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.
Is the fusion drive as fast as an ssd?
- Thread starter LeeM
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right. The majority don't understand the science of mechanical drives let alone solid state drives or the algorithms involved in caching and data tiering when pairing such devices. So many of the arguments and criticisms against Fusion drive are grossly misguided. I imagine if there are any Apple engineers actually reading these forums they'd have a good laugh with their associates over the nonsense.
----------
Oh. And not to mention, the number of folks involved in these Fussion discussions that don't even implement the simplest of backup scheme. But they know better about Fusion drives
Yes, there is. Others have described how, here at MacRumors, and elsewhere. Use your favorite search engine.
The question is, "Why?" If you want to get a HDD and a SSD at bargain-basement prices, the solution is not, "Buy a Mac with the Fusion Drive option, and split it up." You're paying a premium for something you don't even need.
SSD is sexy, I can't deny it. There's an undeniable cachet to pointing at your computer and boasting, "I added an SSD all by myself, and boy, is it fast!"
BUT, there is only one real reason anyone uses a dual drive SSD + HDD configuration in a brand-new computer - they can't afford 1-3 TBs of SSD.
Since you can't afford an SSD-only configuration (how many of us can?), the only question after that is, "How do I maximize the use of a scarce resource?" You'll find a very solid, professional analysis of Fusion Drive at http://www.anandtech.com/show/6679/a-month-with-apples-fusion-drive , and the forum discussion afterwards is well worth the read as well.
The manually-managed dual-drive solution has been around for a while, and you'll find plenty of people who love what it's done for their computing performance. Having read about it for several years, you're probably convinced that it's the way to go.
But, in the world of human nature... that blood, sweat, and tears approach has just been automated, and anytime something has been automated (and in a more sophisticated manner, for that matter), there's going to be skepticism, and downright denial - they've just been replaced by a machine.
But we're computer users, people! Isn't automation the whole point?
Or Apple can simply put 256GB SSD blade + 1 TB HDD for like, additional $300, no fancy Fusion needed.
Stupefied Fusion Drive costs $250 and only adds 120GB SSD which you can't even manage by yourself, not even accessible to BootCamp.
It works for last year's model. Should've been no problem for the new iMac.
Apple's Fusion drive is the cusp of this data tiering technology becoming mainstream in consumer/desktop systems, for all OS's. And as years progress there won't even be an option to "split it up". It'll be inherent to the system's normal operation. A user will still be able to expand or replace devices in the primary array to increase size and/or performance, but the system will present whatever is the primary array of tiered devices as a single volume.
This is natural evolution of mass storage. By the time "conventional" solid state technology becomes ubiqitous and cheap as mechanical HD, some other faster/more expensive mass storage tech will be available. Sytem makers will want the means available through the OS to balance the cost and advantages of seamlessly tiering multiple storage technologies.
This is natural evolution of mass storage. By the time "conventional" solid state technology becomes ubiqitous and cheap as mechanical HD, some other faster/more expensive mass storage tech will be available. Sytem makers will want the means available through the OS to balance the cost and advantages of seamlessly tiering multiple storage technologies.
id happily buy the base imac and stick my own ssd in if it was possible. if i could take the screen out without having to stick it back in id just swap the ssd for a samsung 84 and plug the original 1tb in as an external. but i cba tinkering.
i love my mbp setup, 2 separate drives, id like the same setup if the fusion drive can be split and show on my desktop as 2 drives. i switch between osx and windows a lot so would like 4 partitions (2 on each drive) with windows on the ssd blade rather than the hdd
i love my mbp setup, 2 separate drives, id like the same setup if the fusion drive can be split and show on my desktop as 2 drives. i switch between osx and windows a lot so would like 4 partitions (2 on each drive) with windows on the ssd blade rather than the hdd
http://www.macworld.com/article/2015664/how-to-split-up-a-fusion-drive.html
looking at this i can split them, but they'll never be recognised as 2 seperate drives?
looking at this i can split them, but they'll never be recognised as 2 seperate drives?
Let me guess... you have a fusion or a normal HDD, right? If so, I doubt you have basis to assume others are "fooling themselves". I see a difference, as would anyone with a drive that can write at twice the speed of a HDD.
----------
You need to know a bit more about Quickbench. Unlike most benchmarking apps, it uses the Mac filing system for test transfer files. This mimics how a real application handles files.
They ran the test five times so as not to let a transient bottleneck skew the results. I've ran those tests, and each one of the five benchmarks are nearly identical.
It's as fast as an SSD until it hits the HDD. Then it is not
Large sequential file copies will feel the slowdown. I/O that is newly touched may feel slow at first. But it is a good living breathing solution that should be fine for most users. 128GB is a little small for the premium Apple charges and it just borders the "sometimes it will actually be slow" margin. 200GB+ would probably see little to zero slowdowns in general use regardless of users data footprint.
Large sequential file copies will feel the slowdown. I/O that is newly touched may feel slow at first. But it is a good living breathing solution that should be fine for most users. 128GB is a little small for the premium Apple charges and it just borders the "sometimes it will actually be slow" margin. 200GB+ would probably see little to zero slowdowns in general use regardless of users data footprint.
Most users won't notice the difference because they aren't transferring large amounts of data. I didn't want to wait to get the full SSD option, because I could go to my local Apple Store and walk out with a Fusion model. To help ensure that any waiting on the drive was minimized even with the Fusion drive, I installed 32GB of ram and keep every normally used program open. I also bought a Synology NAS and am in the process of moving my iTunes and iPhoto/ Aperture libraries to the NAS to minimize the data stored on the Fusion drive.
If I had a use that required lots of large drive reads and/or writes I would have just ordered the full SSD version, but I know that's not my usage, so it didn't make any sense to do that. I'm just going to keep photos and music on the new Synology NAS and back it up to the older ReadyNAS, instead of my previous practice of storing it all on the computer and using the ReadyNAS as the backup location.
If I had a use that required lots of large drive reads and/or writes I would have just ordered the full SSD version, but I know that's not my usage, so it didn't make any sense to do that. I'm just going to keep photos and music on the new Synology NAS and back it up to the older ReadyNAS, instead of my previous practice of storing it all on the computer and using the ReadyNAS as the backup location.
Why "fancy... Stupefied" Fusion? Perhaps because Apple feels that an automated, no-management solution is best for the vast majority of its customers? For the same reason that the command line is deeply buried? Because Apple's not charging for the software behind Fusion, just the hardware?
Fusion is a feature of the OS. Upgrade for $29, Fusion comes along for the ride. Slap your own, higher-capacity, lower-priced SSD into the case, Fusion City!
100% of the price you pay for the Fusion upgrade is the price Apple currently wants for that 128GB SSD. You aren't going to get a better deal if you say, "SSD to go, hold the Fusion!"
If Apple offered the bare-bones SSD option you desire, maybe 5% would want the upgrade. Package it as a painless, no-extra-knowledge-required way to supercharge your iMac? Who wouldn't buy it?
I can't promise what Apple will do in the future - that's why this is MacRumors, not MacFuture. But it seems likely that Fusion and Bootcamp will work together soon; let's say, when the SSD component is bumped up 256GB (or more) so it's more practical to partition the entire Fusion Drive. Nobody in this business stops at version 1.0.
All the benchmarks, tests, and anecdotes say the fusion drive is 95% of an SSD. Granted it's not perfectly on par, but given the economics of the mechanical hard drive, it's a very good solution. The algorithm of the fusion drive ensures all the day-to-day operation files are on the SSD.
I have the fusion drive and it's excellent.
I have the fusion drive and it's excellent.
Yes, the fusion will work great in some cases. If you want to use bootcamp, and have lots of samples (or other files) in OSX to use play/use in real time, then fusion drive is not so impressive. On top of that you get the slow spinups, possibly more heat and noise (depends on the HD though). Also, in my experience a pure SSD solution is safer than HDs, which are more prone to failure. Personally I'm through with internal HDs, even in fusion systems. Only SSDs for me.
Actually I have both a FD iMac and an all ssd MBA. So yes, I do know how both operate in REAL world use. You see a difference in comparing a hdd to ssd, which shows your acute awareness for the obvious. I doubt, under normal circumstances, you're seeing any difference between FD and ssd. Are there potential circumstances that the FD isn't going to perform as fast as a pure ssd, sure, but you have to go back to the $ per GB savings that FD offers and make a decision not just based upon a single metric.
For the vast majority of users... this post is not really quite true. By far... the real advantage of an SSD is for "small read" cycles... as that defines approximately 90% of accesses in most client machines. It also happens to be exactly where SSDs shine.
Fusion does a good job putting the most common blocks onto the SSD portion of the drive... and most of those blocks will contain the "small reads" that benefit most from SSDs. People often confuse the "real advantage" of Fusion... because they have a 2% piece of knowledge of that 4GB SSD write buffer. It is really quite insignificant in the larger scheme.
Hence... it is true that most users will benefit a lot from Fusion... but NOT because of large block writes. It is because of small random reads.
/Jim
After researching the gigantic PITA that would be involved in manually separating stuff between a separate HDD and SSD, I installed a "DIY" Fusion Drive in my Mac Mini earlier this year.
It's incredible. No issues whatsoever, and everything launches like lightning. Is it as fast as a pure SSD? Probably not. Is it fast enough to make me feel like I bought a new Mac? Definitely.
It's incredible. No issues whatsoever, and everything launches like lightning. Is it as fast as a pure SSD? Probably not. Is it fast enough to make me feel like I bought a new Mac? Definitely.
Last edited:
What problems would happen to make you say that it makes it much easier to deal with problems that might arise down the line.... what problems might arise?
IOW, you don't have an SSD -iMac-. I don't think an SSD MBA is a comparison.
For your "acute awareness" - the link I provide to which you initially responded included a QuickBench comparison of an iMac with SSD vs. one with -fusion drive-. I don't think anyone questions the speed/performance superiority of FD vs. HDD.
As the tests show, and echoed by many posters here and in other technical press, the FD is a great, cost effective way to attain noticeable improvement in iMac performance. However, it is NOT a pure SSD. As such, when put to disk intensive tasks (PS, FCP, certain games, etc) or when using bootcamp, the SSD is clearly superior. I assure you, those of us who have noticed the difference are not "fooling ourselves".
Regardless, after I first started using my MBA with SSD, I vowed never to go back to HDD. When Apple reduced the price of the iMac's SSD, it was a no brainer for me.
I completely agree, and was thinking of my experience reading and writing large RAW camera files on my Fusion equipped iMac, where there's a noticeable slowdown. With my 2010 iMac I was running an SSD via Firewire and it was quite snappy, with normal everyday usage pretty much as quick as my MBP with an internal SSD. For everyday usage the Fusion drive is every bit as quick as booting from either of my Thunderbolt or USB 3.0 external SSDs.
Yes, the fusion will work great in some cases. If you want to use bootcamp, and have lots of samples (or other files) in OSX to use play/use in real time, then fusion drive is not so impressive. On top of that you get the slow spinups, possibly more heat and noise (depends on the HD though). Also, in my experience a pure SSD solution is safer than HDs, which are more prone to failure. Personally I'm through with internal HDs, even in fusion systems. Only SSDs for me.
OK but most people don't use a computer that way. He's asking if the fusion drive is as fast as the SSD.... in general.
As for your other points,
- Bootcamp? Probably about 10% or less use that.
- Lots of samples? Even fewer are videographers.
- Slow spinups? Lack of experience talking here
- More heat and noise? Lack of experience talking here again. The 2012 iMac is the coolest, quietest computer of any kind i've ever used.
- Safer? Considering how seldom the HD is accessed, i'm sure that stretches its MTBF by multiples.
Lack of experience, come on.. There are just certain facts about hard drives you can't deny. With or without fusion drive the iMac is a brilliant machine, no argument there. However, my point is for people with lighter (or certain) type of uses the Fusion drive makes total sense, and is a great buy. For people who want generally fast performance all the time when doing photo work, composing, using bootcamp etc., then an all SSD solution is preferable.
I've noticed that my iMac temps when playing games are a bit lower than many others on this forum. I wouldn't be suprised if the SSD (and lack of HD) plays a factor here, since the iMac is a small, closed system.
Last edited:
Here's my preference... ESPECIALLY if my main rig is either an All-in-One, laptop, or a small micro-case.
SSD on the inside for my apps and an HDD in a NAS (or just fast external drive) for my movies + music. And if it's a NAS then it makes it easier to access from my other machines.
This way, if my primary rig bites the dust I can still access my music and stuff from an older rig / laptop.
And for apps... it's really hard to go more than 128 or 256 GB with just apps. Unless you install a LOT of games and never uninstall your older ones. Even doing heavy software development, it's hard to reach those large caps unless you're running a huge DB on that machine... in which case you're better off running the DB alone on a separate slower machine with an HDD. So a 256GB (or 512GB) SSD should be more than enough for Apps (and a scratch drive for video-work).
If this was a larger desktop then putting a second larger HDD inside is fine. Because if there's a problem then taking it out is no sweat.
But inside a fairly sealed All-In-One or a Laptop? I'd rather not go through the hassle of carefully cracking the thing open just to get at my data.
Now, if you do a lot of work on large files? Like making / editing videos? Then it's a tough call. You probably want as much of your SSD space dedicated to your scratch drive / temp file / etc. In which case having the OS dynamically shift some files from the Fusion's SSD-to-HDD to make room would be nice. But even still, the native SSD might work out the best.
So really, the only DOWNSIDE is SSD is it costs an arm-and-a-leg to get from Apple on the iMac. Or it's a REAL PitA to install on an iMac.
SSD on the inside for my apps and an HDD in a NAS (or just fast external drive) for my movies + music. And if it's a NAS then it makes it easier to access from my other machines.
This way, if my primary rig bites the dust I can still access my music and stuff from an older rig / laptop.
And for apps... it's really hard to go more than 128 or 256 GB with just apps. Unless you install a LOT of games and never uninstall your older ones. Even doing heavy software development, it's hard to reach those large caps unless you're running a huge DB on that machine... in which case you're better off running the DB alone on a separate slower machine with an HDD. So a 256GB (or 512GB) SSD should be more than enough for Apps (and a scratch drive for video-work).
If this was a larger desktop then putting a second larger HDD inside is fine. Because if there's a problem then taking it out is no sweat.
But inside a fairly sealed All-In-One or a Laptop? I'd rather not go through the hassle of carefully cracking the thing open just to get at my data.
Now, if you do a lot of work on large files? Like making / editing videos? Then it's a tough call. You probably want as much of your SSD space dedicated to your scratch drive / temp file / etc. In which case having the OS dynamically shift some files from the Fusion's SSD-to-HDD to make room would be nice. But even still, the native SSD might work out the best.
So really, the only DOWNSIDE is SSD is it costs an arm-and-a-leg to get from Apple on the iMac. Or it's a REAL PitA to install on an iMac.
Last edited:
I'm guessing it's what you meant, but it's only a PITA to install an internal SSD on a Mac. I have 3 external 256GB SSDs, 2 are USB 3.0 and 1 is Thunderbolt.
Totally agree with this, which is btw. why I was so annoyed that Apple only offers a 768gb SSD. 512mb would have been plenty, and MUCH more affordable. I have a 400gb Windows7 bootcamp partition, so I've installed a crapload of games. That's nice enough, but kinda a waste considering the SSD cost.