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.
Does the 2014 5K iMac Fusion drive have 24 or 128gb SSD?
- Thread starter Firesign3394
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It has a 128 Gb SSD (See the first paragraph on the everymac link):
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-inch-aluminum-retina-5k-late-2014-specs.html
Apple started 24 Gb SSD in 2015 for the 1 Tb Fusion.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-inch-aluminum-retina-5k-late-2014-specs.html
Apple started 24 Gb SSD in 2015 for the 1 Tb Fusion.
Last edited:
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.
Therefore, a 2tb or 3tb fusion in a 2015 model is the only acceptable fusion drive purchase at this point, IMO.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.