So how are you liking the Fusion drive?

motrek · Dec 14, 2012

Yougotcarved said:
Am I being a total idiot for really wanting the 768Gb flash drive? I can afford it comfortably but obviously the money can be put to other uses. Its just that I want SSD level performance, and I want it on OSX and on Windows bootcamp because you never know when you will want to use a program that isnt available on OSX and it would suck donkey balls to go back to HDD usage for that program.

Personally I would never do this but I'm not you.

I put all my music, videos, photos, backups, etc. on a hard drive because they don't benefit from SSD speeds.

Thus I can comfortably fit my OS, apps, and all recent files onto a 120GB SSD with plenty of space left over.

If I wanted to run Windows too, I'd get a 240GB SSD and divide it in half, between the two.

If you don't want to worry about offloading any files to a hard drive then get the 768GB SSD, but it's expensive. It comes down to how much you will miss that money I guess.

Yougotcarved · Dec 14, 2012

motrek said:
Personally I would never do this but I'm not you.

I put all my music, videos, photos, backups, etc. on a hard drive because they don't benefit from SSD speeds.

Thus I can comfortably fit my OS, apps, and all recent files onto a 120GB SSD with plenty of space left over.

If I wanted to run Windows too, I'd get a 240GB SSD and divide it in half, between the two.

If you don't want to worry about offloading any files to a hard drive then get the 768GB SSD, but it's expensive. It comes down to how much you will miss that money I guess.

But you can't boot windows off an external drive

And why does audio not benefit? Surely it'll reduce the lag of opening and manipulating audio files etc

12dylan34 · Dec 14, 2012

Love it. Boot time is about 12 seconds, and I've noticed things opening faster as I use them more.

motrek · Dec 14, 2012

Yougotcarved said:
But you can't boot windows off an external drive

And why does audio not benefit? Surely it'll reduce the lag of opening and manipulating audio files etc

Ah, didn't know about that restriction re: Windows. I've never used Windows on a Mac other than a VM via VirtualBox (great piece of software BTW).

As for audio not benefitting, I suppose it depends on what you're doing. In general audio files are relatively small and are accessed sequentially, so an SSD's low random access latency doesn't really come into play and hard drives are pretty quick (~100 MB/s) at accessing files sequentially.

I assume most programs that work with audio will load as much as possible into RAM and/or swap files on the SSD, so other than the initial loading of tracks (which should be fast) you won't notice any difference at all.

I guess I can imagine a scenario where you are working with hundreds of long, uncompressed audio files and mixing them all together and maybe you would see a tangible benefit from an SSD's performance, but that's a corner case...

WilliamG · Dec 14, 2012

theSeb said:
Usually it's actually SATA II in TB enclosures. Are there any TB enclosures that have been confirmed to be SATA III? It's actually SATA III that's holding TB back and not the other way around. Sure, there might be a slight overhead, but I have not seen any conclusive tests. I have seen people connecting an SSD using the Seagate TB adaptor and comparing the differences between it and a native SATA III connector. It's slower, but that's because the Seagate adaptor is SATA II.

At the end of the day, if we could get rid of the pesky SATA altogether and connect the drive directly into TB , we could achieve much faster speeds, as long as the drive was capable of those speeds.

Are we certain the Go Flex AND Backup Plus Seagate Thunderbolt adapaters are SATA II?

I hear the Buffalo Ministation is SATA III:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6127/...iew-an-external-with-usb-30-and-thunderbolt/2

"Here on the back side of the PCB there’s both an ASmedia ASM1456 SATA 3.0..."

forty2j · Dec 14, 2012

Yougotcarved said:
Am I being a total idiot for really wanting the 768Gb flash drive? I can afford it comfortably but obviously the money can be put to other uses. Its just that I want SSD level performance, and I want it on OSX and on Windows bootcamp because you never know when you will want to use a program that isnt available on OSX and it would suck donkey balls to go back to HDD usage for that program.

Given that you want SSD performance in OS X and Bootcamp, it comes down to:
- How willing are you to use command lines and/or third party tools to rearrange your Fusion drive to allocate some SSD to Windows?
- How willing are you to use an external drive?
- How willing are you to open the iMac, or pay someone else to do it, to install an after-market SSD?

The closer all three of those answers are to "not", the more your $1300 addon becomes the only option and makes sense.

Mac32 · Dec 14, 2012

To use old-fashioned HDs as internal drives in 2012 is completely backwards, unless you have very specific needs. The fact that Apple only gives us one SSD option for the 2012 mac, one that is outrageously overpriced, is almost a crime. You can get a 256gb SSD today for 1/5-1/4 for the price of the 768gb option, and a 512gb drive for about 2/5 of the 768gb price.
No matter how Apple is selling the Fusion drive, nothing is gonna change the fact that we're talking about 128gb of SSD and one whole tb of slow, hot, noisy HD. I'm never gonna buy a Fusion drive, but that's me...

Yougotcarved · Dec 14, 2012

Mac32 said:
To use old-fashioned HDs as internal drives in 2012 is completely backwards, unless you have very specific needs. The fact that Apple only gives us one SSD option for the 2012 mac, on that is outrageously overpriced, is almost a crime.
You can get a 256gb SSD today for 1/5-1/4 for the price of the 768gb option, and a 512gb drive for about 2/5 of the 768gb price.
No matter how Apple is selling the Fusion drive, nothing is gonna change the fact that we're talking about 128gb of SSD and one whole tb of slow, hot, noisy HD. I'm never gonna buy a Fusion drive, but that's me....

So what would you do if you wanted a 2012 iMac? Just suck it up and get the 768Gb?

motrek · Dec 14, 2012

Mac32 said:
To use old-fashioned HDs as internal drives in 2012 is completely backwards, unless you have very specific needs. The fact that Apple only gives us one SSD option for the 2012 mac, one that is outrageously overpriced, is almost a crime. You can get a 256gb SSD today for 1/5-1/4 for the price of the 768gb option, and a 512gb drive for about 2/5 of the 768gb price.
No matter how Apple is selling the Fusion drive, nothing is gonna change the fact that we're talking about 128gb of SSD and one whole tb of slow, hot, noisy HD. I'm never gonna buy a Fusion drive, but that's me...

Given that most people don't use more than 128GB of data frequently, and the price of a TB hard drive is 1/10th the price of a TB of SSD, it makes perfect sense.

I imagine that if you have a fusion drive, your slow/hot/noisy hard drive will generally be spun down and therefore at least not hot or noisy.

My TB hard drive is almost always spun down since I primarily use my own 120GB SSD.

Mac32 · Dec 14, 2012

motrek said:
Given that most people don't use more than 128GB of data frequently, and the price of a TB hard drive is 1/10th the price of a TB of SSD, it makes perfect sense.

I imagine that if you have a fusion drive, your slow/hot/noisy hard drive will generally be spun down and therefore at least not hot or noisy.

My TB hard drive is almost always spun down since I primarily use my own 120GB SSD.

My point is that it doesn't make sense when you have desktop machine, just get some external HD when you need those extra amounts of storage. At least give the user the option to get a reasonably priced SSD-only iMac. I guess some people don't care that much, but personally I can't stand internal HDs anymore since I got used to SSDs.
Anyway 512gb SSDs are much cheaper now, but oh no...Apple had to bully the users into get the slighty bigger 768gb SSD for almost 2.5x the price.
Sorry for going into rant-mode, but Apple sometimes makes odd choices.

motrek · Dec 14, 2012

Mac32 said:
My point is that it doesn't make sense when you have desktop machine, just get some external HD if you want huge amounts of storage. At least give the user the option to get a reasonable SSD-only option.
Anyway 512gb SSDs are much cheaper now, but oh no...Apple had to bully the users into get the slighty bigger 768gb SSD for almost 2.5x the price.
Fortunately I have the money to get the SSD option, but this is practically throwing money of the windows compared to what you get vs. slightly smaller SSDs bought in a store.
Sorry for going into rant-mode, but Apple sometimes makes odd choices.

Okay, then yes, I agree with that. I think of my Mini's internal TB hard drive as an external drive, and my external boot drive as an internal drive.

eroxx · Dec 14, 2012

2012 Fusion Drive vs 2010 SSD+HDD?

I own a souped up 27" mid-2010 iMac.

I very much want to upgrade, but only if it's a more powerful/faster machine.

My current 2010 iMac has a 256 SSD drive and another (factory installed) 2TB secondary drive.

I'm curious as to your thoughts regarding a souped up 2012 27" iMac, with the 3TB fusion. Is it possible that some things will be SLOWER since the pure amount of flash storage is less?

Yougotcarved · Dec 14, 2012

Mac32 said:
My point is that it doesn't make sense when you have desktop machine, just get some external HD when you need those extra amounts of storage. At least give the user the option to get a reasonably priced SSD-only iMac. I guess some people don't care that much, but personally I can't stand internal HDs anymore since I got used to SSDs.
Anyway 512gb SSDs are much cheaper now, but oh no...Apple had to bully the users into get the slighty bigger 768gb SSD for almost 2.5x the price.
Sorry for going into rant-mode, but Apple sometimes makes odd choices.

Totally agree! I'd love a 256Gb SSD option. What would you advise me though as someone with your opinions on HDDs who wants to buy a new iMac?

theSeb · Dec 14, 2012

WilliamG said:
Are we certain the Go Flex AND Backup Plus Seagate Thunderbolt adapaters are SATA II?

I hear the Buffalo Ministation is SATA III:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6127/...iew-an-external-with-usb-30-and-thunderbolt/2

"Here on the back side of the PCB there’s both an ASmedia ASM1456 SATA 3.0..."

Yes, that is correct. I actually found the same info about the Buffalo, but then I went to get some fish and chips and didn't get a chance to post.

As for regarding the Seagate Thunderbolt adaptor, all benchmarks done on the drive suggest that the controller is SATA II, but I wanted to double check so I am doing some quick research.

I've found that the Seagate Thunderbolt Desk adaptor version's SATA controller is ASM1061, which is SATA III.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/my-book-thunderbolt-duo-pegasus-r4-2big,3222-9.html

http://www.asmedia.com.tw/eng/e_show_products.php?cate_index=117&item=118

But I am struggling to find the specifications for the smaller brother.

Edit: and then this article on the Desk version claims that it uses a SATA II controller

http://www.electronista.com/article...x.desk.thunderbolt.adapter.worth.the.upgrade/

Very confusing.

WilliamG · Dec 14, 2012

OK so to help everyone out I just ran some tests on a brand new Samsung 830 25GB drive.

I used THREE Thunderbolt enclosures for this test:

The Buffalo Ministation (with the crime-of-a 500GB 5400rpm drive removed)

Seagate Backup Plus 1TB Thunderbolt (with the crime-of-a-1TB 5400rpm drive removed).

Seagate Backup Plus 3TB Thunderbolt (with the not-too-bad 3TB drive removed)

Connected via Thunderbolt to a 2011 Mac mini and a 2011 MacBook Air I got the exact same results with all three enclosures + the Samsung 830 256GB SSD:

That is 360MB/s reads, and 320MB/s writes, give or take 1-2MB/s.

For references, the 3TB Seagate Backup Plus pulls a VERY respectable 185MB/s read, and the same 185MB/s write with the internal disk. Very awesome, if you ask me.

So what does that tell us about the SATA enclosures and if they're SATA II or SATA III? I'm not sure. I don't know what people are getting with their internal Samsung 830 disks. All I know is I'm quite happy to "only" be getting 360MB/s read and 320MB/s writes using the Thunderbolt method.

Bill P. · Dec 14, 2012

I love mine. Very fast and my entire system is small enough to reside on the SSD. Thus my iMac is dead quiet as well.

Bill

theSeb · Dec 14, 2012

WilliamG said:
OK so to help everyone out I just ran some tests on a brand new Samsung 830 25GB drive.

I used THREE Thunderbolt enclosures for this test:

The Buffalo Ministation (with the crime-of-a 500GB 5400rpm drive removed)

Seagate Backup Plus 1TB Thunderbolt (with the crime-of-a-1TB 5400rpm drive removed).

Seagate Backup Plus 3TB Thunderbolt (with the not-too-bad 3TB drive removed)

Connected via Thunderbolt to a 2011 Mac mini and a 2011 MacBook Air I got the exact same results with all three enclosures + the Samsung 830 256GB SSD:

That is 360MB/s reads, and 320MB/s writes, give or take 1-2MB/s.

For references, the 3TB Seagate Backup Plus pulls a VERY respectable 185MB/s read, and the same 185MB/s write with the internal disk. Very awesome, if you ask me.

So what does that tell us about the SATA enclosures and if they're SATA II or SATA III? I'm not sure. I don't know what people are getting with their internal Samsung 830 disks. All I know is I'm quite happy to "only" be getting 360MB/s read and 320MB/s writes using the Thunderbolt method.

What app did you use for the testing?

I have found this, which makes for interesting reading. Unfortunately they are still using the desk top version of the GoFlex, I think, unless it's possible to connect a 3.5" bare hard drive to the portable version.

Non-RAID Thunderbolt drives employing third-party SATA controllers underperform native SATA connections, though, in this case. Seagate's GoFlex Thunderbolt adapter, for example, uses ASMedia's ASM1061 SATA controller, which coincidentally is also on-board our MSI Z77A-GD80. Theoretically, random performance should be nearly identical from both devices. But the GoFlex Thunderbolt adapter only delivers 120 MB/s, whereas we can achieve 160 MB/s with a direct connection to motherboard's ASM1061.

According to ASMedia, the performance of its ASM1061 depends on vendor-specific BIOS optimization. Creating a product for a broader range of applications, like the GoFlex, means less of the tuning you'd find on a piece of hardware tweaked for a certain motherboard model.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/thunderbolt-performance-z77a-gd80,3205-2.html

Very interesting stuff, which goes some way to explain the differences between native SATA vs TB--> SATA

AppleFan360 · Dec 14, 2012

theSeb said:
The SSD that I suggested will be faster than anything the Fusion drive can do. I am not sure where the opinion part falls into the story.

It's not a matter of faster, it's preference. Maybe some people don't want something external attached (which could get accidently disconnected BTW). Also, the Fusion drive is a cheaper alternative for fast speeds with lots of storage.

WilliamG said:
True, but it's less effective if you want >120GB of pure flash-speed storage.

Not necessarily. My system uses 375GB and so far I have not noticed any major slowdowns. Have any of you guys even used a Fusion drive?

theSeb · Dec 14, 2012

Chris Blount said:
It's not a matter of faster, it's preference. Maybe some people don't want something external attached (which could get accidently disconnected BTW). Also, the Fusion drive is a cheaper alternative for fast speeds with lots of storage.

Not necessarily. My system uses 375GB and so far I have not noticed any major slowdowns. Have any of you guys even used a Fusion drive?

Hold on. Are you telling me that you judge and compare storage performance by whether you notice a slow down? I don't even know what to say to that.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1294016/

Dispelling the SSD myth. What is fast? Samsung vs Toshiba
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1197959/

Let's finish the conversation here. I am glad that you enjoy your fusion drive.

eroxx · Dec 14, 2012

And this is my question ... Part of me doesn't want to make the plunge because I'll "miss" the 256 SSD, but another part of me thinks that because it's a fusion drive, it my act less like a 3td HDD and more like a SSD? Anyone?

WilliamG · Dec 14, 2012

Chris Blount said:
It's not a matter of faster, it's preference. Maybe some people don't want something external attached (which could get accidently disconnected BTW). Also, the Fusion drive is a cheaper alternative for fast speeds with lots of storage.

Not necessarily. My system uses 375GB and so far I have not noticed any major slowdowns. Have any of you guys even used a Fusion drive?

Yes necessarily! We don't need to use a Fusion drive to know how it works. 255GB of your 375GB used is stored on a regular, spinning hard disk. The software is "intelligently" decided which blocks are stored where, and that is all. During downtime those blocks are shifted around, but that still means that 355GB of data is on a spinning disk, which, in my eyes, is unforgivable in a Mac Product in nigh-2013.

----------

theSeb said:
What app did you use for the testing?

I just used the Black Magic Speed Test app. Perhaps not super scientific, but hey - it works.

Yougotcarved · Dec 14, 2012

eroxx said:
And this is my question ... Part of me doesn't want to make the plunge because I'll "miss" the 256 SSD, but another part of me thinks that because it's a fusion drive, it my act less like a 3td HDD and more like a SSD? Anyone?

If you keep your hard drive under 128Gb full then it will be exactly like an SSD.

If you go over 128Gb, some things will be shunted onto the HDD. Anything on the HDD will operate with HDD speeds which is a pain. Anything you operate frequently will be on the SSD so if you use Safari, iTunes etc alot they'll all work with SSD speeds.

If you don't need to use BootCamp then I recommend a Fusion drive and just keep the memory on it less than 128Gb and everything will work at SSD speeds.

eroxx · Dec 14, 2012

Yougotcarved said:
If you keep your hard drive under 128Gb full then it will be exactly like an SSD.

If you go over 128Gb, some things will be shunted onto the HDD. Anything on the HDD will operate with HDD speeds which is a pain. Anything you operate frequently will be on the SSD so if you use Safari, iTunes etc alot they'll all work with SSD speeds.

If you don't need to use BootCamp then I recommend a Fusion drive and just keep the memory on it less than 128Gb and everything will work at SSD speeds.

Except you can't control what goes on the SSD and what goes on the HDD, so it's impossible to keep the memory on it less than 128GB.

It seems that from what I'm reading, though, it doesn't just keep the "most used" stuff on the fusion part of the drive .. It also keeps 4GB dedicated to read/write/import/etc .. If that's true, it could actually be better than the 2010 setup, no???

----------

And when do you think we can see some 27" souped up benchmarks? Come on already!

Yougotcarved · Dec 14, 2012

eroxx said:
Except you can't control what goes on the SSD and what goes on the HDD, so it's impossible to keep the memory on it less than 128GB.

It seems that from what I'm reading, though, it doesn't just keep the "most used" stuff on the fusion part of the drive .. It also keeps 4GB dedicated to read/write/import/etc .. If that's true, it could actually be better than the 2010 setup, no???

You misunderstand: I mean keep the total amount of data on your iMac less than 128GB and if needs be use an external drive for anything more. In that way you can control it, keep anything on your iMac that you need to be fast and all your media on an external drive.

Yes it could be better than the 2010 for a certain kind of user.

eroxx · Dec 14, 2012

Ha, that's part of my confusion, the "certain" kind of user business

It seems ridiculous that the top of the line 2012 iMac might be negligibly faster (or even perhaps slower in certain cases)than the top of the line 2010.

So how are you liking the Fusion drive?

macrumors 68030

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68030

macrumors G3

macrumors 68030

Suspended

macrumors regular

macrumors 68030

Suspended

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors 604

macrumors G3

macrumors regular

macrumors 604

macrumors 68020

macrumors 604

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G3

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

Our Staff