Fusion Drive... Anyone own an iMac with one... Thoughts

[scotttnz]

I had fusion in my 1st Mac, a 2012 mini. I was extremely impressed with how well it worked, and wouldn't hesitate to buy one again. The ex-PC building geek inside me says that the SSD portion should be bigger, like 256Gb+, but in everyday usage it felt like a 1TB SSD really.

 

[BJB Productions]

I had fusion in my 1st Mac, a 2012 mini. I was extremely impressed with how well it worked, and wouldn't hesitate to buy one again. The ex-PC building geek inside me says that the SSD portion should be bigger, like 256Gb+, but in everyday usage it felt like a 1TB SSD really.

Thanks so much! That eases my mind.

 

[fathergll]

At that point, you can either fix it, or separate the drives.

If you don't care about your data (and you should not, because it should be backed up), then the Fusion drive may increase the odds of *a* failure occurring, but the odds of *both* drives failing at the same time are very low. You could therefore keep the machine going using whichever drive still worked. Yes, you would have to wipe it, but that's why it's best to avoid storing critical data only in one place.

Thats actually an excellent point. I take back what I said

 

[Suture]

My current iMac has the 3TB Fusion drive. I like it. All of my last few machines (both laptops and desktops) were all SSDs. I feel this is a nice trade-off in terms of speed and storage. I'd have loved to have gone with SSD all the way, but I don't like having a bunch of external drives hanging off my computers.

The only instance where I've found the HD chugging a little is during a gaming session, specifically only one game (Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel) where I zone into a new area -- and it's only for a few seconds.

Otherwise the Fusion drive has been great so far.

 

[BJB Productions]

I'm currently running a MBP with a HDD and an SSD. I really like being able to choose where things go. I have my OS and Apps on the SSD and then all other data including my iTunes content on the HDD. It works out really well and keeps things running really smooth. I just hope I don't see a speed decrease in Fusion coming from a custom SSD/HDD combo.

 

[DooDuh]

OP,

Fusion Drives are great and have worked really well these last few years.

I love SSDs and I ordered the 512 GB SSD option for my new 5K iMac. However, I will also be adding a RAID 5 array to my new iMac as well, so that will take of my storage needs with speeds that rival SSD speeds as well.

SSDs are great, but they come at a price. Both in terms of cost and storage. Most folks that order a SSD in their iMac will also have to add external storage. There's nothing wrong with that if you're willing to absorb the extra cost.

If you are just an everyday internet user, a video editor that will only edit 1-2 streams of 1080p video at the same time, or a photography enthusiast...then the Fusion Drive is the best way to go. Honestly, only true power users that must access large amounts of data in real-time need the speed that SSDs and/or RAID can provide. So, unless money is no concern, the Fusion Drive is the best choice for most people.

Bryan

This was really helpful, Bryan! I've been waiting eight long months to replace my mid-2008 iMac with the new retina version. Now I just need to figure out my specs so I can get this thing ordered. My biggest dilemma has been the HD. I am happily awaiting the birth of my 13th grandchild... so, naturally, I have a large iTunes account, which includes lots of digital Disney movies. With so many grandkids... I also have tons of photos and videos.

Storage is probably more important to me than lots of speed... which would seem to indicate that the fusion drive is the best option for me. On the other hand.... I want my new computer to have the very latest and up-to-date components... which would probably indicate the SSD as the best option. I don't want to deal with an external HD... since I'm barely keeping up with the tech stuff as it is.

On the previous page, BJB asked a good question that goes along with fusion/flash dilemma:

I'm concerned about Fusion Drive using up my flash space with things like iTunes content which I really do not want on flash storage. I would much rather have all my applications stored on the flash side and iTunes content on the HDD side. Anyone have any input on how well it does with big iTunes libraries?

Also... I read this in an article (somewhere) and wonder if it's accurate: "SSD's should not be used for media drives as they will not last as long as spinning discs and will also degrade in performance over time. SSD's should mainly be used for boot drives and application."

Any thoughts about this would be appreciated.

 

[BJB Productions]

Also... I read this in an article (somewhere) and wonder if it's accurate: "SSD's should not be used for media drives as they will not last as long as spinning discs and will also degrade in performance over time. SSD's should mainly be used for boot drives and application."

I've also heard this as well - so this is also a concern for me. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[firedept]

I have been using a Fusion Drive in my late 2012 iMac and have had no issues. Love it. And yes I know the difference between SSD and Fusion. Have a MBP with SSD. To be honest, I have a hard time telling the difference speed wise between the Fusion and the SSD.

The Fusion has preformed well and I have had the added bonus of extra storage. I have heard a lot of comments about "What if the HDD fails, then your screwed", but have certainly not read anything about it coming true. Apple seems to have made a pretty good Fusion Drive that I would recommend.

 

[habeebhashim]

I've also heard this as well - so this is also a concern for me. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

It is true that SSD's do slow down with increased write cycles - standard MLC NAND Flash can only be erased ~ 10,000 times before it degrades too much and stops storing data

Here is a well written article on AnandTech on how SSDs work

I bought my Intel X-25M sometime in mid-2009 for my unibody MB. I then swapped the SSD into my wife's 2010 13" MBP. The drive has been going strong for over 5 years now. There has been constant read/writes of new OS installations, iPhoto, iMovie etc.

If there is any slowdown on the drive now... I don't notice it. I notice the laggy CPU more (or at least my wife does)

 

[Cbdboz]

I am considering fusion v ssd & external HD. Main reason would be for not going fusion would be keeping personal data safe.....and having option to keep stored data in a safe place when away, rather than inside an iMac that could be stolen....

 

[yjchua95]

It is true that SSD's do slow down with increased write cycles - standard MLC NAND Flash can only be erased ~ 10,000 times before it degrades too much and stops storing data

Here is a well written article on AnandTech on how SSDs work

I bought my Intel X-25M sometime in mid-2009 for my unibody MB. I then swapped the SSD into my wife's 2010 13" MBP. The drive has been going strong for over 5 years now. There has been constant read/writes of new OS installations, iPhoto, iMovie etc.

If there is any slowdown on the drive now... I don't notice it. I notice the laggy CPU more (or at least my wife does)

By the time an SSD slows down, your Mac would be dead already.

TechReport did a massive endurance write test and found that the MLC 840 Pro kept chugging along past the 1 petabyte write mark, along with two others.

It also showed that the MLC 840 Pro didn't suffer any noticeable performance hit even past the 1 petabyte mark.

 

[joema2]

...Also... I read this in an article (somewhere) and wonder if it's accurate: "SSD's should not be used for media drives as they will not last as long as spinning discs and will also degrade in performance over time. SSD's should mainly be used for boot drives and application."...

You don't need to worry about that. While it's possible to contrive an artificial test that write-hammers a SSD 24x7 until it slows down or fails, this does not reflect real world use.

You can use an SSD like any other disk drive regarding data placement. While an SSD can fail for various reasons, they are more reliable than a HDD or FD. In terms of demonstrated real-world reliability on late-model iMacs, I'm not sure that makes much practical difference, but at least theoretically SSDs are more reliable.

That said, you said you didn't want an external drive. If all your photos and data won't fit on an internal SSD, your only option is a 3TB FD. I have one and it works fine. FD has much better overall performance than a pure HDD, and obviously better space per dollar than SSD.

If you are willing to use an external drive, an SSD iMac might be a little better. But you would be happy with either one. Just don't use a slow, bus-powered 5,400 rpm USB 3 drive for frequently accessed data. They are often too slow and can squander the performance advantage of using SSD.

 

[Padmini]

To be honest I went with the Fusion drive due to impulse and the unavailability of the SSD option to ship as quickly. I've always wanted to test the Fusion drive, and so far it's just performing like any SSD. But I don't have much data on it.

 

[craig1410]

Does 5K RiMac have 10k variable RPM HDD?

Hi,
Any of you guys with 5K RiMac machines with Fusion drives able to confirm from system info what make and model the hard drive is?

Reason I ask is because an Apple employee in a retail store today told me that the new iMac uses a variable speed hard drive capable of running from 7200 to 10K RPM. He seemed like a very knowledgeable guy and was talking intelligently about a bunch of different aspects of the iMac internals but I can't find any suggestion anywhere else about 10K RPM iMac drives. I wonder if maybe he's getting confused with 5400-7200 RPM "green" drives? That said he was comparing it to the WD Velociraptor so he was convinced it was 10K RPM not just 7200 RPM.

Thanks for your time,
Craig.

 

[thalazy]

Hi,
Any of you guys with 5K RiMac machines with Fusion drives able to confirm from system info what make and model the hard drive is?

Reason I ask is because an Apple employee in a retail store today told me that the new iMac uses a variable speed hard drive capable of running from 7200 to 10K RPM. He seemed like a very knowledgeable guy and was talking intelligently about a bunch of different aspects of the iMac internals but I can't find any suggestion anywhere else about 10K RPM iMac drives. I wonder if maybe he's getting confused with 5400-7200 RPM "green" drives? That said he was comparing it to the WD Velociraptor so he was convinced it was 10K RPM not just 7200 RPM.

Thanks for your time,
Craig.

Media Name: APPLE HDD ST1000DM003
Media Name: APPLE SSD SD0128F

This is for the base 1tb fusion drive.

Doing a google search the HDD appears to be a Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM003. Not sure about the SSD portion.

 

[craig1410]

Media Name: APPLE HDD ST1000DM003
Media Name: APPLE SSD SD0128F

This is for the base 1tb fusion drive.

Doing a google search the HDD appears to be a Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM003. Not sure about the SSD portion.

Thanks for that. Looking at the spec, that's a 7200 RPM drive as I suspected. However, it's a single platter 1TB drive with an impressive 210 MB/sec max sustained transfer rate. This is only achievable on the outer edge of the disc but the average rate of 156 MB/sec is still being pretty good. Not SSD speeds obviously but not bad for effectively second tier storage.

 

[fathergll]

I wonder if its similar for the 3TB Fusion? ^^^

 

[craig1410]

I wonder if its similar for the 3TB Fusion? ^^^

I wouldn't be surprised because seagate make a 3TB version of this drive too. Same performance but 3 platters. In fact the drive was introduced 3 years ago! Here's a link to a review of this family. http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_3tb_review_1tb_platters_st3000dm001

Seeing that this is a 3 year old design brings home to me that HDD technology really doesn't belong in my new machine. You'd think that they might have done something to improve the drive in 3 years whether it be speed, noise, reliability, capacity is even just power consumption. I really wish I could justify the cost of the 1TB SSD for my RiMac but I can't and I'm struggling to decide between 512GB SSD and 1/3TB Fusion. Anyone seen any disc benchmarks? Anyone able to run the Blackmagic Disc benchmark app on their new iMacs? Would love to see SSD compared to Fusion.

Starting to think 512GB SSD plus an external Thunderbolt RAID enclosure is the way to go. For me anyway. I'd hate it if my MBP Retina laptop felt faster than my new iMac... (First world problems, I know...)

Ps. I don't intend to offend any iMac owners with Fusion already. I know it works well because I have already used it. Just trying to make the best decision for "me" here as I'm sure you did for "you".

 

[joema2]

...I'm struggling to decide between 512GB SSD and 1/3TB Fusion. Anyone seen any disc benchmarks?....Starting to think 512GB SSD plus an external Thunderbolt RAID enclosure is the way to go...

I use a 2013 iMac 27, i7@3.5Ghz, 3TB FD for video editing, although most of my material is on a Thunderbolt 8TB Pegasus R4 RAID5. However I've done plenty of work just on the FD.

An iMac 27 with FD is a fine machine and works OK for most purposes. For those who (a) Need more space than they can afford on SSD, (b) Want significantly better performance than a pure HDD (c) Not deal with an external drive, and (d) For whom 3TB is plenty of space, FD is good.

I would not over-emphasize benchmarks. You don't care about winning the "Benchmarks Olympics" -- you care about how fast your personal workload runs. Those are two different things. A faster benchmark number does not necessarily translate into a striking real-world difference.

That said, if you can afford SSD it's the way to go. A 512GB SSD and an external drive array would be the best solution from a pure performance and expandability standpoint.

Another advantage of SSD is it maintains full performance up to about 97% full, whereas HDD and FD will slow down as they fill up. This is more marked for writes than reads but if you want optimal performance from HDD/FD you have to maintain some significant free space. There are various recommendations that vary from 20% free space to 50% free space.

 

[jdsmooooth]

3TB Fusion Black Magic Benchmark

Anyone able to run the Blackmagic Disc benchmark app on their new iMacs? Would love to see SSD compared to Fusion.

Since I started the thread I would liked to have contributed more... my wife got sick so I really had no time.

Here is the benchmark you requested.

 

[jdsmooooth]

3TB Fusion Seems to Fly in the Real World

I use a 2013 iMac 27, i7@3.5Ghz, 3TB FD for video editing, although most of my material is on a Thunderbolt 8TB Pegasus R4 RAID5. However I've done plenty of work just on the FD....

I would not over-emphasize benchmarks. You don't care about winning the "Benchmarks Olympics" -- you care about how fast your personal workload runs. Those are two different things. A faster benchmark number does not necessarily translate into a striking real-world difference.

This is what it really came down to for me. My older son is getting into photography and video editing. I really just needed the space/performance of the FD. Even though money wasn't a blaring concern I couldn't see the cost of a 1TB SSD at this time.

My new iMac crushes the 2009 i7 it sits next to. Quite frankly that's the longest I've owned a desktop. In 2.5 years when I get a new one SSD will, more than likely, be the standard. Until then this setup seems to fly.

 

[craig1410]

Since I started the thread I would liked to have contributed more... my wife got sick so I really had no time.

Here is the benchmark you requested.

Hi,
Thanks for posting the benchmark, that helps a lot. I hope your wife gets better soon too, sorry to hear about that.

It actually pushes me closer to getting the 3TB Fusion setup again so I have a bit more soul-searching to do before I pull the trigger.

The other thing that occurred to me, I'm sure I read somewhere that SSD-only CTO iMacs don't have the SATA connectors soldered to the main board so will never be able to support a spinning disk or even an additional SSD in place of the spinning disk in future. So, maybe I'm better getting the Fusion model just now and that keeps open the option of replacing the 128GB SSD with a larger model at a later date or a second SSD in place of the spinning disk. These could then run as separate drives rather than as a Fusion pair as that would make no sense. I could even just change the 3TB HDD for a 1TB SSD once they became more affordable although that would only be SATA III not PCIe obviously.

Whatever I decide, there will be times that my decision will be right and other times it will be wrong. Trying to find the one decision that is right more of the time...

Thanks again,
Craig.