Does the 2014 5K iMac Fusion drive have 24 or 128gb SSD?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Firesign3394, Apr 5, 2016.

  1. CoastalOR, Apr 5, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2016

    CoastalOR macrumors 68000

    CoastalOR

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #2
  2. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    That's the older model which has the more expansive flash storage. The fall of 2015 was when Apple updated the iMac line and introduced the 1TB Fusion drive with 24GB of flash
     
  3. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #4
    One thing to note for your buying decision, despite that it does have the 128gb of flash as previously noted, the flash storage in the 2014 models is significantly slower than that in the 2015 models.

    Therefore, a 2tb or 3tb fusion in a 2015 model is the only acceptable fusion drive purchase at this point, IMO.
     
  4. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #5
    Sequential read write is significantly slower in the old drives but to be honest it'll be very few situations where you could ever tell the difference, random I/O speeds etc are far more important in most use cases and are much the same across modern ssd's.
     
  5. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #6
    So, what are you attesting?

    All SSDs are the same?

    I would say I'd have to disagree

    The fact remains the old SSDs are slower, and worse. They're a lot worse. I've seen the tests

    If I were you I'd recommend OP the better choice which would be the faster, modern SSD implementation in the late 2015 Macs.

    I daresay I don't believe there is no discernable difference of the speed between the two, let me tell you
     
  6. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #7
    Test it out by all means, because he is correct.
     
  7. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #8
    Well let me tell you I don't have to

    Refer to Google.
     
  8. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #9
    I'm saying in most use cases sequential read/write speeds mean nothing, they are, shock/horror, a marketing gimmick.

    Most people couldn't tell any speed difference between a SATA 3 connected SSD topping out at 550mb/s sequential read/write and the same disk connected using a 4 lane PCIe connection topping out at 2gb/s sequential read writes. By any other measure they will perform the same and it is the rare computer user that needs massive sustained sequential read/writes.

    Yes the disks Apple use are very fast but that's no faster than any other modern consumer SSD the differences are pretty minor between them all.
     
  9. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    Well I simply disagree.

    Faster is faster, and better is better.

    No matter what.

    I can personally tell the difference in speed between different SSDs and fusion drives even if it is in a window of less than a second.

    Even in that small amount of time, the difference, heavily counts.
     
  10. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    Real wold usage will be such that you'll hardly see a difference, heck the human brain will not tell if something is .2 seconds slower.

    Overall, the OP is better off with 128GB of flash storage, then 24GB, even if the flash storage is a tad slower. That slow flash storage is still much much faster then a 5400 rpm drive.
     
  11. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    It's true, you'll hardly see a difference.

    I've been testing the 1 tb fusion, 2 tb fusion, and 256 gb SSDs for the past couple weeks at an Apple Store out of town.

    I usually have the opportunity once a week or so to take a mini overnight leisure trip out of town, and I often do so.

    I'll find myself at the Apple Store at the mall there and I have taken the liberty to truly give each of them a test to truly discern the difference.

    I'm talking about minor differences, like the application folder fully loading (in list mode, which is what I use) in a milisecond time difference between the 1 and 2 tb fusion drives.

    If you do something like open the 'Photos' app, on the 1tb vs 2 tb fusion drives. As we know Apple pre loads it with all the stock photos and so forth.

    The 1 tb fusion on the 27 inch really has trouble loading them, but the 2tb fusion's speed vs a 256 gb SSD on a Mac Pro are essentially the same- very little if any difference, even at the harshest standard.

    IMO, though, it's those milliseconds that make the money worth it.

    In my, (possibly admittedly) crude tests I have done over the past couple weeks, I have found next to no difference between things loaded on the SSD portion of the 2 tb fusion vs a 256 gb SSD on the Mac Pro.

    The time difference is seen when it's moving something over to the flash portion, but that's the Fusion technology at work. If it weren't doing it at that time, you would've done it at another.

    The SSD does somehow feel snappier, and yet, the time difference is essentially negligible for nearly everything, even under the harsh scrutiny I am viewing it under.

    But when you compare the 1 tb and 2tb fusion, it is clear which one is faster.
     
  12. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    While looking at demo computers can be helpful, I'd be careful about drawing detailed comparisons, as the Fusion drive hadn't learned your computing habits and put the frequently accessed blocks that you use on the flash drive.

    With that said, conventional wisdom is that SSD will be the fastest, then the 2TB Fusion drive, thanks to the larger flash storage, then 1TB Fusion, and finally the slowest is a regular hard drive.

    That's my point, people are not going to notice millisecond differences.

    I have to disagree, while those milliseonds may look large in a benchmark graph most consumers will not need even notice.
     
  13. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #14
    Well the point of my anecdote is that they are noticeable.

    I've noticed them.

    Whether or not an average consumer would care to try and tell, the difference remains that they are there, and are detectable.

    Once you've noticed them you can't unnotice it, at least with me.

    While it is true the pure SSD option will always be faster, the 2 tb fusion is very close in terms of speed, I've tested the Mac Pro with 256 gb SSD compared to my iMac at home with a 2 tb fusion, and the difference is very small, borderline not noticeable in most cases.

    But that is only for read tasks. Obviously in terms of writes, the SSD is noticeably faster.

    But once you lower to the level of the 1 tb fusion, lag is prominent, clear differences in speed appear in abundance, and you're essentially operating with a 'darn fast spinner'.

    The 2tb SSD performs much closer to a pure SSD level. Essentially on it, all things considered.
     
  14. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #15
    Fair enough, but I'd conjecture most typical consumers will not notice it.
     
  15. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    No, they wouldn't.

    I've just been going out of my way to actually try and tell. I maintain my tests yield an accurate result because I am considering what is and isn't on the SSD portion of the fusion.

    For most users, sure they would not be able to tell. Or wouldn't care

    But after a few weeks of comparison I've found the 2tb fusion to be very formidable.
     

Share This Page