Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jacoblee23

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 10, 2011
1,478
735
I have a 2017 27" 5k 1tb fusion drive iMac. The main issues I have is that it takes a few seconds when coming back on from sleep to catch up and run how it should. Once it is awake from sleep though I don't have any major issues. It is slower than my 2017 MacBook and 2017 MacBook Pro and 2017 Air, but I still really enjoy using my iMac and its beautiful screen and will be holding onto it for the next few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MandiMac and vkd

iwrkalot

macrumors newbie
Jun 2, 2018
6
4
I am a Mac user from way back and have own a number of Apple computers over the years. Classic, PB 140, 2 original iMacs, a Performa, PB 17" Ti, 2006 17" iMac, and now a 2017 iMac 27" 5k 2TB. I was one of the people at the local Best Buy (or was it CompUSA?) when the beta of OS X was released.

At work I use a HP Omen i7 system, 32gigs of ram, 1tb with 256 SSD on Windows 10. I have to admit that Windows 10 is a decent OS BUT every reincarnation of the Windows OS there are dramatic changes in the user experience. An average user will never find notepad, the snipping tool, or the full control panel just to name a few. The migration from the old windows machine to to the new HP was like getting a root canal. I could go on and on, but I won't.

I was recently given a 2017 iMac 27" 5k 2TB for my 53rd birthday. The OS is so familiar, and for the most part, the user experience is very similar to the first public beta. The migration from the 06' 17 iMac was painless and seamless. The display is simply stunning. There are no noticeable speed differences compared the the HP i7 Omen.

I understand that there are some that have had issues, and those that have are the most vocal. Users that are very satisfied, like myself, are less likely to post their positive experience than a disgruntled user with a variety of issues. Some people have nothing better to do than whine. For those I give a trophy, because everyone should get a trophy :)
 

JustMartin

macrumors 6502a
Feb 28, 2012
787
271
UK
I'm very happy with my Fusion drive Mac and I know others round here with the same experience. But, you've rattled a stick in an ants' nest. This thread will soon be full of people frothing at the mouth and stating that they "ain't having no spinning rust in my machine" or claiming that they have not only the time, but the ability to manage the caching better than the OS.
 

mj_

macrumors 68000
May 18, 2017
1,618
1,281
Austin, TX
You're not the only one - I feel exactly the same. Although I haven't noticed it taking longer to wake up from sleep to be honest. In fact, it's faster than my 12" MacBook because that tends to freeze for 10-15 seconds almost every time it wakes from sleep. It takes much longer to boot but once it's up and running and I've got my applications in RAM there's absolutely no difference to an SSD-equipped Mac anymore.

The Fusion Drive is not as bad as many people in the tech bubble on the internet make it out to be. It's a decent compromise between space and performance. Would I prefer a 1 TB SSD instead of a 1 TB Fusion Drive? Absolutely. Is it worth Apple's utterly ridiculous premium though? Most likely not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iwrkalot

Weaselboy

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 23, 2005
34,342
15,977
California
When these first came out there was a long thread here with most of the owners that I recall saying they were very happy with the performance of the Fusion drive.

I think a lot of the negative posts are from people who recoil at the specs of the flash part of the drive and may not have owned one and used it much.

I read a post where someone said the Fusion iMacs in the Apple stores have everything installed in the hard drive, not even using the Fusion/flash drive, due to the way their nightly reimaging software works at the stores. If that is true, that probably contributes to some of the bad impression if people are relying on test usage at the Apple store.
 

jerwin

Suspended
Jun 13, 2015
2,895
4,651
some well heeled (or well positioned) reviewer should conduct a long term benchmark of two otherwise identical machines-- one with fusion drive, one with a pure flash drive, and see what happens.

Not everyone uses Final Cut Pro, or Adobe apps. (The most strenuous app I use is finereader-- and there are no benchmarks to speak of--rather disappointing because pegging 3 cores for an hour or two cries out for some performance analysis., Plus, it is applescriptable, so... .)

I will mention that Windows 10 on a hard drive (which is where bootcamp will place it) is a miserable experience
 

_Refurbished_

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2007
2,341
3,028
I've seen the horrors of what happens to older Macs on "spinning rust" drives. My sister's i5 iMac from a few years ago was sputtering to a crawl on a standard HDD. Time takes its toll. Once we popped an SSD in there, it flew like a bird in the wind.

I'm not saying this is a direct comparison to the Fusion drives, but rather the 1TB Fusion drive simply doesn't have the flash capacity I desire from my boot disk.

The 2TB / 3TB drives would perform better over a longer period of time, yielding a negligible difference compared to full SSD. I could have gotten away with getting one, but then you're at the mercy of two separate drives that could fail on your boot disk. This is not something I wanted to do.

I think the best compromise in performance, space, and reliability is the 512 SSD. Slap external storage (standard or SSD) via velcro to the back of your iMac and you're all set.
 
Last edited:

Jacoblee23

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 10, 2011
1,478
735
I've seen the horrors of what happens to older Macs on "spinning rust" drives. My sister's i5 iMac from a few years ago was sputtering to a crawl on a standard HDD. Time takes its toll. Once we popped an SSD in there, it flew like a bird in the wind.

I'm not saying this is a direct comparison to the Fusion drives, but rather the 1TB Fusion drive simply doesn't have the flash capacity I desire from my boot disk.

The 2TB / 3TB drives would perform better over a longer period of time, yielding a negligible difference compared to full SSD. I could have gotten away with getting one, but then you're at the mercy of two separate drives that could fail on your boot disk. This is not something I wanted to do.

I think the best compromise in performance, space, and reliability is the 512 SSD. Slap external storage (standard or SSD) via velcro to the back of your iMac and you're all set.

So you're saying I could put a SSD on my iMac without actually opening it up? I could do it externally and run the whole machine that way?
 

Blaze4G

macrumors 65816
Oct 31, 2015
1,300
1,178
I am a Mac user from way back and have own a number of Apple computers over the years. Classic, PB 140, 2 original iMacs, a Performa, PB 17" Ti, 2006 17" iMac, and now a 2017 iMac 27" 5k 2TB. I was one of the people at the local Best Buy (or was it CompUSA?) when the beta of OS X was released.

At work I use a HP Omen i7 system, 32gigs of ram, 1tb with 256 SSD on Windows 10. I have to admit that Windows 10 is a decent OS BUT every reincarnation of the Windows OS there are dramatic changes in the user experience. An average user will never find notepad, the snipping tool, or the full control panel just to name a few. The migration from the old windows machine to to the new HP was like getting a root canal. I could go on and on, but I won't.

I was recently given a 2017 iMac 27" 5k 2TB for my 53rd birthday. The OS is so familiar, and for the most part, the user experience is very similar to the first public beta. The migration from the 06' 17 iMac was painless and seamless. The display is simply stunning. There are no noticeable speed differences compared the the HP i7 Omen.

I understand that there are some that have had issues, and those that have are the most vocal. Users that are very satisfied, like myself, are less likely to post their positive experience than a disgruntled user with a variety of issues. Some people have nothing better to do than whine. For those I give a trophy, because everyone should get a trophy :)
It's really not that hard to click the start button and type notepad, snip or control panel. Takes about 2 seconds.
 

jerwin

Suspended
Jun 13, 2015
2,895
4,651
It's really not that hard to click the start button and type notepad, snip or control panel. Takes about 2 seconds.
It's a new user interface paradigm that only makes sense when the OS is run from an SSD. Otherwise, there's a bit of a delay.
 

tubeexperience

macrumors 68040
Feb 17, 2016
3,192
3,897
does macos support TRIM over USB3 yet?

No, but you can do this:

foto_no_exif_5.jpg

foto_no_exif_7.jpg
 

Blaze4G

macrumors 65816
Oct 31, 2015
1,300
1,178
It's a new user interface paradigm that only makes sense when the OS is run from an SSD. Otherwise, there's a bit of a delay.
Yep, and every modern computer should be coming with an SSD or some hybrid version atleast.
 

glenthompson

macrumors demi-god
Apr 27, 2011
2,983
844
Virginia
We upgraded my wife’s 2011 iMac with SSD upgrade to a 2017 5k with 3tb Fusion. Significantly faster as her working set usually fits in the 128gb of the SSD portion of the Fusion. The Fusion SSD is much faster then the SATA 3 SSD in the old iMac. If you have a large working set the Fusion is probably not for you.
 

Glockworkorange

Suspended
Feb 10, 2015
2,511
4,184
Chicago, Illinois
I have a 2017 27" 5k 1tb fusion drive iMac. The main issues I have is that it takes a few seconds when coming back on from sleep to catch up and run how it should. Once it is awake from sleep though I don't have any major issues. It is slower than my 2017 MacBook and 2017 MacBook Pro and 2017 Air, but I still really enjoy using my iMac and its beautiful screen and will be holding onto it for the next few years.
I had the first 5K iMac with a 128 SSD and 1 TB fusion drive.

Machine worked fine. Current iMac is one TD SSD. I don't really notice a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacoblee23

kschendel

macrumors 65816
Dec 9, 2014
1,287
560
Like so many things, the Fusion drive is a compromise; in this case among cost, speed, and storage space, pick two out of three. And like any compromise, it may or may not work out depending on what your needs are. The Fusion caching / tiering algorithms work fine for many users and workflows. If you happen to have a workflow or usage pattern that the algorithms aren't designed to catch, or that simply outmatch the size of the front-side SSD, you'll be running at slow HDD speeds and it can be pretty bad.

A 1 Tb fusion isn't the way I would configure my iMac were I to buy one today, but that doesn't mean it can't work perfectly well for someone else. Some buyers don't need 1 Tb and for them I would generally recommend going all SSD if the pricing works.
 

Glmnet1

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2017
973
1,093
Performance is only the second reason why I would get SSD instead of Fusion. The primary reason is for reliability and in a computer that's hard to repair, it's well worth it IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orbital~debris

Jacoblee23

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 10, 2011
1,478
735
Performance is only the second reason why I would get SSD instead of Fusion. The primary reason is for reliability and in a computer that's hard to repair, it's well worth it IMO.

I know nothing about swapping one out and don't want to take the chance hurting anything. What would be the easiest way for me to get a SSD if I ever did decide to do so?
 

Glmnet1

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2017
973
1,093
I know nothing about swapping one out and don't want to take the chance hurting anything. What would be the easiest way for me to get a SSD if I ever did decide to do so?
The easiest way would be to get an external one.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.