2 TB Fusion costs $100 more than 256 GB Flash. I know someone in particular will strenuously disagree, but if you were going to spend the money to have 256 GB internal Flash, why not pop the extra $100 to have 8 times the internal storage? Sure, you're getting 128 GB Flash instead of 256 GB, but in practical application, the effectiveness of the Fusion caching scheme more than makes up for the smaller amount of Flash. (I'd love to see Apple's internal data on Fusion performance, though I have a feeling the results are, essentially, "We hit a point of rapidly diminishing returns at 128 GB" - if they had a performance-based reason for selling a "premium" Fusion with 256 GB Flash, don't you think they would?)
Now, the benchmarkers will say that all-Flash will be faster than Fusion. However, since you seem willing to compromise raw speed by using a significantly slower external SSD, "compromising" on Fusion vs. internal pure-Flash doesn't seem all that bad. I'd make a small wager that the Fusion drive will beat the performance of that external SSD, or come very close to matching.
OK, I'm a Fusion "true believer." It works really well for me. As I've said before, I have one late 2013 iMac running on pure Flash, another late 2013 iMac running on Fusion, and in day-to-day use, it's very hard to tell their performance apart. There's more than enough Flash in the Fusion drive, apparently, to have nearly everything I do running on Flash - apps, OS, and data alike.
But if you're happy running on the external (we ran a business-critical Cube on an external drive for about 5 years after the internal failed)... yeah, you haven't missed any points. I like Fishrrman's suggestion to fasten that external drive to the machine - I'd also anchor the USB (or TB) cable to the machine in some way, too - anything that would help avoid accidental disconnects - if the Mac moves, the drive and cable should move with it.
Now, the benchmarkers will say that all-Flash will be faster than Fusion. However, since you seem willing to compromise raw speed by using a significantly slower external SSD, "compromising" on Fusion vs. internal pure-Flash doesn't seem all that bad. I'd make a small wager that the Fusion drive will beat the performance of that external SSD, or come very close to matching.
OK, I'm a Fusion "true believer." It works really well for me. As I've said before, I have one late 2013 iMac running on pure Flash, another late 2013 iMac running on Fusion, and in day-to-day use, it's very hard to tell their performance apart. There's more than enough Flash in the Fusion drive, apparently, to have nearly everything I do running on Flash - apps, OS, and data alike.
But if you're happy running on the external (we ran a business-critical Cube on an external drive for about 5 years after the internal failed)... yeah, you haven't missed any points. I like Fishrrman's suggestion to fasten that external drive to the machine - I'd also anchor the USB (or TB) cable to the machine in some way, too - anything that would help avoid accidental disconnects - if the Mac moves, the drive and cable should move with it.
Last edited: