Should I get the 768GB SSD if I can afford it?

[inscrewtable]

$1300 for the SSD is silly prices. When the 2011 imac came out it was $1200 to add a 512 ssd and now you can put a better one in yourself for under $400

"768GB is plenty for me."

Don't bet on it. I think you'll regret the 768 SSD for a number of reasons. For the use you described it sounds like you'd be much better off with the 3TB fusion drive, it has 128 SSD which will give you blindingly fast start up and app launch times which is what you want. Everything else goes on the HDD

It's not like you are going to be doing heavy duty video editing on the SSD.

 

[KaraH]

I would not go with the apple SSD, there are other SSDs out there that are better, cheeper and faster.

For previous iMacs OWC has had a turnkey program and there is no reason to think they will not do the same with the 2012 one. They are an Apple authorised provider so them cracking it open will not void your warranty.

I do plan on leaving a HDD in there if I can get 1/2 a T (or more) of SSD in there. If not, how will you boot that new iMac when it arrives shy of first putting it in an enclosure? There are enclosures meant to use HDDs as removable storage but I doubt I would want that on my desk for a few years.

 

[maverick72]

Thanks everyone for the input. I am really leaning towards the SSD at this point. I only buy a new computer once every few years so there's no reason to cut corners here..

Is there any chance that the Fusion would end up outperforming the SSD/flash storage for any reason? I would feel like a real sucker if that happened, but other than that I think my choice is made.

Not a single chance.

I will also put out the money for the SSD mainly cause i run multiple VM's and do not want the perf hit with running the VM's out of the fusion spinning drive. Also do not want to attach external drives to the imac. My NAS is really ok for bulk data handeling job.

 

[Pngwyn]

Don't bet on it. I think you'll regret the 768 SSD for a number of reasons. For the use you described it sounds like you'd be much better off with the 3TB fusion drive, it has 128 SSD which will give you blindingly fast start up and app launch times which is what you want. Everything else goes on the HDD

It's not like you are going to be doing heavy duty video editing on the SSD.

What reasons would I regret the SSD? I really think the Fusion sounds great, but I'm just really skeptical of new technology that hasn't actually been tested in the long term.. whereas SSDs have been around for a while now. Plus I think it's a valid point that since the Fusion is a hybrid that it has two elements that can fail instead of one.

I actually can't even get the 3TB fusion drive because I also need Boot Camp compatibility (thanks for mentioning that in this thread!), so the choice is between a 1TB Fusion and a 768GB SSD.

Anyways for extra space and backup I plan on getting an external hard drive. Probably a LaCie Minimus 3TB so space won't be an issue.

 

[iMcLovin]

full ssd also mean you can use the apple power nap feature, which is great.

 

[NJRonbo]

Read the posts by iMcLovin. His opinion represents mine.

If you can afford the SSD then buy the SSD. That is what I did.

You will see faster, more dependable worry-free performance over the Fusion Drive. I got an SSD on my Macbook Pro and I would NEVER think about downgrading to a spinning drive again.

If you are going to invest in a computer for the next few years and want to future-proof it then SSD is the only way to go.

You won't regret it.

 

[throAU]

Not a single chance.

I will also put out the money for the SSD mainly cause i run multiple VM's and do not want the perf hit with running the VM's out of the fusion spinning drive. Also do not want to attach external drives to the imac. My NAS is really ok for bulk data handeling job.

You realise the hot blocks in your VMs will still be running in the SSD part of the Fusion drive yes? The entire VMDK files do not need to be relocated into SSD, just the hot parts.

edit:
I'm interested to see whether those who are poo-pooing the fusion drive concept have actually used a tiered storage setup ever, let alone run a system with a fusion drive in it. 128gb of cache on 1-2tb of bulk storage is a huge cache (Yes pedants, i know it isn't a traditional cache) to non-cache ratio, and the hit rate will be very good.

"Just buy the SSD" is all well and good if you feel happy to fritter money away, but I'd be testing the fusion drive out first before dumping an extra 1000 bucks or so on a system to end up with less storage capacity.

768 gb will go fairly quickly if you start storing a lot of video or boot camp the machine.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

The difference in speed betwen all flash and fusion will be fairly minimal, as the 128gb is more than enough for your hot data.
Sure, if you're exceedingly rich by all means go all SSD.

I keep hearing this, is this you subjective opinion, or based on a systemic review of a series of tests by a reputable tech-reviewer/analysts?
i want hard figures: fusion vs ssd. Read / write, latency, 4K random speads, IOPS etc not simply conjecture and hypothesis!

I can come up with many reasons why you should get full flash SSD.

-Hassle free 1 drive installed, instead of external ssd
-Durability (no matter what people say, read around and you'll see SSD has a better durability ...backup should always be made anyway)
-always the same speed all the way even when its filled up.
-we don't know fusions performance once you have filled it up a lot
-Fusion has 2 drives, meaning 2x chance of failure.
-Flash ssd internally uses less heat and creates less noise.
-personally I'd like the external storage to be dumped stuff, like less important files, backup etc... and keep the OS on the internal drive....its a better setup IMO
-The cost for the SSD is ridiculous yes, but if you work professionally its all deductable. And you can sell the machine and buy a new one in a couple of years, with profit!

So for me, the answer is simple. Are you using the machine professionally, get the SSD.

I agree with many of you points, however

$1300 for the SSD is silly prices. When the 2011 imac came out it was $1200 to add a 512 ssd and now you can put a better one in yourself for under $400

full ssd also mean you can use the apple power nap feature, which is great.

again, you raised a solid point! Native apple ssds (ahem i mean samsung) do have the luxuary of the ability to use native trim support and i have been told by a number of 'geniuses' that the ssds are optimised for osx in a number of ways! This was when i was experieicng the sata-6 debacle with the early 2011 macbook pros on the ivy bridge MBs.

Finally, we are still to see whether thunderbolt ssds connected to theses IMACs can provide a viable alternative, i know testing on other platforms have shown promising results, however, i look forward to the first series of testing of the imac with an external thunderbolt ssd!

I for one, will most likely just buy the updated apple thunderbolt displays with usb3 support and keep using my cramped 17" macbook pro. Then when the haswell iMacs released, maybe apple will offer more than one ssd option, which is ludicrous and gluttonous on apple's part - i guess this is why they are one of the most lucrative companies on the market ATM!

 

[hacke]

Should I get the 768GB SSD if I can afford it?

If you do not care about wasting money like burning it... just order!

1,3k extra cash for it is just ridiculous!!!

 

[johnnyturbouk]

If you do not care about wasting money like burning it... just order!

1,3k extra cash for it is just ridiculous!!!

agree, however, i would advise to wait and see the option of the validity of TB external.

i for one would be thrilled to get 500 MBS read/write with a TB solution.

Finally, i have a sniggering feeling that the next generation of iMacs may be touch screen, offer a wider selection of ssds, improved fibre TB, and have retina displays: yes i can wait and my needs are met with my current 17 " 2011 MBP.

 

[throAU]

I keep hearing this, is this you subjective opinion, or based on a systemic review of a series of tests by a reputable tech-reviewer/analysts?
i want hard figures: fusion vs ssd. Read / write, latency, 4K random speads, IOPS etc not simply conjecture and hypothesis!

The only way you'll get hard figures is to do your own testing or analysis of your workload - because the random 4k IOPs will be SSD speed unless you spread them over the entire drive size, which will not be realistic unless you KNOW that your workload needs the entire disk to be "hot".

HOWEVER, unless you are a very special case, it is highly unlikely that you have in excess of 128 gb (or even 64gb) of HOT DATA. Intel decided that a max of 22gb of cache on their new caching chipset was plenty for example.

AS an example of the hot data set on the 1tb network share for our 150 person office - only approximately 10-20gb of it is HOT and ends up on our daily backups.

And that is backing up entire files. The rate of change in terms of blocks is likely much smaller than that.

The rest? It's all archive type data that is referenced infrequently. It isn't officially "archived" but it isn't touched very often.

That's for a 150 person office. Not a single user on his/her iMac.

YMMV (WILL vary in fact) of course, but writing off a fusion drive simply because it is "only" 128gb of fast SSD without doing your own testing or analysis of your data and just dumping an extra $1300 on a machine is foolish to say the least.


Do the analysis, or don't and just spend the money.... I can think if way cooler ideas for 1300 bucks though.

 

[Pngwyn]

768 gb will go fairly quickly if you start storing a lot of video or boot camp the machine.

Even though you make some valid points, I can't boot camp with the 3TB version so I'd be stuck with the 1TB anyways which really isn't that much more space than the 768GB..

I agree that the price is really insane, it's really the last thing keeping me from ordering the SSD. I would love to wait to see how the Fusion drives run after the release, but ordering now already is delayed delivery until January and I'm in need of a new computer soon. I appreciate all the input thanks! throAU I gotta admit you're making it hard for me to spring on the SSD! Such hard decisions..

 

[johnnyturbouk]

i have 128GB vertex 3 max ions and 750gb 7200 spinning drive

i have approx 15 gbs left on my ssd, all i have on there is osx, apps
music, videos and download folder is all on larger hdd,

so yes, i need more than 128gb for 'hot data'

this is my personal machine, not office!

 

[vannibombonato]

Is there any chance that the Fusion would end up outperforming the SSD/flash storage for any reason? I would feel like a real sucker if that happened, but other than that I think my choice is made.

No,
but there's all the data to prove that an external RAID SSD will be way faster, bigger and cheaper...i struggle to see how one can consciously choose to spend more money on a slower and smaller solution.

But to each its own i guess.

 

[pokrface]

I keep hearing this, is this you subjective opinion, or based on a systemic review of a series of tests by a reputable tech-reviewer/analysts?
i want hard figures: fusion vs ssd. Read / write, latency, 4K random speads, IOPS etc not simply conjecture and hypothesis!

I don't know if I'm reputable enough or not, but I have written quite a bit about how Fusion Drive works. The SSD in the Mac Mini I had to test with was a Samsung 830 (specifically, part model MZ-5PC1280/0A5), so the SSD itself is SATA III. Fusion Drive doesn't do RAID-style striping; it simply promotes hot 128KB chunks from HDD to SSD, and tries to maintain a minimum of 4GB of empty space on the SSD at all times.

If you have fewer than about 100GB of stuff (roughly the amount of free space on the SSD as it arrives from the factory, with the rest of the space being taken up by the OS and preinstalled applications), you'll only ever use the SSD. All writes are directed there first as long as it has free space--you only write to the HDD if the SSD fills up while you're in the middle of a write operation, as OS X begins shoveling chunks of data off of the SSD when it reaches <4GB of free space. I measured IO speeds consistent with other Samsung 830 drives when benchmarking the Fusion Drive, because the benchmark IO (along with everything else!) goes to the SSD first.

Only when the SSD nears capacity does Core Storage begin to shuffle data around.

So, there you go. If you've less data than the capacity of the SSD, your computer will behave like it only has an SSD in it and you won't ever deal with the HDD.

 

[ragtop232]

External SSD via TB

I didn't order the new 27" iMac, but chose to sit this one out and wait a generation or two. However, I did upgrade my 24" iMac to a new mid 2011 27" iMac a few weeks ago. I found a brand new one still in stock so I purchased at a discount. I wanted all the performance of SSD, but didn't want to open up my iMac and it probably is beyond my skill-set anyway. I looked at many options, including sending my iMac off to have an internal SSD put in, but the more research I completed, the more I thought an external solution would be great and less intrusive (not to mention something I could accomplish myself).

My solution was to purchase a Samsung 840 Pro, 256gb, a Seagate STAE121 TB Adapter and a Twelvesouth iMac backpack. This setup doesn't require external power. However, I've heard SSD's over 256gb are having problems in this configuration because of power needs.

This is now my boot drive. I used carbon copy to format, install OSX and make a recovery drive on the SSD. I then made symbolic links to my iTunes media folder (leave all other files on the SSD), my VM's, my Downloads folder and my Documents folder, all of which reside on the internal 2tb drive. I also enabled Trim support by editing IOAHCIBlockStorage.kext file. This has helped the performance of my 2011 iMac tremendously.

I wanted to offer this as an option to those that are thinking or wondering about booting from an external TB mounted SSD. Below is a disk speed test I ran after installing and also a screen shoot showing Trim support for this drive.

 

[Pngwyn]

No,
but there's all the data to prove that an external RAID SSD will be way faster, bigger and cheaper...i struggle to see how one can consciously choose to spend more money on a slower and smaller solution.

But to each its own i guess.

Well I'm not exactly familiar with this concept. If you could better explain how it works I might be more interested in going for it. So I change the external HD to be my boot disc instead? I didn't even know that was possible, and if it is, what happens to the previous HD in the computer? The downside being you have to keep the external plugged in at all times?

I suppose if I can use the internal HD for backups and an external for booting while saving money that would be ideal, but I'm not entirely sure this is how it would work. Also if I understand correctly there aren't any external bootable drive options available at this time?

 

[jkautosports]

I didn't order the new 27" iMac, but chose to sit this one out and wait a generation or two. However, I did upgrade my 24" iMac to a new mid 2011 27" iMac a few weeks ago. I found a brand new one still in stock so I purchased at a discount. I wanted all the performance of SSD, but didn't want to open up my iMac and it probably is beyond my skill-set anyway. I looked at many options, including sending my iMac off to have an internal SSD put in, but the more research I completed, the more I thought an external solution would be great and less intrusive (not to mention something I could accomplish myself).

My solution was to purchase a Samsung 840 Pro, 256gb, a Seagate STAE121 TB Adapter and a Twelvesouth iMac backpack. This setup doesn't require external power. However, I've heard SSD's over 256gb are having problems in this configuration because of power needs.

This is now my boot drive. I used carbon copy to format, install OSX and make a recovery drive on the SSD. I then made symbolic links to my iTunes media folder (leave all other files on the SSD), my VM's, my Downloads folder and my Documents folder, all of which reside on the internal 2tb drive. I also enabled Trim support by editing IOAHCIBlockStorage.kext file. This has helped the performance of my 2011 iMac tremendously.

I wanted to offer this as an option to those that are thinking or wondering about booting from an external TB mounted SSD. Below is a disk speed test I ran after installing and also a screen shoot showing Trim support for this drive.

the 840 Pro is a SATA3 SSD isn't it? I think your enclosure is probably SATA2 and creating a bottleneck. If someone sells a cheap external Sata3 Thunderbolt drive one day, I'm sure you could swap in your SSD and double those speeds!

 

[inscrewtable]

What reasons would I regret the SSD?

Only because of the space issue not anything to do with SSD itself. If you don't mind paying the price and you reckon that you are not going to want to have more storage in a year or two on your computer, then the 768 SSD is obviously the way to go. But you'll want to keep some free space for the the OS to breathe plus the SSD needs a bit of management space to doesn't it?

I like to keep as much as I can on my computer so I don't have to keep running external drives, which also means that if I do a bootable clone everything is backed up. I guess it really depends on how you use your computer. But there's nothing wrong with a 768SSD per se.

However I did not know that boot camp could not be put on a 3 TB fusion which seems a bit weird, maybe that will be a software update I can't see any logical reason for it. But if it's the case at the moment then getting the 3tb fusion is not a good idea for you.

 

[vannibombonato]

Well I'm not exactly familiar with this concept. If you could better explain how it works I might be more interested in going for it. So I change the external HD to be my boot disc instead? I didn't even know that was possible, and if it is, what happens to the previous HD in the computer? The downside being you have to keep the external plugged in at all times?

I suppose if I can use the internal HD for backups and an external for booting while saving money that would be ideal, but I'm not entirely sure this is how it would work. Also if I understand correctly there aren't any external bootable drive options available at this time?

Pretty straightforward actually (just found a bit of info I was missing btw so now I'm totally clear):

1- you keep the stock 1tb drive that comes with your iMac.
2- you buy 2 Ssd thunderbolt externals drives: I'm going with the 1tb LaCie, but there's also the 512gb version that cost 700$, two of them makes it 1400$, cables are included. Obviously you can choose whatever ssd you prefer.
3- you connect them to the iMac and daisy chain them to one thunderbolt port.
4- you set them up as a single raid drive
5- yes you can place osx, all apps, etc on this external drive and boot from there.
6- voila you have a 1tb ssd which runs somewhere at double the speed than the apple 756gb option for 100$ more, plus you get 1tb of internal space which you can use however you like. You can also leave it empty forever. Obviously you could also choose a single 1tb external and do the same, speed gain would be less impressive but would cost 300$ less than apple option for 33% more the space and probably faster. Similarly if you need less space you could go with a couple of 256gbs, and so on.
7- only drawback you can see is that yes, obviously the drives need to always be connected. As its a desktop, they're very small and totally quiet to me this is an issue as big as the fact that my iMac needs to be connected to the power cord to work, but some people prefer to have the desk totally clean....
8- on the contrary, I see as an enormous plus that having my whole system in 2 small externals means that if I ever need to bring my iMac away with me I can do it with any MacBook with a thunderbolt port.
9- finally, if an external drive fail you can send it to repair and work from your backup drive, if e internal drive fail you have to send the whole iMac to repair.

 

[snugja]

1 - Check to see if you've saved enough or budgeted for the upgrade
2 - Order iMac with 768GB Flash BTO option.
3- Enjoy.

 

[Razorhog]

I just got a 15" rMBP with 768gb SSD today. It's my first experience with a SSD. I will never go back. This machine is so fast! A fusion drive might give you a similar experience, depending on your usage (like others have stated).

 

[inscrewtable]

Thinking about it a bit more, it seems that the best long term option would be to get the 1TB fusion drive which will enable bootcamp to be used as well as having the system, apps, and most used stuff on the SSD...then in 18 Months time you will be able to replace the fusion drive with a 1TB SSD which will cost about $700 by then.

----------

5- yes you can place osx, all apps, etc on this external drive and boot from there.

But will windows boot from an external drive?.

 

[ragtop232]

the 840 Pro is a SATA3 SSD isn't it? I think your enclosure is probably SATA2 and creating a bottleneck. If someone sells a cheap external Sata3 Thunderbolt drive one day, I'm sure you could swap in your SSD and double those speeds!

The drive is a Sata III and the enclosure is Sata III as well. If you look at the negotiated link speeds, they are both 6gb/s. If I would add an additional SSD and configure it in RAID 0, I'm sure it would do about 700-750MB/s, but for a single drive, this is pretty close. I think I loose about 25% when mounting external TB as compared to mounting internally.

Jim

 

[johnnyturbouk]

The drive is a Sata III and the enclosure is Sata III as well. If you look at the negotiated link speeds, they are both 6gb/s. If I would add an additional SSD and configure it in RAID 0, I'm sure it would do about 700-750MB/s, but for a single drive, this is pretty close. I think I loose about 25% when mounting external TB as compared to mounting internally.

Jim

agreed,

if it was sata2 as suggested by someone else, it would give approx 260mbs read/write

This whole debacle stems from apple's avarice and greed!