which hard drive for new iMac

[doc7string]

I am upgrading to a new iMac from my old reliable powermac G5. The G5 has been great but is becoming antiquated (unable to run some of that new software that I'm craving). I plan to order a 27", 3.4 GHz, 32 MB ram machine (with external ptical drive) and just ordered the DP8 upgrade from my current DP6. I run superior drummer 2.3, IK Multimedias Ampeg plugin, 1 or 2 of IK's virtual guitar amps on occasion when I don't feel like fiddling with micing my Bogner Shiva, and as a novice when it comes to mixing, I use many instances of EZMix on most of my music (one of these days I will be good enough to skip the latter). Lastly, I very occasionally use Symphonic Instruments as well. Having said this, my one configuration question regarding the iMac is which hard drive to buy, the 3 TB ATA, or the 1 TB fusion drive. I really don't want to spring for the 3 TB fusion. I will compliment this with a 2 or 3 TB TIme Capsule depending on which main drive I choose. Currently my 1 TB drive on the G5 is only 1/4 to 1/3 full. I guess the real question is, will 1 TB be enough to keep me for the next 10 years, and is it worth it to go fusion just to boot OSX and load up DP faster. BTW this computer is dedicated to recording, no internet, no other programs other than those needed for recording. I appreciate any opinions.

[charlesparente]

If you're only using 300GB on your internal boot drive, I would choose the 1TB fusion option.

Are you storing your sample libraries on a separate SATA hard drive inside the mac pro currently?

How much GB of sample libraries do you have?

If you have less than 500GB of sample libraries, I would put them on a 512GB ssd
[if your budget will permit] connected externally to a USB3 port on the iMac.

SSD prices keep dropping--down to $400 for 512GB:

http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs. ... T512M4SSD2

----
The fusion drive is interesting, but I can't get a handle on the read speed performance spec.
For disk writes over 4GB the Fusion drops to SATA speed, since it keeps a 4GB buffer of SSD for disk writes. [I don't think we ever get disk writes that big in music production...]


From Macworld:

"...The Fusion Drive sets a certain amount of SSD capacity aside, at least 4GB. All data is written first to the SSD, but if you’re moving very large amounts of data in a single work session that exceeds the capacity of the SSD’s reserved area, the Fusion Drive has to move the data to the hard drive. If you’re trying to move a lot more than the SSD can hold, you will eventually hit a hard drive bottleneck, where the Fusion Drive has to slow down to the speed of the 5400-rpm hard drive. A Fusion Drive is not able to transfer a full 1TB of data at SSD speeds, because it does not have a 1TB SSD.
As seen in our Speedmark tests, however, smaller (but not small) transfers of data are handled well by this SSD-first strategy of the Fusion Drive. Most jobs are completed with speeds much closer to SSD speeds..."

http://www.macworld.com/article/2017365 ... imits.html

[steff3]

Hello

How about the USB3 interface .... I mean, USB2 always meant CPU overhead ... is USB3 better in this regard? Or would it be better to go eSATA with a Thunderbolt2SATA converter (like the laCie?)

Also, on the new iMacs, how is USB3 speed affected if also USB2 devices are connect so some of the connects on the back of the iMac? any information on that?

Thanks

best

[mikehalloran]

Because you will have Thunderbolt available, this isn't the issue it could be. The fusion drive is a nice compromise between a mechanical hd and an SSD.

TB or eSATA over TB will be plenty fast and you can do multiple drives, an option not available on my 2010 iMac.

You will save a lot of $$$ by buying your additional RAM from a company like OWC. Likewise, any Sanyo based external optical will be a. lot faster and less expensive than the Apple product. USB is fine for optical.

I didn't notice whether you were considering an i5 or i7 based iMac. You definitely want the i7. Makes a big difference on certain DP functions that use floating point processing. I recently had the chance to experience the differences.