Defense Of The 2 TB Fusion Drive Option

[archrider]

I figure I'll get a lot of negative input for this, but everywhere I read people post absolutely not to get a drive that includes a mechanical platter. When cost is brought up the comeback is usually, get a 256 GB or 512 GB internal SSD and add an external Hard disk.

My question is how is this different than a Fusion drive with a 128 GB SSD and an internal 2 TB hard drive. Well of course the capacity of the SSD drive is less, but I don't know many people and that includes me who have Operating system and Apps over 128 GB.

People bring up "you don't have control of how the storage is used". This is valid but I trust Apple software over my judgement about where data Etc. goes, I don't think they would intensionally slow down their machines. There are a lot of Apple nay sayers out there about Apple but why are they into Apple products at all. Some express the opinion that control of where things go is a pain.

Having said all that, certainly there is a sweet spot of a TB of internal SSD or a 256 or 512 GB internal with a big external SSD. At this time for a lot of us the cost factor makes this a less desirable option (may be easier in the future).

As far as being a bit future proof the 2TB Fusion drive can be split and the, progressively faster, external drives coming out (SanDisk 1TB Extreme Portable External SSD - USB-C, USB 3.1 - SDSSDE60-1T00-G25) can be used for data storage.

I'm pretty sure there will be input to educate me on this matter and I'm aware that part of my motive for this is to defend my purchase decision.

 

[Juicy Box]

I go back and forth on my feelings for the Fusion Drive. I have the original 1TB Fusion Drive in my Late 2012 iMac. I had the HDD fail on me starting about 2 years in, and totally failing 12 days before my AC warranty was over.

Speed wise, I think there would be little difference between a FD and SSD on the Late 2012, although, I do occasionally see slow downs.

That said, with prices dropping and sizes getting larger, I would most likely skip the Fusion Drive on my next Mac and stick with an SSD.

My question is how is this different than a Fusion drive with a 128 GB SSD and an internal 2 TB hard drive.

Because it is internal.

 

[archrider]

Good point about "because it is internal" so if it fails the problem is much more difficult.I guess the only solution to this is the split the fusion drive earlier than normal to possibly avoid a catastrophic failure (not as much chance for the internal HDD to fail because it's used less) and add the large external SSD.

I suppose it partially defeats the purpose of a high capacity HDD.

The 2012 1 TB fusion drive has 128 GB SSB if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Juicy Box]

The 2012 1 TB fusion drive has 128 GB SSB if I'm not mistaken.

That is correct.

I guess the only solution to this is the split the fusion drive earlier than normal to possibly avoid a catastrophic failure (not as much chance for the internal HDD to fail because it's used less) and add the large external SSD.

This could help.

Another issue is the heat. Even if not in use, the HDD generates some heat. Some blame the HDD heat generation (and lack of better thermal design) for the mass GPU failures of the 2009-2011 iMacs.

But, these thoughts are for people that are asking whether or not to choose a FD.

It sounds like you are comfortable with the speed of the Fusion Drive, and maybe you might open up your Mac if the HDD starts to fail. So, a FD for you might be an ideal compromise.

I am pretty sure my next Mac will not have a FD, but that might be a while because my Late 2012 is still pretty powerful for me.

Also, if my iMac's HDD of the FD fails again, I am just going to replace it with a SSD, but opening up a computer, especially a Mac really intimidates people. So I won't judge anyone for not wanting to deal with the potential issue.

 

[archrider]

I've seen a video of opening an iMac to put in an SSD. Watching the guy pry off the the LED screen with a tool and use adhesive strips to replace it, made me cringe. I don't think I would do it. I'll hire someone if the need arrises.

I have two middle aged PC's that I've installed SSD's in. One is 512 GB with no HDD at all. The speed of both machines is not noticeably different then the new iMac. Also the iMac boots up faster than both.

It's a good sign that your 2012 is going strong. I have a 2008 Mac Pro with dual 4 core Penryn xeon processors and it bit the dust recently. By the way it to got a purely SSD drive and no noticeable speed difference to me.

 

[Juicy Box]

By the way it to got a purely SSD drive and no noticeable speed difference to me.

That is surprising.

I found a cheap 2007 iMac in 2010, I gave it to my parents that were still using a Mac mini G4 that I gave them years earlier.

It served them well until about 2 years ago, as my father complained about how slow it seemed. He wanted me to find him a good deal on a newer Mac to buy.

I told him I could find him a deal, or try to speed up his existing iMac.

I ended up maxing out the RAM and replacing the HDD with a SSD. I also updated the OS to 10.11.

The benchmarks were a big improvement, but more importantly, he said the iMac felt like a new computer.

made me cringe

Yeah, it isn't for everybody.

I haven't ever opened my Late 2012, but I am not worried about it. Almost every Mac I have owned, I have opened.

 

[JimmyG]

>snip<

The 2012 1 TB fusion drive has 128 GB SSB if I'm not mistaken.

Hi archrider,

That information is incorrect. Apple cleary states...

<<
The 1TB Fusion Drive pairs a 1TB hard drive with 32GB of fast SSD — enough to store important macOS files and applications to ensure fast startup, near instant wake from sleep, and quick application launching, with room left over for your most frequently used files and apps. The 2TB and 3TB Fusion Drives pair a larger hard drive with 128GB of fast SSD storage, providing even more space for your most frequently used files.
>>

...(bolding mine) which can be found by clicking on the "How much storage is right for you?" popup link under Storage found on any iMac listing at Apple's online shop, as here...

27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display - Apple:
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/...e-processor-with-turbo-boost-up-to-4.6ghz-2tb

Hope that helps,
Jimmy G

 

[smirk]

I actually like my fusion drive, with a caveat.

For me -- and I'm not completely sure why -- I really value having a single disk volume to contend with. I like seeing one icon, backing up one volume, and not having to think through (or train my family) where files should be saved.

In the old days, I used to have an external SCSI drive with a couple HDDs in it, and one of the drives was partitioned into two volumes. Every time it mounted, three volumes would show up, and I had some overly-elaborate rationale of where different types of files should be stored. These days I don't have time for that and I just want a big bucket into which all my stuff gets thrown.

My Late-2015 27" iMac has a 256 GB NVMe plus a 2 TB mechanical HDD. It has always felt fairly speedy, but (and here's the caveat) lately it has felt like things are slowing down. I've run all the diagnostics and everything seems to check out, so I think it's just the APFS file system performance biting me. I've come close at least five times lately to buying a 2TB NVMe and that Sintech adapter for the ultimate in late 2015 storage speeds, but there seems to be so much conflicting data in that MR forum thread about it that I'm afraid to risk it. So I will likely replace the existing HDD with a 2 TB SATA SSD and then create a new DIY fusion drive between that and the existing NVMe drive. I'd love to use an external Thunderbolt 2 drive instead of opening up the iMac, but low-priced Thunderbolt cases or adapters don't seem to exist. And even though some people boot off of USB drives without ill effects, having TRIM support is of value to me.

All that is just a wordy way of saying that I have had good experiences with my fusion drives, and they certainly tick off a lot of checkboxes: lots of storage, low price, good performance, low maintenance, dead simple to use. With the decreasing cost of SSD storage, maybe fusions aren't as relevant now as they once were, but it is still a neat way to combine two or more physical drives into one logical volume. And as far as the increased risk of failure, that doesn't bother me so much. That's what backups are for.
[automerge]1576213137[/automerge]

Apple cleary states...

<<
The 1TB Fusion Drive pairs a 1TB hard drive with 32GB of fast SSD — enough to store important macOS files and applications to ensure fast startup, near instant wake from sleep, and quick application launching, with room left over for your most frequently used files and apps. The 2TB and 3TB Fusion Drives pair a larger hard drive with 128GB of fast SSD storage, providing even more space for your most frequently used files.
>>

That's for current model iMacs. The older computers shipped with more SSD storage; a few years ago Apple dropped the SSD portion from 128 GB to 32 GB for the 1 TB fusion drives.

 

[JimmyG]

>snip<


That's for current model iMacs. The older computers shipped with more SSD storage; a few years ago Apple dropped the SSD portion from 128 GB to 32 GB for the 1 TB fusion drives.

I stand corrected on that 2012 model, thanks for the clarification smirk!

 

[Juicy Box]

That information is incorrect. Apple cleary states...

That's for current model iMacs. The older computers shipped with more SSD storage; a few years ago Apple dropped the SSD portion from 128 GB to 32 GB for the 1 TB fusion drives.

For clarification for anyone else wondering about the history of the Fusion Drives in the iMacs:

1. All 2TB and 3TB Fusion Drives has a 128GB SSD

2. As Apple started to focus more on $$ than user experience, they decided to use 24GB SSDs in the 1TB Fusion Drives starting with the Late 2015 iMac

3. After the 2015 1TB Fusion Drive downgrade, Apple most likely realized that 24GB was way too low for the Fusion Drive, so they increased the SSD of the 1TB FD to 32GB with the Mid-2017 iMac.

4. It is still 32GB with the current iMac model with the 1TB FD.

 

[B.A.T]

I had a 3 TB fusion drive on my 2013 iMac. I thought it was pretty slick until the day I tried to upgrade Mac OS Mojave (I think I skipped the previous os). The upgrade killed my Fusion drive and I ended up taking it in and putting a second ssd drive in and removing the platter. There's no comparison for me.....Fusion needs to die.

 

[retta283]

SSD is ultimately the better option. I don't understand the hate for 7200rpm hard drives. They are fairly quick and a nice upgrade over a 5400 rpm. There's a reason why 2009-11 iMacs still perform decently, and that is the 7200rpm drive. Compared to a 2009-11 MBP with similar (or better) specs, they are faster. The 5400rpm drive slows down those old MBPs bad.

 

[Juicy Box]

I thought it was pretty slick until the day I tried to upgrade Mac OS Mojave (I think I skipped the previous os).

I have read many people having issues with installing and using Mojave on Fusion and HDDs. I think this had more to do with APFS though.

SSD is ultimately the better option. I don't understand the hate for 7200rpm hard drives. They are fairly quick and a nice upgrade over a 5400 rpm. There's a reason why 2009-11 iMacs still perform decently, and that is the 7200rpm drive. Compared to a 2009-11 MBP with similar (or better) specs, they are faster. The 5400rpm drive slows down those old MBPs bad.

I am not disagreeing with you about the MBP HDD being slower than the iMac HDDs, but RPM alone isn't a good indicator on drive performance.

Now, if all else was equal, then RPM would be a factor on performance, but comparing two different drives just on RPM speed doesn't really mean anything.

You could have a 4300 RPM drive that has faster read and write speeds than a 10K RPM one.

I think it was the first 1TB (can't remember the size) 2.5" HDD that was produced was only 4300 RPM, but it had the same performance of the 5400 and 7200 RPM drives that were already out. The density of the platters were much higher than the previous drives, leading to the same speeds on less RPMs.


I think density has a greater influence than just RPM, but again, density isn't the only factor.


As for comparing the MBPs to the iMacs, the MBPs used 2.5" drives which are of course smaller than the 2009-2011 iMac's 3.5 drives. Apple most likely did this for space, but also less energy used and less heat generated.

There would be many differences between the two, so not easy to compare. For equal storage sizes, the 2.5" would have a higher density, so this would be a plus for the 2.5", but pretty much everything else would be in favor for the 3.5" drive, performance wise.

The Late 2012 iMac and up use a 2.5" drive @ 5400RPMs, most likely for the reduced size, but also probably for heat related reasons. Heat from the 3.5" 7200 RPM HDDs in the 2009-2011 iMacs were most likely the reason for the mass GPU failures that plagued those models.

I see a lot of people complain about the "slow" HDDs in the new iMacs because they are 5400RPM, but like I explained above, RPM alone doesn't really mean anything.

 

[ScreenSavers]

I vote no for fusion drives. Never have liked them from the beginning.

 

[retta283]

I have read many people having issues with installing and using Mojave on Fusion and HDDs. I think this had more to do with APFS though.



I am not disagreeing with you about the MBP HDD being slower than the iMac HDDs, but RPM alone isn't a good indicator on drive performance.

Now, if all else was equal, then RPM would be a factor on performance, but comparing two different drives just on RPM speed doesn't really mean anything.

You could have a 4300 RPM drive that has faster read and write speeds than a 10K RPM one.

I think it was the first 1TB (can't remember the size) 2.5" HDD that was produced was only 4300 RPM, but it had the same performance of the 5400 and 7200 RPM drives that were already out. The density of the platters were much higher than the previous drives, leading to the same speeds on less RPMs.


I think density has a greater influence than just RPM, but again, density isn't the only factor.


As for comparing the MBPs to the iMacs, the MBPs used 2.5" drives which are of course smaller than the 2009-2011 iMac's 3.5 drives. Apple most likely did this for space, but also less energy used and less heat generated.

There would be many differences between the two, so not easy to compare. For equal storage sizes, the 2.5" would have a higher density, so this would be a plus for the 2.5", but pretty much everything else would be in favor for the 3.5" drive, performance wise.

The Late 2012 iMac and up use a 2.5" drive @ 5400RPMs, most likely for the reduced size, but also probably for heat related reasons. Heat from the 3.5" 7200 RPM HDDs in the 2009-2011 iMacs were most likely the reason for the mass GPU failures that plagued those models.

I see a lot of people complain about the "slow" HDDs in the new iMacs because they are 5400RPM, but like I explained above, RPM alone doesn't really mean anything.

Unless there was a problem with the 2009-11 chassis, that wouldn't make much sense, because all iMacs from 2003 to 2012 used a 3.5 7200RPM drive. Depends on where the drive was position relative to the GPU

 

[Juicy Box]

Unless there was a problem with the 2009-11 chassis, that wouldn't make much sense, because all iMacs from 2003 to 2012 used a 3.5 7200RPM drive. Depends on where the drive was position relative to the GPU

I am not saying that the fact that HDD was 7200 RPM was the reason for these failures, there are probably a lot of things that contributed to the GPU failures.

The first thing that comes to mind is poor thermal design. Maybe the GPUs were susceptible to damage. Maybe it was the location. Maybe the HDD model/lot ran a little hotter than usual (Pretty sure this played a part, I used one pulled from a Mid-2011 iMac externally with adapters, and it was really hot compared to other Apple HDDs I have used).

It is most likely a combination of many things that lead to the GPU failures, but if Apple used a cooler running HDD, maybe one with the same specs but was only 5400 RPM, there probably wouldn't have been as many failures.

As many have reported, the graphic issues people were having on these models in question often disappeared after swapping the HDD for a SSD.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I had the original 5K from 2014 with a 128 GB ssd and 1 TB spinning drive as a fusion drive.

Machine was fine. The large media I rarely used hung out on the platter and apps and media used regularly were speedy.

After 2014, they started giving you like a 24 GB SSD on the base model fusion drives and that was just criminal.

For light users, a fusion drive with at least 128 GB SSD is probably fine and you won’t notice any slowdowns.
[automerge]1576279496[/automerge]

For clarification for anyone else wondering about the history of the Fusion Drives in the iMacs:

1. All 2TB and 3TB Fusion Drives has a 128GB SSD

2. As Apple started to focus more on $$ than user experience, they decided to use 24GB SSDs in the 1TB Fusion Drives starting with the Late 2015 iMac

3. After the 2015 1TB Fusion Drive downgrade, Apple most likely realized that 24GB was way too low for the Fusion Drive, so they increased the SSD of the 1TB FD to 32GB with the Mid-2017 iMac.

4. It is still 32GB with the current iMac model with the 1TB FD.

That tiny SSD on the base fusion is criminal. How big is the OS itself? Like 12 gigs?

 

[Juicy Box]

That tiny SSD on the base fusion is criminal. How big is the OS itself? Like 12 gigs?

Also, there is always 8GB of the SSD kept as working memory for the OS. So the actual fast storage space for the 1TB Fusions with the 24GB SSD is only 16GB.

That would fill up really quick. Almost pointless.

 

[3SQ Machine]

I know this is in defense of the 2tb fusion drive, but as an owner of a 2019 1TB fusion drive I wanted to share my unsuspecting surprise over it "feeling" speedy, if willing to make some tweaks. Granted, I had lowwwww expectations. The problem is that if you want to save money, it's darn hard to avoid the fusion drives. Try finding an SSD model iMac on sale. Outside of the Apple refurb store (they sometimes have 3.0 2019 models with 512gb SSDs for $1700 or so), it's a tough road.

This was my dilemma. The only reason I grabbed a 2019 with a fusion drive was because my deal was fairly priced in 2019 as $550 off (open box)--it actually cost less than the 21.5" i3 iMac with only HDD--insane! This was worth trying to "live with it" (hard deal to pass up, although wish I had waited as I just saw a 2tb fusion on sale for a fair price but no one wants my old one ugh).

With that said, this system is livable because I already had a 1TB NVME drive from my old system ($150 cost) with 950 mb/s reads as my scratch disk, logic library, photo albums, and other projects. All intensive read/write operations are on an external SSD and the Core Storage management of the OS on the fusion seems optimized enough for application use at "acceptable" speeds. I moved my 100GB iTunes music library back to the fusion internal and have seen no noticeable speed difference (outside of waiting for it to copy). For the price, this setup is not bad--especially since the only "good deals" on iMacs are from big box returns departments stocking 1 or 2TB fusion drives. We've all got our budgets and if someone wants to save hundreds of dollars on an iMac deal to get a nice screen, hexacore chip, and a few other peripheral upgrades it's an acceptable use case. But--in my opinion--paying full freight for a stock base model iMac priced at $1800 packing a 1TB fusion drive is not.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Also, there is always 8GB of the SSD kept as working memory for the OS. So the actual fast storage space for the 1TB Fusions with the 24GB SSD is only 16GB.

That would fill up really quick. Almost pointless.

Yep. It’s insulting, really.

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

Fusion drives hit the market in response to Seagate's similar setup, the Solid State Hybrid Drive. (SSHD).

Like everything else in marketing, it is up to the buyer in the market place to decide the best value for their buck. If a buyer wants the cheaper option of the Fusion Drive, good luck to them as it fills their needs.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

For my use, FD is great. And have never had one fail.

 

[TimothyL]

I vote no for fusion drives. Never have liked them from the beginning.

I’ve used them. Better than a regular slow hard drive but not as good as a real SSD

 

[archrider]

I think it depends on how the computer is used. If someone has a huge collection of video's and does editing absolutely they would have a bad experience and a slow computer. I'm kind of embarrassed to say I don't use any kind of professional software. I was an Architect and used heavy duty CAD and 3D rendering software for about 25 years. Now it's a lot of surfing, Email and Text, some streaming, a few games that could be played on a phone 5 years ago. The kind of user I am these days a 3.7 Ghz with a 2 TB Fusion is overkill including speed wise.

 

[JacobHarvey]

If you are willing to tinker with your Mac in the future, the HDD component of the Fusion Drive can be replaced with a large SATA SSD instead.

There are quite a few guides out there on how to accomplish this but it does involve removing the screen to access the internals.

So the fusion 2TB model is definitely not a terrible option due to the fact that it comes with a reasonable 128GB NVMe SSD and the HDD can later be swapped out for a SATA SSD.