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.
Fusion Drive vs SSD
- Thread starter Rob.G
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The first 24 GB would be as fast as the first 24 GB that is correct. However the remainder drive would perform at ~500 MB/s instead of the ~150 MB/s the hard drive would support. Small benchmarks on the Fusion drive perform excellent, which isn't a very good representative of the overall performance of the drive. You need to compare a benchmark that would force it to access the HD like large libraries of rarely accessed media files.
That is what backups are for...
killhippie
macrumors 6502a
macOS is really being designed for SSD's now than spinners, so I decided that I could push the boat when I got my 5K iMac so went with the 1TB SSD and although in everyday use most wont see a huge difference over the 2TB Fusion drive having had a 2TB Fusion drive previously I'm glad I went full SSD this time round. It all depends on what you can afford and a Fusion drive is a great halfway marker for its cost. I like to over spec to squeeze as much life as I can from my machines anyway, but go with what you can afford don't get in debt over a SSD.
Dave245
macrumors G4
When I update my 2012 iMac I think I'll jump to an SSD, waiting to see what Apple does tho.
Prosumer71
macrumors newbie
I might come through as slow here, but what's the best configuration for managing huge iTunes and Photos libraries on an iMac? SSD + USB3 drive(s) or a large fusion drive?
It depends. Are you going to put an SSD in the USB3 enclosure? If so, that will be faster.
With a hard drive in the enclosure, the Fusion would likely be faster depending on your usage. For example, it you use the iTunes library a lot, then the Fusion setup would see those are frequently accessed files and store them on the flash portion of the Fusion drive where access would be very fast. If you rarely access the files, the Fusion would put them on the hard drive section of the Fusion setup and access would likely be slower.
How often do you think average MR forum member needs to move/use 10-20GB at once?
Benchmarks should be more like real life usage, but tens of gigabytes per day just isn't that.
Anyway, I was ansering about should the two ssd's be fusioned.
[doublepost=1490620682][/doublepost]
I think you are measuring the wrong speed, if you are thinking about running macOS. Running an os is about IOPS not about gigabyte size video files.
[doublepost=1490621036][/doublepost]
Lets say that one drive dies when you throw a normal dice and get 1.
Is it easier to get one 1, when you throw two dices?
[doublepost=1490621092][/doublepost]
You can't buy as fast ssd as Apple has used years in their iMacs?
[doublepost=1490621573][/doublepost]
If Photos library doesn't fit to ssd, then more frequently used photos would load faster in fusion drive.
How much "managing" itunes need speed from storage?
Prosumer71
macrumors newbie
I'm currently running a 2006 Mac Pro with Mountain Lion and iTunes is awfully slow with large libraries. I don't know if Apple has fixed this with later versions of iTunes but I suspect making sure I have the fastest disk speed available is a good idea?
You mean just browsing the library is slow? Or doing searches?
Or do you mean importing/converting/copying?
About running OS from usb attached SSD (2015):
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-3.1-performance-benchmark,4037-2.html
"Random I/O isn’t nearly as impressive. But that’s what we’d expect from USB (or any other interface, for that matter). You’ll see reads approaching 7400 IOPS in 4KB reads at a queue depth of one from USB 3.1, while Intel’s controller yields over 5400 IOPS. This is one discipline where VIA comes out ahead of Intel; the VL805 posts nearly 6800 IOPS."
So, not a good idea for power user...
[doublepost=1490705125][/doublepost]http://blog.fosketts.net/2013/06/12/pcie-ssds-fast/
is telling that pciE ssd is a lot faster of OS than sata ssd, which is way faster than usb3 (for using as system disk).
[doublepost=1490705409][/doublepost]3years ago:
"Consumer SSDs on SATA 6G/s connections are hitting a wall around 100,000 IOPS."
http://www.overclock.net/t/1489684/ssd-interface-comparison-pci-express-vs-sata
Last edited:
All this is far too technical and complicated for me - an ordinary user struggling with my 2007 24" iMac that is now really slow. I've been waiting and waiting for the new iMac (rather than a slightly improved model) to appear and wonder if I should go on waiting until October/November or buy a 21.5" model now. Having read through this thread I gather that SSD is better. Any advice would be appreciated - oh, and I'm in the UK if that makes a difference.
I have the 2012 27'' iMac with 1tb fusion which used to have 128gb ssd.
For my working scenario the fusion drive was much more a miss than a hit. I use it primarily for my photo need, large LR library, PS, Capture One, etc.
Last week I set up an external ssd put in a tb enclosure as my boot drive.
It works much better than the fusion. I don't know the benchmark scores (I could care less about it) but the computers feels much faster which I really appreciate.
For my working scenario the fusion drive was much more a miss than a hit. I use it primarily for my photo need, large LR library, PS, Capture One, etc.
Last week I set up an external ssd put in a tb enclosure as my boot drive.
It works much better than the fusion. I don't know the benchmark scores (I could care less about it) but the computers feels much faster which I really appreciate.
Is the original hard drive from 2007 still in the machine? And how much RAM is in it? Adding an SSD + more RAM to your existing computer might bring the speed back up quite significantly. And maybe that can tie you over until a new machine arrives.
This is of course very technical solution, but I would just install ssd to the place of odd and replace the old hdd with new bigger and faster one. Then fusion those two. If you have enough cpu and gpu power already. 10 years with same hdd is a really nice achievement.
If you keep using that old hdd, another tech solution, install SMARTReporter.