Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 21, 2013, 09:11 AM   #1
WhiteIphone5
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lima, Peru
1TB fusion VS 1TB(No fusion) noticeable difference?

Every dollar counts for me‚ so how much of a difference is there. I've heard other use an external SSD to boot Mac OS. I'm not completely sure what to get. Would I be saving money if I go the 1TB and get a separate SSD via USB? I'm not looking for space so I would most likely get 128GB SSD.
For those who have 1TB without fusion. How long to open apps‚ boot Mac os?
WhiteIphone5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 09:17 AM   #2
virginblue4
macrumors 65816
 
virginblue4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: United Kingdom
This video shows you fusion vs non-fusion.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mdmo2aB5b8g
__________________

iPhone 5S, gold, iOS 8.1
iPad mini 2, silver, iOS 8.1
Late 2012 27" iMac - 3.4GHz i7, 1TB Fusion, 24GB RAM, 680MX 2GB
virginblue4 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 12:19 PM   #3
boto
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
I would highly recommend getting a Fusion Drive. The performance is absolutely incredible. Bootup is nearly instant 12 seconds, launching apps is nearly instant, loading games (at least on the Mac OSX partition) is fast, and you will be doing yourself a huge favor if you plan on keeping your iMac for several years.
__________________
iMac 27" 3.4Ghz, GTX 680MX, 1TB FD, 32GB RAM | rMBP 2.6Ghz/16GB RAM/256GB | 16GB iPhone 5 White | 16GB iPad 3rd Gen White | Time Capsule 2TB | Apple TV 3
boto is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 12:21 PM   #4
FreakinEurekan
macrumors 68030
 
FreakinEurekan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Eureka Springs, Arkansas
I went for the Fusion drive (Mac Mini) and the performance is excellent. Boot-up time is very fast, opening apps, editing large photos, lots of areas where the performance boost is noticeable. What I particularly like vs. having a separate SSD boot drive is that I get the benefit on almost all operations - e.g. if I'm using Photoshop to compile an image with some graphics & layers, as I save versions or export JPGs the writes are very snappy (because they go to the SSD first automatically). Then OS X in the background rearranges the files so that they end up on the HDD for long-term storage, since I don't access them much after the fact. You don't get that benefit with separate drives.

Is the cost worth the performance advantage? That's up to you. HDD-only does everything that Fusion does, it's just slower. For me the cost difference was well worth it.

One other aspect is that because you have both SSD and HDD in the computer, you're increasing your chances of hardware failure slightly. That concerned me enough that I bought AppleCare for the 3-year warranty, which I probably wouldn't have with a HDD-only system. Just another point to consider.
FreakinEurekan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 01:15 PM   #5
pete78
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakinEurekan View Post
One other aspect is that because you have both SSD and HDD in the computer, you're increasing your chances of hardware failure slightly. That concerned me enough that I bought AppleCare for the 3-year warranty, which I probably wouldn't have with a HDD-only system. Just another point to consider.
This. My 3TB Fusion died within two weeks. Others have reported similar Fusion Drive failures on this forum.
pete78 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 02:24 PM   #6
mushroomtip
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete78 View Post
This. My 3TB Fusion died within two weeks. Others have reported similar Fusion Drive failures on this forum.

do you have some kind of agenda. seems like you are jumping at every chance you can get to post that your fusion drive died . I believe you ave 3 threads devoted to telling us your fusion drive died . so I have to wonder what is your agenda ?
__________________
Once You Go Mac, You Never Go Back !
mushroomtip is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 02:59 PM   #7
tangfj
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete78 View Post
This. My 3TB Fusion died within two weeks. Others have reported similar Fusion Drive failures on this forum.
So did Apple replace your iMac?

I've have a fusion drive in my iMac and I haven't had ANY issues. The fusion drive is great and you really do see performance boosts as my mac boots up in no time and applications open very quickly (compared to my old mac pro).
tangfj is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 03:10 PM   #8
Count Blah
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sterling, Va
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomtip View Post
do you have some kind of agenda. seems like you are jumping at every chance you can get to post that your fusion drive died . I believe you ave 3 threads devoted to telling us your fusion drive died . so I have to wonder what is your agenda ?
I seem to be reminded of a famous movie scene. Something to do with a wall, and Jack Nicholson.

You do know, that not everyone goes into every single thread.
__________________
I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
Count Blah is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 03:13 PM   #9
pete78
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
[/COLOR]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomtip View Post
do you have some kind of agenda. seems like you are jumping at every chance you can get to post that your fusion drive died . I believe you ave 3 threads devoted to telling us your fusion drive died . so I have to wonder what is your agenda ?
BTW, do you have an agenda by looking through threads and spotting negative Apple experiences and labeling those people as having an "agenda"?

Last edited by pete78; Feb 21, 2013 at 04:19 PM.
pete78 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 03:51 PM   #10
mushroomtip
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Blah View Post
I seem to be reminded of a famous movie scene. Something to do with a wall, and Jack Nicholson.

You do know, that not everyone goes into every single thread.
are you asking me or telling me ? and what movie are you talking about ?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete78 View Post
No agenda; just expressing my experience/opinion when there is an opportunity to do so, like everyone else on this board.

----------



BTW, do you have an agenda by looking through threads and spotting negative Apple experiences and labeling those people as having an "agenda"?
I don't need to seek a negative Apple experience thread , just have to look through your post count and see which thread you are trying to steer in that direction.
__________________
Once You Go Mac, You Never Go Back !
mushroomtip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 04:19 PM   #11
pete78
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomtip View Post
are you asking me or telling me ? and what movie are you talking about ?

----------



I don't need to seek a negative Apple experience thread , just have to look through your post count and see which thread you are trying to steer in that direction.
Thanks, but still would appreciate your response to my question; do you have an agenda by trying to identify people who express bad Apple experiences and label those people as having an "agenda"?
pete78 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 05:09 PM   #12
mushroomtip
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete78 View Post
Thanks, but still would appreciate your response to my question; do you have an agenda by trying to identify people who express bad Apple experiences and label those people as having an "agenda"?
No , not at all
__________________
Once You Go Mac, You Never Go Back !
mushroomtip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 05:15 PM   #13
Count Blah
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sterling, Va
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomtip View Post
are you asking me or telling me ? and what movie are you talking about ?
A few good men

All I was joking hinting at was "lighten up Francis".

Please tell me you know what movie that one is from?
__________________
I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
Count Blah is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 06:30 PM   #14
mushroomtip
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Blah View Post
A few good men

All I was joking hinting at was "lighten up Francis".

Please tell me you know what movie that one is from?
ahhhh ! ok ! I would like to lie and say "Stripes" one of my favorites, but I haven't seen that flick in so long that I had to look up the quote .
it is indeed a great movie , and that's the fact jack !
__________________
Once You Go Mac, You Never Go Back !
mushroomtip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 10:15 AM   #15
FreakinEurekan
macrumors 68030
 
FreakinEurekan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Eureka Springs, Arkansas
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete78 View Post
This. My 3TB Fusion died within two weeks. Others have reported similar Fusion Drive failures on this forum.
"Fusion" drives don't fail. Hard drives fail, or SSDs fail. If you have a fusion drive, the failure of either knocks out the fusion drive. The MTBF stats say that your hard drive is much more likely to be the one that dies, but the chances of an SSD dying are not zero. That's why I say it increased your chances of a failure "Slightly" - you have a small but measurably greater chance of failure from a Fusion as you do from a HDD-only setup.
FreakinEurekan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 10:20 AM   #16
itsamacthing
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
If you are on a budget, get the 1tb fusion at a minimum. I would rather have an SSD and i5 vs HDD and i7 - and memory upgrades are cheap
itsamacthing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:39 AM   #17
Fishrrman
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
"do you have some kind of agenda. seems like you are jumping at every chance you can get to post that your fusion drive died . I believe you ave 3 threads devoted to telling us your fusion drive died . so I have to wonder what is your agenda?"

I am not the poster to whom you are replying, but I do think the fusion drive is a riskier proposition for most users, than would be two separate drives (SSD + HDD).

It looks great in concept, and I'm sure it runs quickly, as well -- so long as nothing goes wrong. But when something DOES go wrong, fusion will render BOTH drives unusable, and perhaps even un-recoverable (using standard data-recovery software).

Consider:
Where is the "recovery partition" stored on a fusion setup? (I'm going to _guess_ that it's located on the SSD drive, but not sure that it matters). If the drive that contains the recovery partition has a hardware failure, there will be no way to do "an emergency boot", recovery partition or no.

Consider:
If one drive of the fusion setup fails, both drives may become UNrecoverable without special software that can "sort out" the block-level tricks that fusion is using to disperse data on both drives. Can a data-recovery app like DataRescue3 recover from a single drive of a [formerly] fused setup?

Consider:
The stock answer to the question "what to do when a fusion drive fails" is going to be "well, then you just replace the failed drive and restore from your backup". But the reality is that most folks who buy Mac with fusion aren't going to keep a backup. That's just the way it goes. At least with non-fused drives, data recovery software _might_ help them in the case of a failure. But with fusion, the jury is still out on this.

Finally, from the reviews on fusion I've seen, I get the gist that fusion is considerably (perhaps remarkably) faster than an HDD, but still slower than an "outright" (non-fused) SSD.

What kind of read/write speeds are the fusion drives yielding in the new iMacs and Mini's?

If the only reason for fusion is so the average user won't be confused by two drive icons on his/her desktop instead of just one… well…. seems kind of risky for anyone who will keep the computer for any length of time (thus, becoming more vulnerable to a failure of one of the drives in the fusion setup).

I see fusion as "RAID for dummies" (in the same way I view Time Machine as "backing up for dummies"). Looks easy, but there are risks involved. I think most RAID users will tell you that the failure of one of the RAID'ed drives can cause a lot of trouble. Same with the failure of the "fused drives".

I sense that about a year down the road, we're going to start seeing one post after another from folks lamenting, "my fusion drive failed, I didn't have it backed up, what do I do now?" ...
Fishrrman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 12:07 PM   #18
firedept
macrumors Demi-God
 
firedept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteIphone5 View Post
Every dollar counts for me‚ so how much of a difference is there. I've heard other use an external SSD to boot Mac OS. I'm not completely sure what to get. Would I be saving money if I go the 1TB and get a separate SSD via USB? I'm not looking for space so I would most likely get 128GB SSD.
For those who have 1TB without fusion. How long to open apps‚ boot Mac os?
Why so negative everyone?

Lets get back to the OP question. I have 27" i7 with 1TB Fusion Drive. I can tell you it is an amazing piece of equipment. I do graphic & web design, plus video on the side and it has made my work time shorter by at least 10%. Start up is half or less of what it used to be on my old 2011 iMac with just 1TB drive. Opening apps and working with them is quicker as well. Unless you are use to working with just a SSD, you would have a hard time noticing the slight difference in time it takes at doing things with fusion. Yes the SSD alone is definitely faster, but not by much.

If you can afford it, I would recommend fusion hands down. It also depends on what you do with your machine. I work mine hard. I do graphics, web and video with my machine so I enjoy having the fusion.

I would suggest having a backup plan in place though, should something fail. This way you protect your data.
firedept is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2013, 08:38 AM   #19
jmgregory1
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago and Spooner (when it's not 20 below)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishrrman View Post
"do you have some kind of agenda. seems like you are jumping at every chance you can get to post that your fusion drive died . I believe you ave 3 threads devoted to telling us your fusion drive died . so I have to wonder what is your agenda?"

I am not the poster to whom you are replying, but I do think the fusion drive is a riskier proposition for most users, than would be two separate drives (SSD + HDD).

It looks great in concept, and I'm sure it runs quickly, as well -- so long as nothing goes wrong. But when something DOES go wrong, fusion will render BOTH drives unusable, and perhaps even un-recoverable (using standard data-recovery software).

Consider:
Where is the "recovery partition" stored on a fusion setup? (I'm going to _guess_ that it's located on the SSD drive, but not sure that it matters). If the drive that contains the recovery partition has a hardware failure, there will be no way to do "an emergency boot", recovery partition or no.

Consider:
If one drive of the fusion setup fails, both drives may become UNrecoverable without special software that can "sort out" the block-level tricks that fusion is using to disperse data on both drives. Can a data-recovery app like DataRescue3 recover from a single drive of a [formerly] fused setup?

Consider:
The stock answer to the question "what to do when a fusion drive fails" is going to be "well, then you just replace the failed drive and restore from your backup". But the reality is that most folks who buy Mac with fusion aren't going to keep a backup. That's just the way it goes. At least with non-fused drives, data recovery software _might_ help them in the case of a failure. But with fusion, the jury is still out on this.

Finally, from the reviews on fusion I've seen, I get the gist that fusion is considerably (perhaps remarkably) faster than an HDD, but still slower than an "outright" (non-fused) SSD.

What kind of read/write speeds are the fusion drives yielding in the new iMacs and Mini's?

If the only reason for fusion is so the average user won't be confused by two drive icons on his/her desktop instead of just one… well…. seems kind of risky for anyone who will keep the computer for any length of time (thus, becoming more vulnerable to a failure of one of the drives in the fusion setup).

I see fusion as "RAID for dummies" (in the same way I view Time Machine as "backing up for dummies"). Looks easy, but there are risks involved. I think most RAID users will tell you that the failure of one of the RAID'ed drives can cause a lot of trouble. Same with the failure of the "fused drives".

I sense that about a year down the road, we're going to start seeing one post after another from folks lamenting, "my fusion drive failed, I didn't have it backed up, what do I do now?" ...
If you take this position, that anything new or different provides for additional chances of failure, we would never move forward with anything. The thing with FD's is that they are in reality just a hdd and ssd fused together with software. The chance that the ssd fails is going to be whatever the average failure rate is for ssd's - which is, as I remember, a very small percentage. The chance that the hdd fails will be whatever the average failure rate is for hdd's, a number much larger than that of ssd's.

If your point is that the only real good solution is to run only ssd, then I would agree, but Apple has figured out how to provide ssd speed with hdd storage for a very reasonable price. I'm sure it's just a stepping stone until ssd prices come down and capacities go up, but for most people it should be THE thing they pay for now as the difference in speed between hdd and fd is just so significant.
jmgregory1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Difference between 1TB vs. 3TB Fusion Drive? Tofray iMac 8 Oct 19, 2013 07:53 AM
1TB Fusion vs Fused 250SSD + 1TB 5200rpm? Utterchaos23 Mac mini 5 May 12, 2013 10:00 AM
1TB Fusion vs. 3TB Fusion ajkr711 iMac 13 Dec 31, 2012 11:53 AM
Fusion confusion. Why no bootcamp on 3TB Fusion but OK on 1TB Fusion inscrewtable OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion 1 Dec 11, 2012 11:21 PM
Should I get 1TB Fusion or 3TB non Fusion? frocco iMac 9 Dec 6, 2012 10:26 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC