Fusion Drive Now Available as Option for Low End 21.5" iMac

[joe-h2o]

They still only give you 512MB video ram as standard bar the top end 27", that's even worst IMO in 2013!
I think Fusion is slightly better value then this as you get the best of both worlds, fast SSD and big storage, but if they use only 5200rpm drives in 2013 in the Fusion drives that's utterly laughable!



Really, so what do you use to take the screen off then, and what do you use to re-glue the screen back in place? Don't post links, post what you have done.

The 5400 rpm drive is only in the 21" because it uses a 2.5" notebook HDD. The 27" machines use 7200 rpm drives, since they have 3.5" bays.

Both use the blade-style SSD to add fusion capability if you order it - there is a separate m-SATA type port (it's not M-SATA, it just looks a lot like it) on the logic board. It's the same port used in the rMBP so they can use the same SSD modules across multiple Mac product lines.

To open the iMac you use a plastic pizza cutter or a guitar pick to cut through the foam tape holding it shut. No need for a heat gun.

To reassemble it you just remove the old adhesive tape which comes away easily and apply fresh tape. You can use a few strips of 3M's VHB tape available from any good hardware store. Just trim it to width to fit into the groove in the iMac's chassis. You don't need to use as much as the Apple original tape since it's a big stronger.

Alternatively you can buy a kit from OWC that includes replacement tape, but that is really unnecessary.

Show me a non "utterly laughable" notebook using a spinning HDD that is not 5400 rpm. The 2.5" form factor dictates the specs of the drive. Rotational speed is not everything though. Reminds me of all the kids who bought into the megahertz myth back in the day. Bigger is better, right!

 

[azentropy]

It's clear from this statement that you don't completely understand how Fusion drive works. It is true that if you have less than 128 GB of content on the drive, only the SSD is used. However, the software behind Fusion is constantly optimizing the location (SSD or HDD) of your content, based on your usage habits. So, your most oft-used content remains on the SSD. There is probably a very small population of iMac users that use more than 128 GB of content on a daily basis.

This is why I hate MR's forum format. Please read the entire chain to understand what I was commenting on. You are reiterating the point I was making. That last comment was just refuting someone else's misconception.

 

[MacDav]

Why wasn't it an option in the first place?

It's been an option since 10.7 came out. Not an option offered by Apple but it always was, and still is available to anyone who wants it. Of course you have to do it yourself. I understand this is a mind boggling task for some. Those people will have to pay more and buy it as an option from Apple. Anyone with a little tech savvy can use this technology on any Mac running 10.7 or 10.8.

 

[Rend It]

I hate to break it to you, but all your files are on 2 separate disks. The so called "fusion" drive is just 2 separate drives. One SSD and one HD joined by your system software into one "Logical Drive". The drive you think is one HD is really 2 regular separate drives.

It seems pretty apparent from DYER's post that he understands what a Fusion drive is and how it works. Where did you get the impression he thinks it's one physical drive?

 

[joe-h2o]

Are these figures that you personally obtained or from the vendors? I'm also curious which SSD and USB 3 enclosure you are using.

I never said that 0.001% aren't capable of buying an enclosure. It's something they probably don't think of and/or care about. And copying/pasting Terminal commands is all good and easy but if someone leaves out just one character, not many people know how to go from there. Copying/pasting is easy, but the potential consequences may not be. It's really easy to miss something tiny.

I'm getting 197/385 MB/s over thunderbolt to my LaCie rugged SSD using blackmagic disk test. The drive also has a USB3 controller, but I'm not using it right now. I'd swap it over and run the test via USB3 but it's my boot drive. Assuming the overhead is similar the numbers aren't going to be that different though, and they're well within the rated speed of USB3 - the SATA controller in the drive is the same one being accessed over thunderbolt or USB3.

I know it's not a perfect test, but it's a reasonable approximation.

 

[Tanax]

Are these figures that you personally obtained or from the vendors? I'm also curious which SSD and USB 3 enclosure you are using.

I never said that 0.001% aren't capable of buying an enclosure. It's something they probably don't think of and/or care about. And copying/pasting Terminal commands is all good and easy but if someone leaves out just one character, not many people know how to go from there. Copying/pasting is easy, but the potential consequences may not be. It's really easy to miss something tiny.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1483374/
USB3 enclosure with a Samsung 840. And no, I didn't obtain those figures, he did.

The actual enclosure he's using costs $25. Quite cheap if you ask me. A heck of a lot cheaper than any Thunderbolt enclosure at least.

 

[robertcoogan]

So don't buy it.

So there's high-capacity SSD's that are less than $100? I haven't looked.

Yes, you can install a secondary SSD on some iMacs. See my post on page seven:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1520157/

 

[MacDav]

Hi,

The idea of creating your own Fusion drive is great but can this be done with a SSD drive within the Express port? I do have a 96Gb SSD express card and wondered if combined with the internal 750GB Std drive if it's possible or not?

Morrile

You can use any drive that mounts. If you can see the drive and access files on it then it has mounted.

 

[Rend It]

This is why I hate MR's forum format. Please read the entire chain to understand what I was commenting on. You are reiterating the point I was making. That last comment was just refuting someone else's misconception.

Apologies. I edited my post to make a more specific point.

 

[MacDav]

It seems pretty apparent from DYER's post that he understands what a Fusion drive is and how it works. Where did you get the impression he thinks it's one physical drive?

That's strange. I didn't reply to Dyer I replied to someone else.

 

[TheHateMachine]

Pure BS and spoken exactly like someone who has never used a Fusion drive.

I have the maxed out 21.5" iMac. If Apple had offered the Fusion drive option on the base model it probably wouldn't have changed anything. I wanted the i7 and more memory along with the Fusion drive so I don't feel screwed.

Creating your own Fusion drive (what I like to call "Fusionstein") is a good alternative but its not officially supported by Apple so who knows what can go wrong. Also, the OS build on Fusion drive iMacs is different than non-Fusion drive iMacs so if you Fusionstein your iMac, it may work but you still may not be getting a fully functional Fusion drive even though it appears that way.

Not BS, a solo SSD produces less noise and heat and will always be fast compared to Apple's modified version of a Hybrid drive. Outside of the "safer" claim he is on the money on everything. The only benefit Apple's solution has is storage space. Everything else is either on par or less optimal to a regular SSD.

 

[SDAVE]

You own a Fusion Drive or have run it through your own tests? Most of the performance numbers I've seen suggest otherwise. It's not the only solution, but from what I've read, it's actually a clever solution that's shifts focus from user-oriented drive management to OS-level drive management. Most of the DIY Fusion drives are not as good at the setup Apple is implementing, and most of them require above-average knowledge of system mangament.

What Apple has done is streamlined and simplified the setup, and yes you pay for it, but for the average user, this is good thing.

No I don't have a Fusion drive, but it's pretty much 2 drives being used as 1 logical drive. The OS dictates which files are frequently used and moves those to the SSD...kind of like a smarter version of the "Hybrid" Seagate drives.

I think it's useless. What if one drive fails? You lose your data. It's better to have one SSD for the OS and apps, and another HDD to store large files such as photos, videos, music, etc.

What Apple has done is definitely "idiot proof." But it will go away once SSD's become more affordable.

Honestly, mSATA is becoming cheaper and you can definitely upgrade your iMac yourself.

 

[Tanax]

No I don't have a Fusion drive, but it's pretty much 2 drives being used as 1 logical drive. The OS dictates which files are frequently used and moves those to the SSD...kind of like a smarter version of the "Hybrid" Seagate drives.

I think it's useless. What if one drive fails? You lose your data. It's better to have one SSD for the OS and apps, and another HDD to store large files such as photos, videos, music, etc.

What Apple has done is definitely "idiot proof." But it will go away once SSD's become more affordable.

Honestly, mSATA is becoming cheaper and you can definitely upgrade your iMac yourself.

Having a drive fail can happen even if you only have 1 drive. You should always have backup, regardless if you have a Fusion Drive or not.

 

[SDAVE]

Having a drive fail can happen even if you only have 1 drive. You should always have backup, regardless if you have a Fusion Drive or not.

Having a backup goes without saying.

But having 2 drives is pretty much like a RAID 0, so you increase the chances of errors.

 

[I8P'CS]

Got to love Apple, let the early adopters rush to get the high end 21.5 iMac with fusion drive before xmas and in the new year allow it on the base model. Win Win Win for Apple. Have raked in some money from Nov to Jan, Now people will buy base and upgrade to FD more £$£$£

 

[hfg]

Having a backup goes without saying.

But having 2 drives is pretty much like a RAID 0, so you increase the chances of errors.

That is really irrelevant when you have a good backup strategy.

Any drive failure, no matter how configured, will result in loss without backup.

I doubt many users here worrying about drive failures have actually experienced a drive failure within the useful life of their computer. Sure, there are some and any of us could have one ... But that is why we all keep backups!

 

[wizard]

Silly question.

Does anyone know if the HDD part in the Fusiondrive is 5400 or 7200 rpm?

The whole point of Fusion drive is to limit the impact of slow magnetic media in a Mac.

 

[wizard]

Like all things in life it depends.

The overwhelming majority of Express Port flash cards interface over USB. Thus slow is their middle name. At one time there where a couple of Express Port flash cards that did support the higher speed interface but I'm not even sure they exist anymore.

In the case of these flash cards it is very much buyer be aware. Look very very closely at the cards specs.

I see your point but the express port is internal from a point of view. As my data on the current drive is safe, I think I will try and see what happens

True, an express card would work if it made use of the fast port available on the interface.

----------

I think it's only Apple, so it's looks to be software driven... as I understand it, but no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong; which I don't mind

Morrile

Fusion drive is for the most part a software solution. They might use some hardware internal to the standard intel chips but that is speculative.

 

[SDAVE]

That is really irrelevant when you have a good backup strategy.

Any drive failure, no matter how configured, will result in loss without backup.

I doubt many users here worrying about drive failures have actually experienced a drive failure within the useful life of their computer. Sure, there are some and any of us could have one ... But that is why we all keep backups!

yawn

 

[Yamcha]

Apple should have made hybrid Seagate drives on all iMacs a standard feature, as they are not that much more expensive then traditional hard drives.

I don't doubt the performance of fusion drive, but your really paying premium..

 

[wizard]

An uninformed explanation if I ever seen one.

I suppose I got screwed by Apple when after my Mac Plus purchase all those years ago the prices if hard drives steadily declined over the years. Or the fact that Motorola had better 68000 processors for Apple to choose from. Yeah that all makes really good sense.

Are you for real? Before you had to pick the high end 21.5'' to have the option to add the Fusion drive. Now you don't need to. Buying the low end + Fusion drive is cheaper than buying high end + Fusion drive.

Did someone pee in your cereal this morning? Give me a break, if you don't understand the industry and the type of release this was then you really don't deserve this forum to trumpet such non sense. It's called business, you made a transaction at the time that apparently was good enough for you so pack away the whining and grow up.

See, very easy to explain. Now you go think about it.

You explained nothing. You did demonstrate an incredible bit of ignorance though. The business world does not revolve around you and frankly never will.

 

[freddiecable]

I'm a die-hard Apple fan. Once or twice they have disappointed with strange configuration options. But this latest stunt with fusion and 768GB SSD!?!? as the only SSD-option makes me totally mad! How hard would it be to have a 256/512 SSD-option? I'm not a fan of this fusion-solution at all.

Result - I will not upgrade. I will continue with my current iMac - until they (apple) wake up and give me better options.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple should have made hybrid Seagate drives on all iMacs a standard feature, as they are not that much more expensive then traditional hard drives.

I don't doubt the performance of fusion drive, but your really paying premium..

The Seagate hybrid drives are rubbish compared to Fusion. Read through some of the old threads until you realise just how good Fusion actually is.

And I don't think you realise this, but Apple is in this business to make profit, so if a hybrid drive that you buy is "not much more expensive" than a plain HD, then a hybrid drive inside a Mac sold by Apple would be a lot more expensive.

But it doesn't really matter; hybrid drives are only good for speed freaks who reboot half a dozen times until the OS is all inside the hybrid drive's cache and then they measure how much faster the boot time is and they are happy - not realizing that this removes all the actual useful data from the cache and kills all the benefits. While Fusion uses a 128 GB SSD drive, which contains 124 GB of _useful_ data, which is more than most 256 GB SSDs will ever contain.

I'm a die-hard Apple fan. Once or twice they have disappointed with strange configuration options. But this latest stunt with fusion and 768GB SSD!?!? as the only SSD-option makes me totally mad! How hard would it be to have a 256/512 SSD-option? I'm not a fan of this fusion-solution at all.

You haven't used it. 256 GB SSD is pointless because Fusion with 128 GB SSD has four times more space and the same speed for less money.

Yes you can. They are called "hybrid" drives. Apple may have come up with an elegant solution that is powered by the OS, but they didn't invent hybrid drives. Just created their own and called it Fusion. I, for one, am grateful they finally did. It's a big step in the right direction.

The Seagate hybrid drives are laughable compared to a Fusion drive. There was a company selling HD + 100 GB SSD combined, for more money than Fusion, but they seem to have sold very few - can't find that drive anymore. So right now, you can't buy anything comparable to Fusion anywhere but at Apple (and of course storage solutions for data centres have had very similar things for years - at prices that would make some of the posters here pass out).

You own a Fusion Drive or have run it through your own tests? Most of the performance numbers I've seen suggest otherwise. It's not the only solution, but from what I've read, it's actually a clever solution that's shifts focus from user-oriented drive management to OS-level drive management. Most of the DIY Fusion drives are not as good at the setup Apple is implementing, and most of them require above-average knowledge of system mangament.

That is incorrect. The DIY Fusion drives use exactly the same software as Apple ones. The software is part of MacOS X 10.8.2. The only difference is that an iMac with Fusion drive comes already set up properly, and all Macs with Fusion drives come with a version of Disk Utility that makes setting up a Fusion drive easy; the DIY method is quite a bit harder. But once the DIY Fusion drive is set up, it is identical. You don't install any new software on the Mac.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Paying $250 for adding a 128GB SSD worth $90 and some extra software seems a little to high...

It is high.... as the people pricing apple products are high when they do it.... but they keep doing it, because the people who run and buy them are high for doing it.... If people would actually back lash a little, apple might come down from that $$high$$$ but as long as people get stoked over incremental bits of nothing and pay 5 times their value.... apple will always charge 3 times as much for something than everyone else because they can. I went to rehab. I don't get excited about something like the fusion drive... neat, great feature, but you're on crack for charging that price for something.

 

[tbrinkma]

The 64-bit Darwin kernel is another example. Early Core 2 Duos are 64-bit but have to use the 32-bit kernel. Why? Apple didn't bother making a driver...

Just to clear things up for you, it's actually because there ended up not being enough room for the 64-bit EFI in the ROM they selected. A future requirements estimate that came up short.

Yep it kinda sucks, but its not just that they didn't 'bother' with a driver.