Fusion Drive vs 5400rpm HDD (video)

Discussion in 'iMac' started by bobright, Dec 11, 2012.

  1. bobright, Dec 11, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2012

    bobright macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #1
    I'm sure theres some people that have seen this but for those who haven't thought I'd post this. It's a little live testing one vs the other the Fusion performs pretty damn nice and im glad I went that route.


     
  2. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #2
    Not real world tests. For the first 120GB (or however big your custom fusion drive build's SSD is) it's pure SSD performance. While a fusion drive is a nice upgrade from a spinner, that video is pretty useless.

    The video should be called: "5400rpm vs SSD".
     
  3. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #3
    Me too. The fusion drive is friggin fast! After being on my iMac for an hour and then switching to my work computer, I feel like I stepped back to stone knives and bear skins.

    ----------

    Not useless. It's true! I'm seeing those speeds and even when dipping into the 5400 RPM drive, the system as a whole still runs faster because most of the frequently accessed files are on the SSD.
     
  4. jkautosports macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #4
    From what it sounds like, the more that you add to your fusion drive, the slower it will get.... I'm curious to see a test maybe a few months after use... once there's a lot of stuff to access on the HDD.

    How many times, or how often must you open something for it to be considered "frequently used"?
     
  5. majkom macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    #5
    are all apple users so tech unsavvy? fusion is so faaaast:D lol, ordinary SSD.. yes, it is true, SSD use to be fast people:D
     
  6. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #6
    I think the point is that since its a hybrid drive, it gives you a lower cost solution with most of the benefits. $250 for the addon is a good way to go if you don't want to spend loads of cash on a full SSD desktop.
     
  7. palmerc2 macrumors 65816

    palmerc2

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    Just curious- I work with large video files (average between 5GB and 15GB) and while I work on them I'd like them to be on the SSD, but after I'm done can I manually transfer them to the HDD and delete them off of the SDD? If I have a few of these video files they'll fill up the SSD portion pretty damn quick! Or better yet can I choose folders I can exclude from the SSD portion (similar to Time Machine)?
     
  8. bobright thread starter macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #8
    I was under the impression that's what it would do, keep a reserved space for your OS and a bit of room for file transfers--then move them over to the HDD part in the background.
     
  9. djrod macrumors 65816

    djrod

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Location:
    Madrid - Spain
    #9
    You can't do anything, everything is automatic, if you don't use the videos they will be moved from the SSD to the HD.

    The question is….when will that happen? when the SSD is full, after 1 day, 10 hours, etc. ?
     
  10. CapnJackGig macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    #10
    It doesnt work that way. The OS checks what you use most often and moves that to the SSD. If it fills, it simply removes the oldest items and replaces it with the newest.
     
  11. gnasher729, Dec 11, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012

    gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #11
    There is nothing you do manually. The OS observes what you are doing, and decides which files and which parts of files go where. If you played the first five minutes of a one hour video over and over again and never play the rest, then the first five minutes would be on the SSD drive, and the rest would move to the HD (if the OS thinks there is other stuff that should be on the SSD drive).


    It shouldn't really get slower for most people, because most people have lots of data that is rarely accessed, and smaller amounts of data that is accessed all the time. If you keep 500 GB of movies and TV shows on your hard drive, that doesn't slow it down at all because they all can just stay on the hard drive.

    The criticism for this video is that it doesn't give any evidence for this. With less than 128 GB used, the Fusion drive would have to be as fast as SSD unless Apple did something really stupid, so being fast with little data used proves nothing.
     
  12. palmerc2 macrumors 65816

    palmerc2

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #12
    Well the article below sort of solidified my decision in not getting Fusion. That or getting Fusion and just delegating my large video files automatically to an external hard drive, because I like the idea of faster start up times and application launches & the like.

    "Mac Fusion Drive: pro users beware"
    http://www.zdnet.com/mac-fusion-drive-pro-users-beware-7000006661/
     
  13. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #13
    I keep all of my large video files on an external WD Thunderbolt hard drive. Don't like to fill up the internal drive on my iMac with stuff like that.

    Besided, that article isn't exactly conclusive. It was written before the author even had a fusion drive.

    All I can tell you is that my iMac is extremely fast even while handling large files (I was editing in Final Cut Pro X last night a noticed a large speed increase while editing).
     
  14. tuccillo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    #14
    Well, it is actually $450 because it is only available in the non-base mini and imac.
     
  15. forty2j macrumors 68030

    forty2j

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #15
    Well, actually it is $250, because the other $200 gets you a CPU increase, a GPU increase in the iMac, and the socket for the SSD on the mobo.
     
  16. tuccillo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    #16
    Well, it is $450 for anyone who doesn't need those things. Socket on the MB, please ...
     
  17. forty2j macrumors 68030

    forty2j

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #17
    You get them whether you need them or not!

    And the socket does cost money in parts in labor, and I'm sure is factored in to the $200 you're not paying on the base model.
     
  18. tuccillo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    #18
    Whatever. Same packaging nonsense with marginal value that I see time and time again. Go ahead, get ripped off - I choose not to play.
     
  19. djrod macrumors 65816

    djrod

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Location:
    Madrid - Spain
    #19
    Nop, it does not work that way, everything goes first to the SSD, then when the SSD fills up, OS X moves things to the HD if you don't use them, and the opposite happens when you use things more often, they are moved to the SSD from the HD

    I have been running a Fusion Drive now for several weeks.
     

Share This Page