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

[jkautosports]

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

Sorry about that. Didn't see the other pic for some reason! I read something that another person posted about the STAE121 being SATA2, but clearly that was incorrect. Hmm this is very interesting. Might be something I can use until the Lacie LBD 1TB is no longer $1000

 

[vannibombonato]

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.

----------



But will windows boot from an external drive?.

As far as i know the answer is no, but i can be mistaken. Search a bit on the forum.

After finishing testing my first Lacie SSD i've chosen my setup. The Lacie disk speed is simply killer, i think more than double than my current MB Air, can't even think once i daisychain it and RAID it with another one.

I'll put all my iMac files on the externals, and use the Fusion 1TB which i've chosen for Windows only. Made a mistake in going fusion, should have kept the stock drive and saved some money. If anyone is looking in the Apple 768gb upgrade, i can't recommend enough to go external and Raid them.

To be clear, my setup is absolutely VERY expensive (it's gonna be 2TB of SSD...), but i work with loads of audio, and going external it's the cheapest solution you can get at the moment if you want lots of SSD space and lots of speed.

Quite sure in a year from now the external SSDs i've purchased will be 50% less expensive, but i'm also quite sure that the performance boost i'm getting vs. my previous MacPro setup is going to be in the humongous region.

I think my iMac will be able to handle a U2 mixdown...probably just a bit of an overkill considering that i'm not exactly mixing for them...

 

[Pngwyn]

Very appreciative of the wealth of information everyone is sharing, many thanks!

I think I am still going to go with the 768GB :\ It seems that it's cheaper than RAIDing external SSDs and also a more consolidated setup.

I really don't think I'll need speed beyond that of a regular SSD, and if I ever do it seems that having a 768GB SSD won't keep me from booting off external SSDs if I ever decided I wanted to for extra speed. If I decided to do that, I could still use the 768GB SSD for backups and no harm done (except on my wallet), right?

It seems in the end it's just a question of money, but for specs on the computer alone the best for me is undoubtedly the 768GB SSD option if I still want boot camp capabilities...

I've only owned Macbook Pros, so I don't know about iMac reselling, but I am assuming the 768GB SSD would still hold it's value quite well if I decided to sell my iMac used? I know Macbook Pros have pretty decent resale value.

 

[inscrewtable]

I've only owned Macbook Pros, so I don't know about iMac reselling, but I am assuming the 768GB SSD would still hold it's value quite well if I decided to sell my iMac used? I know Macbook Pros have pretty decent resale value.

iMacs hold their resale value well. However this will not be the case for the 768SSD which you are paying $1300 for because in two years time a one TB SSD will be about $500. For example if I had bought my 2011 imac with the bto 512SSD in addition to the 2TB HDD then my premium would have been a whopping $1300 less than one year ago whereas I'm adding one myself next week for $400.

In fact thinking about it some more, if you sold it in 2 years time, I do not think you would get any more than what you would get if it had a 3TB Fusion drive. The reason is that it's unlikely that someone is going to be satisfied as you are with a measly 3/4 TB of internal memory, they'd probably prefer 3TB especially as they will still get the boot up and application boot up times and other benefits of the fusion anyway.

All in all, I think these 2012 iMacs are a good revision to skip. I think the next Haswell iMac will be 'da bomb'. Their SDD/Fusion solution is a bit whacky at the moment and I think they'll have it more sorted by the next rev.

If I had to get an iMac now, I'd get a 2011 imac that still had applecare with a 2TB HD and stick a 960GB SSD in it. All you'd really lose out on is the GTX680mx GPU but the 6970m is not shabby, the ivy bridge over sandy bridge is only about a 15% boost if that.

I wonder if it's possible to replace the internal HDD on the 2011 imac and put in two 960GB SSD's !!

 

[hfg]

iMacs hold their resale value well. However this will not be the case for the 768SSD which you are paying $1300 for because in two years time a one TB SSD will be about $500. For example if I had bought my 2011 imac with the bto 512SSD in addition to the 2TB HDD then my premium would have been a whopping $1300 less than one year ago whereas I'm adding one myself next week for $400.

In fact thinking about it some more, if you sold it in 2 years time, I do not think you would get any more than what you would get if it had a 3TB Fusion drive. The reason is that it's unlikely that someone is going to be satisfied as you are with a measly 3/4 TB of internal memory, they'd probably prefer 3TB especially as they will still get the boot up and application boot up times and other benefits of the fusion anyway.

All in all, I think these 2012 iMacs are a good revision to skip. I think the next Haswell iMac will be 'da bomb'. Their SDD/Fusion solution is a bit whacky at the moment and I think they'll have it more sorted by the next rev.

If I had to get an iMac now, I'd get a 2011 imac that still had applecare with a 2TB HD and stick a 960GB SSD in it. All you'd really lose out on is the GTX680mx GPU but the 6970m is not shabby, the ivy bridge over sandy bridge is only about a 15% boost if that.

I wonder if it's possible to replace the internal HDD on the 2011 imac and put in two 960GB SSD's !!

I would bet that the 768GB SSD will hold its value better than the alternative 128GB SSD over a couple years. Especially since in 2 years, the risk of warranty voiding by opening the screen will have passed, and you can put your own 3TB hard disk in there along with the large SSD. By then you will be using 128GB SSDs as door stops.

Yes, in 2 years 1TB drives may be $500 ... but today a 1TB SSD is $2300 ... the OCZ "Octane 1TB"!
http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technolog...e=UTF8&qid=1355275518&sr=8-1&keywords=1tb+ssd

For today, going above 500GB SSD on a single drive gets real expensive, real fast. Find me another single drive SSD which will fit inside the iMac that is less expensive than the Apple 768GB one.

But in 2 years, you won't want to add a hard disk of any size ... you will put that $500 1TB SSD above in the hard disk mount to supplement the 768GB blade SSD.

oh ... you can't replace the 27" HDD with 2 SSD drives. They will fit, but unfortunately there won't be a 3rd SATA port as there was for the previous model ... so 2 drives of whatever size will be the limit internally ... one "blade" device, and one "disk type" device.

 

[Yebubbleman]

So I'm wondering if the SSD/flash storage is actually worth it? Since the HDs aren't upgradeable, I just want to make sure I'm making the best choice for an HD regardless of money. The fusion drives are really tempting when they boast SSD similar speeds and have whopping HD space, so is the extra cost justified for the SSD/flash storage that Apple offers?

Really, ideally, every drive on every computer should be an SSD. It's faster, more durable, and more reliable. It's ideal. But sadly, it's not cost-effective yet. That being said, the Fusion drive set-up, for someone buying a new Mac today (or even reformatting and re-setting up an older Mac with both an internal HDD and and internal SSD), the Fusion drive is a great way of having the best of both. Yes an SSD is marginally faster (but really, only by a hair) and using one drive instead of two is way more reliable (but that doesn't matter if you have at least one Time Machine back-up). I'd say, for now, for this generation of iMacs and Retina MacBook Pros, a 768GB SSD isn't worth it. Even if you have the money, it's better spent elsewhere. And if you have to spend it on Apple stuff...put that towards your eventual next Mac.

 

[hfg]

Really, ideally, every drive on every computer should be an SSD. It's faster, more durable, and more reliable. It's ideal. But sadly, it's not cost-effective yet. That being said, the Fusion drive set-up, for someone buying a new Mac today (or even reformatting and re-setting up an older Mac with both an internal HDD and and internal SSD), the Fusion drive is a great way of having the best of both. Yes an SSD is marginally faster (but really, only by a hair) and using one drive instead of two is way more reliable (but that doesn't matter if you have at least one Time Machine back-up). I'd say, for now, for this generation of iMacs and Retina MacBook Pros, a 768GB SSD isn't worth it. Even if you have the money, it's better spent elsewhere. And if you have to spend it on Apple stuff...put that towards your eventual next Mac.

I find that Apple has me somewhat blocked in a corner with their current drive choices. I need about 400GB for my normal OS X environment, plus another 400GB for my photo library ... plus I want a BootCamp Windows environment for a bit of game playing with the top graphics card in the 27" iMac. And, I want it all internal to the all-in-one iMac, no boxes, cables, power supplies, etc. all over my desk like my Mac Pro has.

I want my OS X running at SSD speeds ... and I want my Windows running at SSD speeds ... plus I want to be able to sort my photo library at SSD speeds.

I can configure the 768GB SSD into a 200GB Windows boot disk and allocate the rest to OS X with a comfortable growth space. But for now, my photo library will have to be external on a 500GB SSD with USB-3 or Thunderbolt. However, if/when I care to open up the case (warranty?), I can put that 500GB SSD inside mounted in the location where the hard disk would normally be.

So ... buying the 768GB SSD does make sense for this type of configuration, even though it is slightly expensive (find another single-drive SSD of this size that is cheaper today?). There is no other solution available today which will allow an all-SSD system of this size to be contained within the iMac case.

I have run Fusion systems ... I am running 3 DIY Fusions at this moment in a Mac Mini, MBPro, and Mac Pro. The Mac Pro also has the all SSD environment I have been running for the past year. I can tell the difference, and the all-SSD is worth it to me for the additional cost, which, amortized over the next 2 or 3 years is insignificant. Many probably spend more than that on coffee each day.

 

[53x12]

The 768GB SSD is what, $1300 upgrade? Seems like a fusion drive for OSX + apps and an external SSD if need be could be an alternative at a significantly better price point.

 

[inscrewtable]

Find me another single drive SSD which will fit inside the iMac that is less expensive than the Apple 768GB one.

well there's the 960GB mercury electra, granted it's sata II and not blazingly fast and it's $1100.


Regarding the no boot camp on 3TB fusion, I'd be willing to wager that it will be possible with a software update soon because it just doesn't make sense. I think it's part of an apple plan to push people up to their overpriced/undersized SSD option. Which it is in fact doing to the OP. I'd get the 3TB fusion, and tough it out till they crack. Then you can get an external thunderbolt SSD as @53x12 says.

 

[hfg]

well there's the 960GB mercury electra, granted it's sata II and not blazingly fast as well as a bit pricey at 1200.


Regarding the no boot camp on 3TB fusion, I'd be willing to wager that it will be possible with a software update soon because it just doesn't make sense. I think it's part of an apple plan to push people up to their overpriced/undersized SSD option. Which it is in fact doing to the OP. I'd get the 3TB fusion, and tough it out till they crack. Then you can get an external thunderbolt SSD as @53x12 says.

Whoops ... I had forgotten about that one, probably because it is slow.

The author of WinClone recently posted on his blog how to configure the 3TB drive to accommodate Window's 2.2GB issue. It does have a drawback, the drive must be partitioned into 3 major segments, with the Windows partition being the middle one and not extending beyond the 2.2TB mark. That makes your OS X space non-contiguous, but if you can live with that then you are home free.

http://www.twocanoes.com/support/wi...tb-or-larger-)-drive-in-lion-(10.7)-and-later

Using that technique, I think you could rebuild your Fusion join by following the DIY instructions, but using "disk_partition_ID" instead of "Disk_ID" and selecting the first OS X partition on the disk. You will not be able to use the 3rd partition with Fusion, but you can use it as a separate data disk.

I have done this on a Mac Mini to have my Windows partition on the SSD and the balance of the SSD as part of the Fusion drive and it works great. To bad you can't get a larger SSD as part of a Fusion option to allow this in the iMac. The 128GB selection isn't large enough to split for 2 operating systems plus the Fusion write buffer.

 

[inscrewtable]

Whoops ... I had forgotten about that one, probably because it is slow.

There's a faster 1TB but it's 2 grand if you make them an offer

The SSD situation is moving so quickly that I would be loathe to pay $1300 today for a 768GB SSD when it's not impossible that we can see prices fall dramatically over the next 2 years, perhaps a 2TB SSD for $800 or less. Who knows, I mean in reality being solid state it must be easier to manufacture than a mechanical drive.

 

[inscrewtable]

To bad you can't get a larger SSD as part of a Fusion option to allow this in the iMac. The 128GB selection isn't large enough to split for 2 operating systems plus the Fusion write buffer.

The mac mini has the SSD and HDD separate anyway so I don't see why you could not put in a bigger SSD and recreate the fusion drive.

 

[hfg]

There's a faster 1TB but it's 2 grand if you make them an offer

The SSD situation is moving so quickly that I would be loathe to pay $1300 today for a 768GB SSD when it's not impossible that we can see prices fall dramatically over the next 2 years, perhaps a 2TB SSD for $800 or less. Who knows, I mean in reality being solid state it must be easier to manufacture than a mechanical drive.

Yeah ... that is the 1TB drive I mentioned in post #55 above. Amazon, Newegg, etc. also had them last week, but are backordered now. Prices go from $2200 to $2700. I guess someone is actually buying them!

And as I mentioned, things will certainly be different in 2 years, but I will probably be buying a different computer by then ... so I am looking at how to configure the iMac today.

 

[Pngwyn]

Multi-TB SSDs can be dirt cheap in 2 years, but to me that seems irrelevant considering I really don't need whopping hard drive space and can just buy an external HD to support the extra need for space.

I placed the order for an iMac today with the 768GB SSD, thanks everyone for the help. I don't think I'll be disappointed one bit. It only came out to be $500 more than my MBP with a spinning drive, I guess moving from a Macbook Pro to an iMac the price point for specs was a lot more reasonable to me, even with an SSD. Thanks again for everyone's help

 

[chevalier433]

So I'm wondering if the SSD/flash storage is actually worth it? Since the HDs aren't upgradeable, I just want to make sure I'm making the best choice for an HD regardless of money. The fusion drives are really tempting when they boast SSD similar speeds and have whopping HD space, so is the extra cost justified for the SSD/flash storage that Apple offers?

No No No ridiculous expensive and lowest performance that aftermarket OWC .

 

[Fenn]

Why is the Fusion drive out of question when you want Bootcamp?...
When you need the speed of an SSD for Windows i would go for a SSD only solution.

Yup you guessed it. I need SSD Speed in Windows and Mac. The "Fusion" technology will never work in Windows like it does in OSX, with 2 devices merged and intelligently functioning as one. Nor can you partition out of the SSD, and leave the remainder functioning with your spinning drive for use in OS X. The only way you can get it to work presently is to make a partition large enough so that it is forced on to the spinning drive and never touches the SSD.

Still though that is such a stupid hassle. I would (and did) happily spend $810 bucks more for a pure SSD solution that works easily in both OS's with SSD speed and no moving parts.

EDIT: Yes it's only $800 bucks more to upgrade to the SSD from the 3tb fusion when you use the education discount.

 

[apedance]

Yup you guessed it. I need SSD Speed in Windows and Mac. The "Fusion" technology will never work in Windows like it does in OSX, with 2 devices merged and intelligently functioning as one. Nor can you partition out of the SSD, and leave the remainder functioning with your spinning drive for use in OS X. The only way you can get it to work presently is to make a partition large enough so that it is forced on to the spinning drive and never touches the SSD.

Still though that is such a stupid hassle. I would (and did) happily spend $810 bucks more for a pure SSD solution that works easily in both OS's with SSD speed and no moving parts.

EDIT: Yes it's only $800 bucks more to upgrade to the SSD from the 3tb fusion when you use the education discount.

ok. i understand.

what about using a external ssd connected via thunderbolt? i guess you can use it in windows as well? (will windows boot when installed on an external thunderbolt? :S )

that would be much cheaper.

 

[snugja]

Multi-TB SSDs can be dirt cheap in 2 years, but to me that seems irrelevant considering I really don't need whopping hard drive space and can just buy an external HD to support the extra need for space.

I placed the order for an iMac today with the 768GB SSD, thanks everyone for the help. I don't think I'll be disappointed one bit. It only came out to be $500 more than my MBP with a spinning drive, I guess moving from a Macbook Pro to an iMac the price point for specs was a lot more reasonable to me, even with an SSD. Thanks again for everyone's help

Congrats! I'm sure you'll love it. Welcome to "the club".

 

[NJRonbo]

I placed the order for an iMac today with the 768GB SSD

Didn't know which way you would end up going, but that was the right decision.

Yeah, you paid through the ass on it, but performance wise, you won't be disappointed. You will never want to go back to a spinning drive.

Congrats.

 

[hfg]

ok. i understand.

what about using a external ssd connected via thunderbolt? i guess you can use it in windows as well? (will windows boot when installed on an external thunderbolt? :S )

that would be much cheaper.

No, that is one of the problems, you can't install or boot Windows from an external drive due to Windows restraints. Some users here have reported limited success by installing Windows on their internal drive, then cloning it to an external drive and getting it to work. I made a simple attempt to do so just for fun, and it wouldn't boot. I run Windows off of an internal SSD.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I find that Apple has me somewhat blocked in a corner with their current drive choices. I need about 400GB for my normal OS X environment, plus another 400GB for my photo library ... plus I want a BootCamp Windows environment for a bit of game playing with the top graphics card in the 27" iMac. And, I want it all internal to the all-in-one iMac, no boxes, cables, power supplies, etc. all over my desk like my Mac Pro has.

I want my OS X running at SSD speeds ... and I want my Windows running at SSD speeds ... plus I want to be able to sort my photo library at SSD speeds.

I can configure the 768GB SSD into a 200GB Windows boot disk and allocate the rest to OS X with a comfortable growth space. But for now, my photo library will have to be external on a 500GB SSD with USB-3 or Thunderbolt. However, if/when I care to open up the case (warranty?), I can put that 500GB SSD inside mounted in the location where the hard disk would normally be.

So ... buying the 768GB SSD does make sense for this type of configuration, even though it is slightly expensive (find another single-drive SSD of this size that is cheaper today?). There is no other solution available today which will allow an all-SSD system of this size to be contained within the iMac case.

I have run Fusion systems ... I am running 3 DIY Fusions at this moment in a Mac Mini, MBPro, and Mac Pro. The Mac Pro also has the all SSD environment I have been running for the past year. I can tell the difference, and the all-SSD is worth it to me for the additional cost, which, amortized over the next 2 or 3 years is insignificant. Many probably spend more than that on coffee each day.

768GB SSD isn't slightly expensive, it would take me a good month and a half to save for the money to buy that one upgrade or, for that matter, a 13" non-retina MacBook Pro. I also don't buy coffee, so I don't relate to your idea of it actually being inexpensive. That's a pretty penny to spend on an upgrade, let alone a computer with that upgrade. It's also a pretty penny to spend on the ability to run Windows on an SSD versus the HDD portion of a Fusion drive. Though, most of that can be attributed to the iMac being a poor desktop design (lacking the expandability and room of a REAL desktop, solely to be sleek and pretty).

If you need those things and have the money to spend, good for you. Seriously. But you will never sell me on the idea that it is (a) a necessity and (b) inexpensive. If you work in a needed-it-yesterday environment in which speed is key, then fine. But otherwise, it's a pricey luxury reserved for those who are lucky enough to be able to afford it.

Regarding the no boot camp on 3TB fusion, I'd be willing to wager that it will be possible with a software update soon because it just doesn't make sense. I think it's part of an apple plan to push people up to their overpriced/undersized SSD option. Which it is in fact doing to the OP. I'd get the 3TB fusion, and tough it out till they crack. Then you can get an external thunderbolt SSD as @53x12 says.

"Fusion Drive" is a software feature, not a hardware feature. In terms of hardware, it's no different than simply having both drives attached to your on-board SATA connectors. It's a software-level feature in which OS X recognizes a specific type (Core Storage) of volume formatting. This is not something that there'd be any way or reason for Microsoft (or Apple for that matter) to have Windows work with. Windows works on Macs because the hardware supports it. Windows won't work on a Fusion Drive, because Fusion Drive is an OS X software feature and not a software attribute or program or whatever that can be implemented into Windows itself.

Multi-TB SSDs can be dirt cheap in 2 years, but to me that seems irrelevant considering I really don't need whopping hard drive space and can just buy an external HD to support the extra need for space.

I placed the order for an iMac today with the 768GB SSD, thanks everyone for the help. I don't think I'll be disappointed one bit. It only came out to be $500 more than my MBP with a spinning drive, I guess moving from a Macbook Pro to an iMac the price point for specs was a lot more reasonable to me, even with an SSD. Thanks again for everyone's help

Out of curiosity, which MBP (with spinning drive) did you buy, and how did you customize your iMac (SSD-aside)? I would like to see the cost comparison.

In the meantime, given that the reliability and heating concerns with the last 27" iMac stand a very good chance of persisting in this 27" iMac, my guess is that by going with an mSATA SSD blade instead of a spinning-disk 3.5" desktop hard drive, you took out one major heat-generating component, which will definitely help keep heat generation down and will likely increase the reliability of that machine that much more.

 

[53x12]

iMacs hold their resale value well. However this will not be the case for the 768SSD which you are paying $1300 for because in two years time a one TB SSD will be about $500. For example if I had bought my 2011 imac with the bto 512SSD in addition to the 2TB HDD then my premium would have been a whopping $1300 less than one year ago whereas I'm adding one myself next week for $400.

In fact thinking about it some more, if you sold it in 2 years time, I do not think you would get any more than what you would get if it had a 3TB Fusion drive. The reason is that it's unlikely that someone is going to be satisfied as you are with a measly 3/4 TB of internal memory, they'd probably prefer 3TB especially as they will still get the boot up and application boot up times and other benefits of the fusion anyway.

All in all, I think these 2012 iMacs are a good revision to skip. I think the next Haswell iMac will be 'da bomb'. Their SDD/Fusion solution is a bit whacky at the moment and I think they'll have it more sorted by the next rev.

If I had to get an iMac now, I'd get a 2011 imac that still had applecare with a 2TB HD and stick a 960GB SSD in it. All you'd really lose out on is the GTX680mx GPU but the 6970m is not shabby, the ivy bridge over sandy bridge is only about a 15% boost if that.

I wonder if it's possible to replace the internal HDD on the 2011 imac and put in two 960GB SSD's !!

QFT.

While a 768GB drive is nice in theory, those of us with cost restraints just don't see it as a feasible option. If work is paying for it, that is one thing. But long term cost to benefit analysis leaves it lacking for me. I would rather go with an external drive if I needed more room but understand you guys that also live in Windows world. Guess you gotta do what you gotta do. But those are some deep pocket books to afford $1300 for a drive.

 

[Pngwyn]

Out of curiosity, which MBP (with spinning drive) did you buy, and how did you customize your iMac (SSD-aside)? I would like to see the cost comparison.

3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
768GB Flash Storage
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5
Magic Trackpad
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) & User's Guide
Accessory Kit

I bought my own RAM to try and salvage what was left of my wallet

 

[Yebubbleman]

3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
768GB Flash Storage
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5
Magic Trackpad
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) & User's Guide
Accessory Kit

I bought my own RAM to try and salvage what was left of my wallet

What about the MBP you got? (Thanks for humoring my curiosity )

 

[Pngwyn]

Not a problem. I'm running a Mid-2011 17" MBP 2.7Ghz with a 500gb 7200RPM drive, 8GB RAM (I wasn't aware their max was actually 16GB until recently )

The price difference was actually more than $500 between the MBP and my iMac, probably around $800 after tax, which was silly of me to forget. I'm still content with it, casting away my need for portability has given me an opportunity to get a truly powerful machine.

One of the biggest reasons I had to get a replacement is because my MBP overheats on the regular, any kind of 3D rendering and sometimes just randomly when too many apps are up. I really hope the new iMacs have better heat management, so far the reviews I've read are saying that they are indeed cooler than previous generations.