Ok so it's quicker, but I'm still confused with Apple not mentioning SSD but only Flash, is this the same thing?In this case, yes. I believe Apple uses the term "flash" storage to differentiate from "SSD", which has come to mean - more or less - flash-type storage built into a housing the same form factor as "HDD" storage, and with a compatible SATA interface.
In other words, they don't want you to think you can buy an off-the-shelf SSD and install it.
You can't. At least not easily. It's a PCIe interface, but you'd need a custom built PCIe flash drive to fit the space inside the iMac. A preexisting PCIe flash solution like a Mercury Accelsior wouldn't fit.
Ok so it's quicker, but I'm still confused with Apple not mentioning SSD but only Flash, is this the same thing?Apple does use the term Flash to refer to SSDs. The iMac's SSD/flash option achieves well over 500MB/s, often reaching into the low 700MB/s.
Botts, thanks for that information, interesting to know!
In your first post you say: “I'd go with the iMac. The 27" display is fabulous, and the computer is wicked fast. I've got a loaded 2013 sitting on my desk right now.”
Your also saying about upgrading my current PC, which is definitely an option, so which would you do if you were in my position and you didn’t have an iMac?
I had meant to recommend the RAID option and RAM to be used with the iMac, not the current PC.
I see what is being said about Hard Drives but the top/near top iMac will still be much faster than my current Dell and I can cope with my Dell now so any improvment will be a bonus, so speed yes is important for programs like Lightroom, but for me I don’t see it as being essential.
I think the iMac is the best option for you. I'd order it with the 256GB SSD/Flash option, and go with USB 3.0 externals for storing your masters. Keep your apps and your LR Catalogues on your SSD.[/b]
But this does not get around my main point of wanting a new monitor, I have a 4 year old Samsung monitor and the iMac screen will blow my Samsung monitor out of the water. It definitely will, it's a fabulous display.[/color]
The iMac is available with flash memory, which is the same as an SSD. The flash memory is faster than any standard SSD you can put in your PC for 2 reasons. The first reason being that your Dell has a SATA II interface, which limits data transfer speeds to around 270MB/sec. The second reason is that the iMac uses a proprietary interface which is connected directly to a PCI Express lane and can reach speeds over 700MB/sec. Even SATA III interfaces in newer PCs can not reach these speeds.
The iMac also has a thunderbolt connection, which is faster than any eSATA or USB 3.0 port on any PC. This thunderbolt connection allows you to add additional storage, whether it be external hard drives or SSDs, with no loss in performance compared to an internal drive. I would opt for flash storage on your iMac. You can keep your Lightroom catalog on the internal flash storage, and keep your actual photos on a high capacity external HDD. Lightroom is still very quick when set up this way.
Rofflesaurrr nails it. I hadn't even thought of the SATA2 vs SATA3 issue. You're effectively wasting your money putting any SSD into that Dell as it'll be limited by your logic board's SATA2 connections.
The iMac is the way to go for future proofing. It'll have the speed to store large libraries effectively. USB 2.0 or FW800 even, will continue to slow down your workflow.
He also suggests the catalog = ssd, and masters = hdd advantage as well.