilayered 1.8GB PSD file built from 16-bit raw images from the Nikon D800. This seemed promising at first, since the initial load into Photoshop took about 30 seconds, but subsequent loads were all over the place timewise, going as high as 49 seconds, and then back down to the low 30s.

    We concluded (and Apple did not disagree) that Photoshop has too much of its own file and memory management activity going on in the background, effectively superseding Fusion.
  2. Bear macrumors G3

    Jul 23, 2002
    Sol III - Terra
    A pure SSD would of course be faster then the Fusion drive overall.

    There are too many factors affecting Photoshop and its load times, including what was going on in Photoshop (and on the system) before you loaded the images in question.

    Without knowing enough factors, it's a tough call if the SSD would actually save you noticeable time or not.

Share This Page