1TB fusion VS 1TB(No fusion) noticeable difference?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by WhiteIphone5, Feb 21, 2013.

  1. macrumors 65816

    WhiteIphone5

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    #1
    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?
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    virginblue4

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #2
  3. macrumors 6502

    boto

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 68030

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #5
    This. My 3TB Fusion died within two weeks. Others have reported similar Fusion Drive failures on this forum.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    #6

    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 ?
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    #7
    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).
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Sterling, Va
    #8
    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.
     
  9. pete78, Feb 21, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2013

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #9
    [/COLOR]
    BTW, do you have an agenda by looking through threads and spotting negative Apple experiences and labeling those people as having an "agenda"?
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #11
    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"?
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    #12
    No , not at all
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Sterling, Va
    #13
    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?
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    #14
    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 !
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #15
    "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.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    #16
    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
     
  17. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #17
    "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?" ...
     
  18. macrumors demi-god

    firedept

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere!
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    jmgregory1

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago and Spooner (when it's not 20 below)
    #19
    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.
     

Share This Page