I have a 2012 with a fusion drive - it is SILENT - I never hear the drive running. And there is NO heat on the machine. Cold as ICE
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why the Hate for Fusion Drives?
- Thread starter whodatrr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a 2012 with a fusion drive - it is SILENT - I never hear the drive running. And there is NO heat on the machine. Cold as ICE
And how is it that you're forming this opinion? Typing this on a machine with an SSD, with several other SSD machines in the house. Have pretty much been exclusively using SSDs for at least 5 years, maybe longer. And many others in this thread have the same or more exposure to SSDs.
And you're the expert on Fusion drives because you've actually used them for several years, alongside SSDs (again, like myself and several others on this thread), or because you saw somebody make some claim about some benchmark? Just wondering how you're so qualified to pass judgment on Fusion drives and their users?
And you're the expert on Fusion drives because you've actually used them for several years, alongside SSDs (again, like myself and several others on this thread), or because you saw somebody make some claim about some benchmark? Just wondering how you're so qualified to pass judgment on Fusion drives and their users?
Quite easy. If I have a 50gb file I need to be processed then a fusion drive is junk. It's simply spinner-bound in such a case. See what I did there? It's called deduction by using past experience to form an opinion. A fusion drive made of 24gb SSD and the rest a spinner is junk no matter how Apple spins it (no pun intended).
Just to clarify: you're aware that only the newly-revised 1TB Fusion drive has a 24GB SSD, correct? All other models continue to retain the 128GB SSD, and all including the 1TB version now use 4-lane PCIe.
I never said it would be noisy nor that it would be very hot. I just said it's noisier and hotter than an SSD.
I've come to realize that this discussion is kinda lame though.
Why do people care if other people "hate" (except they don't hate) Fusion Drive? If you're happy with it and it's working for you, why does it matter to you that I would never choose it over pure SSD? Live your life with Fusion Drive and be happy with it. If that solution is working for you - great for you! I'm using pure SSD and that's working for me - awesome for me!
So much discussion about something that is purely a personal preference.
I have on my desk both 2015 iMac 27 with 1TB SSD and 2013 iMac 27 with 3TB Fusion Drive. I cannot normally hear any difference between them, nor do temperature sensors show the FD iMac is any hotter.
If I shut down my Windows PC on the other side of the room, then I shut down the RAID array connected to my iMacs, I still cannot hear any difference. If I then shut down my house central HVAC system I can hear a faint whirr from the Fusion Drive iMac. But I obviously cannot do real work with all my other equipment shut down and my HVAC shut down.
How do you know an iMac with Fusion Drive is noisier and hotter than one with SSD? Did you test them or measure them in any way whatsoever?
Yeah I returned my iMac with the 24gb fusion drive for the high end stock model with the 2tb fusion drive. The difference for me is very noticeable. Very happy the the 2tb fusion.
I just can't believe they lowered it to 24gb. It's an insult more than some of Apple's other sleekit stunts.
I'd be ok with it had they made it stock on the 21.5" and low-end 27", but they have the nerve to charge $100 for a measly 24 GB of SSD space. It shows how much attention Apple is putting into upselling overpriced storage increases & SSDs lately, making an expensive upgrade almost mandatory.
I remember the old iBook when you had the screen open and an external monitor connected. It would only display externally in mirror mode! That's 1024x768 of a display. I remember thinking that was a bl00dy con back in 2004 until I found out there was a FW hack around it. That's the first time I came to realize that Apple would intentionally neuter their cheaper products to make them intentionally inferior to slight the customer.
You have to be kidding me...
You're acting like its not a proven fact that a standard HDD has a way higher failure rate then an SSD ever will....
I have no idea why ANYONE would go with a fusion drive, you could put an SSD in and use one external drive and bam there you go. If your external dies you buy a new one and move on (considering you have a back up).
Where as when your fusion drive dies, it takes the SSD with it and bam there you are, another person at an apple store with HDD problems.
No one is a "hater" - people are offering opinions based on the fact that an HDD is unreliable compared to an SSD and thats a fact.
You could still use your ssd if the hdd dies. All you would have to do delete the fusion drive. Very easy to do in terminal.
I don't mind them. I'm happy Apple gives you the option online at least to eitehr get a big fusion drive or a 256 ssd for the same price. Maybe the top of the line iMac it should be a big fusion or a 512 ssd, but *shrugs* I prefer pure ssd, but options are nice.
I just bought an iMac from Best Buy (close to me) today. $200 off Student Discount + 10% Best Buy credit card discount (Ends today, end of October). It's the top model with 2TB fusion drive. Long story short, here's a quick test I just did. I'm sure the pure SSD is faster, but this is plenty for me. The 2TB fusion drive (128GB SSD + 2TB HDD) vs the 256GB SSD for the same price, I think the fusion drive is very good. Plenty of space to work on the iMac, and if I need backups, I can stick in an external, whether it's fusion drive or pure SSD.
(I need to learn photo editing skill, don't even know how to black out serial number, so had a textedit over it. Used Grab.)
The speed could probably be faster. I just ran it for about 20 seconds and stopped it here.
This is a lot faster than the 2015 Macbook 512GB SSD. That one does almost 450MB/s write and 850MB/s read.
![2dlvqe8.jpg]()
(I need to learn photo editing skill, don't even know how to black out serial number, so had a textedit over it. Used Grab.)
The speed could probably be faster. I just ran it for about 20 seconds and stopped it here.
This is a lot faster than the 2015 Macbook 512GB SSD. That one does almost 450MB/s write and 850MB/s read.
Last edited:
You see - you're mixing up 'higher failure rate' with 'will inevitably fail'. No-one's disputing that SSDs have a longer mtbf than HDDs. But, that doesn't detract from the fact that hard disks, in general, are very reliable.
True. The only hard drives in any electronics that I've ever used ever, and this is going back to the day the original Pong came out, that had massive failures were in the first few iPods. Whoever made those were drunk.
I'd like to see the proof. There have been plenty of SSDs where for example a power failure at the wrong moment would lead to total loss of all data on the SSD.
And either you have a backup or not. If you have a backup, it's an inconvenience. If you have no back up, your data will be gone eventually. 100%.
Excuse me, but can you give any evidence for MTBF for SSDs? Most that you buy nowadays have a specc'ed write limit of so many terabytes, and that number is not that high except for enterprise drives.
Why is this up for debate? Since we are limited to Apples choices it's like debating over the best color, it's subjective to how it's used.
I have over a TB of movies. Aside from copying them to another place on the drive (why would I do that?) an SSD's performance doesn't offer me much, plus Apple doesn't offer a larger SSD.
Then if we look at price, currently a 1 tb SSD would cost me 700$ + the price of a 2tb Fusion + the price and desk space of an external 1tb hard drive along with the occasional aggravation it can cause.
On the flip side someone else might have over 600gb of applications they run very often or use Windows via bootcamp a majority of the time so a 1tb SSD a better choice.
But for some reason a lot of people need to insist there is a one size fits all solution. If a fusion or SSD is better for YOU then great, that might not be the case for everyone though.
I have over a TB of movies. Aside from copying them to another place on the drive (why would I do that?) an SSD's performance doesn't offer me much, plus Apple doesn't offer a larger SSD.
Then if we look at price, currently a 1 tb SSD would cost me 700$ + the price of a 2tb Fusion + the price and desk space of an external 1tb hard drive along with the occasional aggravation it can cause.
On the flip side someone else might have over 600gb of applications they run very often or use Windows via bootcamp a majority of the time so a 1tb SSD a better choice.
But for some reason a lot of people need to insist there is a one size fits all solution. If a fusion or SSD is better for YOU then great, that might not be the case for everyone though.
Oft quoted figure is about 1.5 million hours (http://serverfault.com/questions/641726/mean-time-between-failures-ssd) and according to this http://www.storagereview.com/ssd_vs_hdd we are talking about 2 million hours for SSD versus 1.5 million for HDD.
As for calculating mtbf for a fusion drive, I had a think about that and decided it was way too complicated (it's not a case of combining two figures).
Yes they are coming from a spinner... because if they weren't, they wouldn't have to be told to upgrade to an SSD. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. The main point I think people are trying to get across is that the fusion drive can be a great compromise; apple makes mainstream computers for most part, they don't cater to professionals.
I came from using a pure flash macbook air, and I immediately filled the drive above the SSD capacity on my 1TB fusion drive (old one). I don't see the difference, I will mention that I am by no means a pro user though.
As for some of the math that is going on, two drives does NOT equate twice the failure rate. These represent independent random variables, but yes, there is still technically a higher chance that one of the two will fail at the basic logical level. In the same way that conducting one test can only produce one failure, whereas more experiments can mean more failures. Which basically means that the same is true when you buy an external drive, they are also prone to failure obviously.
Only drives I ever really hear are my externals, not internal drives.
Maybe I was misinformed when I purchased my late-2013, non-retina iMac. I bought it with a 512GB SSD and have attached 1TB USB drives for storage purposes. On one I keep RAW photos, another is for TM, and the third is partitioned between photo and CCC backups. Frankly, I can access anything I want as fast as I need it
I could easily have gotten a 2TB fusion that would have met all my needs, but I didn't really want everything I value inside one enclosure. When I go out of town I disconnect the USB drives, then store them away from the iMac. Why? I don't know. It just makes me feel good, I guess.
When replacement day comes for my iMac I'll consider fusion.
I could easily have gotten a 2TB fusion that would have met all my needs, but I didn't really want everything I value inside one enclosure. When I go out of town I disconnect the USB drives, then store them away from the iMac. Why? I don't know. It just makes me feel good, I guess.
When replacement day comes for my iMac I'll consider fusion.
I haven't tested fusion drive myself but I don't understand the logic behind it. Why combine two drives into one partition? I can understand for home use but I don't see any benefits for prosumer/ professional.
My distrust might be because of too many bugs in 10.10 and 10.11 but at the moment I don't want to risk my data to implementation that isn't documented satisfactorily (or if it has I haven't been able to find it in developer documentation).
My distrust might be because of too many bugs in 10.10 and 10.11 but at the moment I don't want to risk my data to implementation that isn't documented satisfactorily (or if it has I haven't been able to find it in developer documentation).
It's for adding an additional abstraction layer where the partition isn't contained as a subset of a physical drive. This enables having a partition that uses physical drives with different idiosyncrasies and managing the distribution between those drives according to the advantages of the corresponding drives without affecting the aspect of the partition that is exposed to anything beyond the storage management tier of the operating system.
Ideally, this should be done at a pure hardware level for the sake of better encapsulation, but for now, Fusion Drive is a technology managed by OS X.