Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Insides of 2012 iMac (pic)

hfg said:
Looks like the SSD is a "blade" type as in the Air and MBPr.

Does that mean that "fusion" is a totally separate SSD and HD?
Click to expand...

Yes, from all indications if you order the fusion option you get a 3.5" HDD and a 128GB blade SSD.
 
At this point I'm guessing that the laminated screen+glass as one unit is held in by magnets. If so, it should give even easier access to the internals than the current version. And by internals I mean the HDD - the only real reason to dig around in there is to switch the HDD to something more fun.

Which brings up the next question: can we change the HDD to any brand of the right dimension, or does it have to be Apple approved ones? And: what happens with the Fusion drive if we switch the HDD to a SDD?
 
flatfoot said:
And BTW, Fusion is at least based on, if not even just the same as, Intel Smart Response.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. During the presentation Apple made a big deal about Mountain Lion intelligently choosing which files to store on the SSD and which ones to store on the spinning disk.

Intel's stuff is "just" some caching firmware in the chipset.
 
motrek said:
Doubt it. During the presentation Apple made a big deal about Mountain Lion intelligently choosing which files to store on the SSD and which ones to store on the spinning disk.

Intel's stuff is "just" some caching firmware in the chipset.
Click to expand...

They should have stuck with the SRT. I predict this fusion gimmick is going to be a world of pain and will not bring the performance that people are expecting.

It's pretty simple 256 GB SSD + 1 TB or 3 TB hard drive. Put OS X, applications, libraries etc on the SSD. Create symbolic links for folders like movies, downloads and music and have those pointing to the HDD.

Voila. Much better performance than Fusion and you can still create a bootcamp partition on the SSD.

Let me quote Cindori from another thread in the Mac Pro sub-forum.


Cindori said:
320GB SSDs cost as mush as 120GB ones did 2 years ago. We'll have affordable 0.5TB ssd's soon probably.

Is there really any use for this? I mean, the fusion drive system would only benefit you if you expect to store more then the SSD can allow. Move your download folder and music folder to an HDD, and you will probably be better off with just a single 256GB SSD which will act much faster then a fusion drive solution.

Remember, the fusion drive puts data on the HDD based on it's own algorithms and what it THINKS you are going to use. In reality you are definately going to find yourself opening alot of stuff which has been moved to the HDD... and then it will be painstakingly slow...
Click to expand...
 
motrek said:
Doubt it. During the presentation Apple made a big deal about Mountain Lion intelligently choosing which files to store on the SSD and which ones to store on the spinning disk.

Intel's stuff is "just" some caching firmware in the chipset.
Click to expand...

Wanna bet?
 
flatfoot said:
And BTW, Fusion is at least based on, if not even just the same as, Intel Smart Response.
Click to expand...

As far as I know they're pretty different.

Smart Response is a caching system that happens at the chipset level. All files are stored on the HDD, and the SSD is used to cache frequently accessed blocks on the HDD.

Fusion is not a caching system. The OS and frequently used apps/files are stored directly on the SSD, and do not take up space on the HDD. Fusion is managed at the file (not block) level by the OS, not the chipset.

----------
theSeb said:
They should have stuck with the SRT. I predict this fusion gimmick is going to be a world of pain and will not bring the performance that people are expecting.

It's pretty simple 256 GB SSD + 1 TB or 3 TB hard drive. Put OS X, applications, libraries etc on the SSD. Create symbolic links for folders like movies, downloads and music and have those pointing to the HDD.

Voila. Much better performance than Fusion and you can still create a bootcamp partition on the SSD.
Click to expand...

How is your suggestion significantly different from Fusion? With Fusion the OS, libraries, and frequently used applications are on the SSD as you suggest, and by default files like movies, downloads, and music are kept on the HDD.

The main difference between your suggestion and Fusion is that Fusion can automatically free up space on the SSD if you don't use an application very frequently, and use that space for other applications or files which you do use frequently.

Fusion is also better because it does use the SSD for write caching, which your suggestion would not do for files destined for the HDD.

A Mac with Fusion should boot and launch apps at basically the same speed as an SSD-only computer. I don't know how you seem to know so much about how poorly Fusion will perform.
 
Stetrain said:
As far as I know they're pretty different.

Smart Response is a caching system that happens at the chipset level. All files are stored on the HDD, and the SSD is used to cache frequently accessed blocks on the HDD.

Fusion is not a caching system. The OS and frequently used apps/files are stored directly on the SSD, and do not take up space on the HDD. Fusion is managed at the file (not block) level by the OS, not the chipset.

----------
Click to expand...
Yes, it will probably be handled by the OS itself at Core Storage level. That means extra branches and decisions, which has to equal extra CPU cycles for write operations.

How is your suggestion significantly different from Fusion? With Fusion the OS, libraries, and frequently used applications are on the SSD as you suggest, and by default files like movies, downloads, and music are kept on the HDD.

The main difference between your suggestion and Fusion is that Fusion can automatically free up space on the SSD if you don't use an application very frequently, and use that space for other applications or files which you do use frequently.

Fusion is also better because it does use the SSD for write caching, which your suggestion would not do for files destined for the HDD.

A Mac with Fusion should boot and launch apps at basically the same speed as an SSD-only computer. I don't know how you seem to know so much about how poorly Fusion will perform.
Click to expand...

There are many differences in my suggestion to "fusion". What if you're writing a file larger than the 4 GB write cache? What if you're certain that a certain large file MUST be on the SSD, but the fusion algorithm decides otherwise? I could keep going on and on. All of these caching and pretend caching solutions never really live up to their expectations. A user with a small knowledge of how a computer works will have better results doing a small bit of storage management themselves. I base my predictions on my Computer Science knowledge and past experience of OS X promised performance improvements and gimmicks.

Having said that, there is no point in arguing about this until we see it running.
 
Last edited:
DennisD7 said:
At this point I'm guessing that the laminated screen+glass as one unit is held in by magnets. If so, it should give even easier access to the internals than the current version. And by internals I mean the HDD - the only real reason to dig around in there is to switch the HDD to something more fun.

Which brings up the next question: can we change the HDD to any brand of the right dimension, or does it have to be Apple approved ones? And: what happens with the Fusion drive if we switch the HDD to a SDD?
Click to expand...

I really hope this is the case. If the computer is glued together I think this forum will riot.
 
DennisD7 said:
At this point I'm guessing that the laminated screen+glass as one unit is held in by magnets. If so, it should give even easier access to the internals than the current version.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is because every view they showed is from the back. So it looks like the base and the back panel come off.

If the glass and screen came off you would be looking at the back of the logic board and wouldn't be able to get to anything. The ram face the back so you can't change it from the screen side.

Apple says this on the iMac page:

Or add more memory to the 27-inch model yourself by popping open the easy-to-access memory panel on the back.
Click to expand...

To me it doesn't sound like upgrading is going to be very fun on any and really had to upgrade the ram on the 21.5.
 
Stetrain, here is some info on the "Fusion" drive

Anandtech said:
The new iMac and Mac mini can be outfitted with a Fusion Drive option that couples 128GB of NAND flash with either a 1TB or 3TB hard drive. The Fusion part comes in courtesy of Apple's software that takes the two independent drives and presents them to the user as a single volume. Originally I thought this might be SSD caching but after poking around the new iMacs and talking to Apple I have a better understanding of what's going on.

For starters, the 128GB of NAND is simply an SSD on a custom form factor PCB with the same connector that's used in the new MacBook Air and rMBP models. I would expect this SSD to use the same Toshiba or Samsung controllers we've seen in other Macs. The iMac I played with had a Samsung based SSD inside.

Total volume size is the sum of both parts. In the case of the 128GB + 1TB option, the total available storage is ~1.1TB. The same is true for the 128GB + 3TB option (~3.1TB total storage).

By default the OS and all preloaded applications are physically stored on the 128GB of NAND flash. But what happens when you go to write to the array?

With Fusion Drive enabled, Apple creates a 4GB write buffer on the NAND itself. Any writes that come in to the array hit this 4GB buffer first, which acts as sort of a write cache. Any additional writes cause the buffer to spill over to the hard disk. The idea here is that hopefully 4GB will be enough to accommodate any small file random writes which could otherwise significantly bog down performance. Having those writes buffer in NAND helps deliver SSD-like performance for light use workloads.

That 4GB write buffer is the only cache-like component to Apple's Fusion Drive. Everything else works as an OS directed pinning algorithm instead of an SSD cache. In other words, Mountain Lion will physically move frequently used files, data and entire applications to the 128GB of NAND Flash storage and move less frequently used items to the hard disk. The moves aren't committed until the copy is complete (meaning if you pull the plug on your machine while Fusion Drive is moving files around you shouldn't lose any data). After the copy is complete, the original is deleted and free space recovered.



After a few accesses Fusion Drive should be able to figure out if it needs to pull something new into NAND. The 128GB size is near ideal for most light client workloads, although I do suspect heavier users might be better served by something closer to 200GB.

There is no user interface for Fusion Drive management within OS X. Once the volume is created it cannot be broken through a standard OS X tool (although clever users should be able to find a way around that). I'm not sure what a Fusion Drive will look like under Boot Camp, it's entirely possible that Apple will put a Boot Camp partition on the HDD alone. OS X doesn't hide the fact that there are two physical drives in your system from you. A System Report generated on a Fusion Drive enabled Mac will show both drives connected via SATA.

The concept is interesting, at least for mainstream users. Power users will still get better performance (and reliability benefits) of going purely with solid state storage. Users who don't want to deal with managing data and applications across two different volumes are still the target for Fusion Drive (in other words, the ultra mainstream customer).

With a 128GB NAND component Fusion Drive could work reasonable well. We'll have to wait and see what happens when we get our hands on an iMac next month.
Click to expand...
 
easy4lif said:
sorry to burst your bubble but the image on top is of the iMac if its facing AWAY from you. I'm gonna assume that you'll have to tear it down a bit to access the memory slots.

hopefully ifixit will come up with a workaround
Click to expand...

Nope, there is an easy accessible hatch on the back, where you have to pull out the power-cord to push a button, which then will open the hatch and give access to the 4 memory slots.
 
Pressure said:
Nope, there is an easy accessible hatch on the back, where you have to pull out the power-cord to push a button, which then will open the hatch and give access to the 4 memory slots.
Click to expand...

The picture in the first post is is the new iMac facing away from you. The user hatch is only on the 27". So, unless I am going mad, it looks like they've swapped things around. All of the components now face the back, instead of facing the front like they used to on the previous models.
 
Last edited:
dlewis23 said:
I don't think it is because every view they showed is from the back. So it looks like the base and the back panel come off.

If the glass and screen came off you would be looking at the back of the logic board and wouldn't be able to get to anything. The ram face the back so you can't change it from the screen side.
Click to expand...

There's no way for the back panel to come off. The chin and aluminum body are all a single fused piece (except for the memory panel on the 27").

My guess is that the glass, display, and logic board all pull out of the aluminum case through the front as one piece. In the picture they showed of the inside, the logic board and other components appear to be mounted to the back of the display.

Basically there are two parts, the 'guts' and the aluminum shell. It looks like the guts come out in one big chunk leaving an empty shell.
 
Stetrain said:
There's no way for the back panel to come off. The chin and aluminum body are all a single fused piece (except for the memory panel on the 27").

My guess is that the glass, display, and logic board all pull out of the aluminum case through the front as one piece. In the picture they showed of the inside, the logic board and other components appear to be mounted to the back of the display.

Basically there are two parts, the 'guts' and the aluminum shell. It looks like the guts come out in one big chunk leaving an empty shell.
Click to expand...

This sounds right. I think what might be confusing things is that they are showing the back side of the chin in the photo but I think this has been cut away from the back shell to put in the picture to give a reference of where things sit relative to the front.

I think you are correct that it all comes out in one piece leaving the shell behind. You would angle the display forward at the top and then lift it out of the chin pocket. The question of the day will be how do they attach the display to the back shell. Magnets would be awesome. They can't glue it or it would basically be one big disposable unit. Or at least not accessible even by apple certified repair locations. I am going to vote for magnets given past apple designs.
 
Nothing seems to be screwed down in those pics, this leads me to believe the components still attach to the rear housing just like the older imac. I just hope there is no glue between the screen and the housing. Either way im taking it apart on arrival.
 
I don't know, dudes. Except for the RAM hatch on the 27" models, these new iMacs look pretty locked down. How will you access the inside without burning the aluminum case off?
 
So, if the new machines have a standard SSD and a standard HD, and come with a newer OS X version (reported to be installed on the available 2012 Mini) ...

is it possible that the next OS X update will include "fusion" to be used with older machines where we have already installed SSD and HD drives with manual file maintenance.

I would think that Disk Utility might have an additional "fusion" entry under the tab for building a RAID array?



-howard
 
i will not get the fusion drive, it may work very well in osx however i definitely need window 7 installed in bootcamp for pc games, and cant even begin to imagine how this thing will behave under windows...

i hope the imac can be opened up for ssd upgrade, otherwise i will have no choice but to get that 700gb ssd from apple's bto guessing around $1000.

I predict with the 680mx upgrade and ssd, it will be around $3500... :(
 
gagaliya said:
i will not get the fusion drive, it may work very well in osx however i definitely need window 7 installed in bootcamp for pc games, and cant even begin to imagine how this thing will behave under windows...

i hope the imac can be opened up for ssd upgrade, otherwise i will have no choice but to get that 700gb ssd from apple's bto guessing around $1000.

I predict with the 680mx upgrade and ssd, it will be around $3500... :(
Click to expand...

The iMac SSD is now of the "blade" design like the Air, which limits your choices for upgrade (OWC makes upgrades, but they are expensive). It will be great if there is a spare SATA port on the logic board such that a standard 2.5" SSD might be added inside (if there is room). Otherwise, an external SSD drive might be used through either the USB3 or TB ports with the small enclosure mounted to the stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back