As if anybody needs an "excuse" to decide what works for them and how they spend their money. Internet "experts" are a funny bunch, only their opinions are valid and obvious, anything different is not worthy and pathetic.
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 lack of speed on the fusion drive over exaggerated?
- Thread starter Jacoblee23
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One problem here is SSD can slow down when nearing capacity. This is especially bad for the 1 TB Fusion drive, given that the total SSD space is a paltry 32 GB. In my experience, it takes about 30 GB for a Sierra install with a couple of user accounts and just a limited number of applications, without any user data.
The other problem is that in a lot of usage in 2017, 5 GB write really isn't all that much.
---
Personally I think the ideal would be to have a non-Fusion SSD plus HD. I went with 1 TB SSD, but would have been happier with 1 TB SSD plus 1 TB HD, although I would have also been OK with 512 TB SSD plus 1 TB HD. But the benefit here is it's easy to add external HD. I will actually likely add an external SSD, but have external HD as well.
I betcha a lot of people here would be happy with 256 GB SSD plus 2 TB HD.
128 GB SSD + HD is constraining but usable. In contrast, 32 GB SSD + HD is a crime against Macs.
Last edited:
huh? Not clear on what point you're trying to make with respect to this discussion. Are you trying to say fusion drives are anywhere near SSD's in performance?
The excuse is cost. One of the solutions to that might be the use of an external drive to supplement the small capacity drive, but that's not something I wanted to do. The only external drive I want on my desk is my backup drive.
You are always, always going to get better speeds and better performance from an SSD only system than a Fusion Drive. For some of us, a Fusion Drive works fine. They do not work for everyone - some people have irregular workflows where an SSD only system is really the only appropriate option.
If you don't want to use a Fusion Drive, then don't. SSD options are there for you.
If you are happy with the fusion drive, enjoy! But my experience is that the fusion drive will compromise your experience on the OS using the computer. If you got a good deal definitely jump on it but I think that getting the fusion drive is the biggest mistake you can do on your computer.
The priority in upgrading hardware components for the 21 and 27" are:
21" - SSD drive, RAM, CPU
27" - SSD drive, CPU, RAM
The fusion drive will slow down performance so much that it is pointless to get an upgraded CPU over the fusion drive. The RAM is more important on the 21" because you can't install RAM easily after you buy the computer.
Those that don't mind replacing their computer every few years will enjoy the fusion drive. But at that cost I would buy a used iMac that has an SSD drive over buying a new iMac (with new processors that are going to waste because of slow hard drive).
So I guess its all subjective then? I don’t do anything extensive. I got my iMac to play around with and do my notes (I am a speech pathologist) and to type up documents etc. What I want to know is, what programs supposedly show the faults of the fusion drive? I am a light user, so maybe I’m just not seeing it in what it is that I do.
As I mentioned, likely those users with irregular workflows or handling large files notice the drawbacks to a Fusion Drive.
...then a fusion drive may be OK for you, but you'll also probably be fine with a relatively affordable 256GB SSD supported up by external drives, network storage or cloud storage which, apart from potentially being faster, will also make your iMac quieter, cooler and possibly more reliable.
There is a lot to be said for having a modest SSD reserved for the OS, temporary files/caches etc. and your "work in progress" and getting organised about archiving stuff off onto externals or networked storage - not to mention "rotating" between multiple external drives as part of your backup strategy (TimeMachine is ultra-convenient and better than nothing, but has many flaws). You really don't want to ship your main archive off to Apple if your iMac breaks down...
Some people may have specific workflow issues that mean they need a lot of built-in storage but I suspect the majority can work within 512GB + externals/network. I went with the 1TB SSD as an "indulgence" but I've only filled half of it so far - and that includes about 200GB of stuff that... er.... actually, I don't know why the heck it is there...
Laptops are a different kettle of fish, since there is a strong reason for wanting everything in the box.
It's a pity that Apple doesn't provide a nice, drag-and-drool way of offloading your documents/photos/iTunes to external/network storage (I guess they'd prefer you to use iCloud, but then they can go on hoping...) but it can be achieved manually.
It's not subjective as much as it is difficult to predict. Fusion drives are fast until they aren't, and while we can do a lot of hand-waving talking about when "aren't" happens, it's very difficult to say anything for sure. That's the fundamental nature of a cache. CPU caches have exactly the same sorts of issues, but we don't fuss as much over that because it's wired in and there is nothing to be done about it. (Plus, the cost of building an entire multi-gigabyte memory in high speed SRAM would be staggering, way more than the cost differential between HDD and SSD.)
Your sort of usage is very likely a best case for the Fusion. People with erratic heavy workloads including long sequential read or write bursts are the ones more likely to see a big performance hit.
I'll add one more thing. I'm really hoping that Apple stops offering spinning hard drives in their mac line up. The iMac is the last holdout I believe. It seems like generally all other devices are SSD. But I had such a bad experience when I bought my iMac (with 1tb fusion) that I learned my from my experience and wanted to share with others. BTW, my experience with the fusion drive for both the 21" and 27" was that my 2015 13" Macbook pro was faster in responding to my clicks (like opening apps, navigating folders, and loading things) than either the 2017 21" or 27". That's ridiculous. It was because my Macbook pro has a ssd drive. I returned both machines and now have a 27" with and SSD. It is quicker and snappier than my Macbook Pro. Much faster than the 21" with i7 processor (yes I naively combined and i7 processor with an 1tb fusion drive - that has a 5400 RPM disk). Haha writing about the 2 month headache I went through right now just remembering makes me upset with Apple. Oh well, I learned my lesson and I need to share my experience with others. A newer computer should be faster (especially when it is 1k more expensive) than an older $1100 macbook pro. Plus if everyone demands ssd Apple will make changes to meet demands. I feel terrible for the person that kept that 21" iMac with the i7 processor and slow hard drive. It's criminal to do that to someone.....
Audio work is writing lots of large files while recording (as many as tracks that are armed). After editing and overdubs there may be 100s of files. Seek times (rather than the max throughput numbers) to do that all smoothly in all phases of the project heavily favors it all being in RAM or on SSD.
Whether it is over exaggerated or whether it meets ur need or bla bla bla that's one thing, but one thing can confirm is that your machine is not at its full potential due to the lack of full ssd.
i guess that depends on each person's definition of speed. To a lot of people that means the UI "snappiness" as in the half second response time when opening apps. I don't care about that but if the SSD money spent on the processor will cut my fcpx effects and render times by several minutes then that is a more important gauge of "fast".
I agree. Spinning HDDs never hit even SATA 2 speeds. The closest I have seen is the 5TB or 6TB WD Black released a couple years ago getting 200 MB/s. USB 3 alone is fast enough for any spinning drive. I even got an 8TB external HDD for only $139 a few months ago!
I have the 1TB/28g fusion drive with 70G of data on it now and notice no slowdown whatsoever.
I have that comparison, granted only USB 3, and the speed difference is negligible at best. Yeah the SSD is faster but only noticeable when launching large apps like Word or Lightroom, everything else is a wash.
One would hope there wasn't noticeable slowdown at 7% of the drive's capacity. Give it time and more data.
Fusion drives are great. People just waffle on hypothetically debating all manner of imaginative situations. Here I am on a mid-2011 iMac, I put in an SSD and made a Fusion drive which runs at full speed of the SATA3 bus, what more could I ask for? Don't tell me, here comes the essay...
If you or anyone else who uses the Fusion Drive finds it to fit your needs then that's all that matters.
In my opinion it's a past-its-prime technology superseded by the affordability of flash drives.
Well done but that's an iMac older than the Fusion Drive itself and another, much easier upgrade option for a 2011 iMac (USB2 only) would be to invest in an inexpensive Thunderbolt enclosure and boot the Mac from that. I'm pretty sure you can also "Fuse" it with the internal HDD in that configuration as well.
Last edited:
Keep in mind the Fusion drive works on a block level. It can more effectively use the SSD portion than you can manually. It can store portions of programs and even portions of single files on the SSD and leave the rest on the HDD.
So for example if you use a program that is 10gb in total size but only use 2gb of that program (like Photoshop but don't use the majority of features) it can move the 2gb that you use onto the SSD and leave the other 8gb you don't use on the HDD. If can even do this for a single file too.
This alone can make the 2tb fusion more effective and efficient than the more 256gb SSD for many (venture a guess and say majority) users.
There are other factors that play a roll in perceived storage speed as well, like RAM. With an excess of RAM and an iMac that is left on a lot of data will remained cached. Closing and reopening a program on a HDD vs SSD can have near identical identical speeds if its cached in RAM. Conversely a program can reopen/used FASTER on a system with an HDD than an SSD if the SSD system is lacking in RAM. This point is relatively moot because equal amounts of RAM can be added to both.
Personally I would go for a pure SSD option because you know you'll always be experiencing the best performance if your budget allows it. And I would try to avoid the 1tb Fusion due to it only have 24gb of SSD storage and in its place get the 512gb SSD and use external options when you need more space. However without a specific need for fast storage (specific 4k video editing for example) storage speed is more of test of patience than anything else.
If you are happy with 1tb Fusion than be about it. I'm merrily using a 1tb HDD (although I'll likely be replacing it with a 2tb SATA SSD in the not so distant future) and you have infinitely better performance because of algorithms used by Apple for the Fusion.
So for example if you use a program that is 10gb in total size but only use 2gb of that program (like Photoshop but don't use the majority of features) it can move the 2gb that you use onto the SSD and leave the other 8gb you don't use on the HDD. If can even do this for a single file too.
This alone can make the 2tb fusion more effective and efficient than the more 256gb SSD for many (venture a guess and say majority) users.
There are other factors that play a roll in perceived storage speed as well, like RAM. With an excess of RAM and an iMac that is left on a lot of data will remained cached. Closing and reopening a program on a HDD vs SSD can have near identical identical speeds if its cached in RAM. Conversely a program can reopen/used FASTER on a system with an HDD than an SSD if the SSD system is lacking in RAM. This point is relatively moot because equal amounts of RAM can be added to both.
Personally I would go for a pure SSD option because you know you'll always be experiencing the best performance if your budget allows it. And I would try to avoid the 1tb Fusion due to it only have 24gb of SSD storage and in its place get the 512gb SSD and use external options when you need more space. However without a specific need for fast storage (specific 4k video editing for example) storage speed is more of test of patience than anything else.
If you are happy with 1tb Fusion than be about it. I'm merrily using a 1tb HDD (although I'll likely be replacing it with a 2tb SATA SSD in the not so distant future) and you have infinitely better performance because of algorithms used by Apple for the Fusion.
Who need 2+ TB internal HDDs? With USB 3, speed is identical. 512GB or 1TB SSD internally, then you can have 800 TB externally if you want (buy 100 8TB external drives). Speed is not an issue anymore. Unless it is a special setup, USB 3 will cover all external drives (which never go faster than even SATA 2 speeds). If you are RAID 0 or something, there is always Thunderbolt.
In this case I don't think the correct statement is "ignorance is bliss". I think it has more to do with a person's needs.
To use a metaphor, Not all of us are race car drivers. Not everyone needs a Ferrari to drive to the grocery store.
Yet that does not prevent people who have no need for the fastest and latest from buying way more than they need just to have the fastest and latest technology. I wonder how many iPad Pro users, TB MacBook Pro users, and even iMac Pro users, who have purchased or will purchase a maxed out computer will use it just to browse the internet, read email, and look at Facebook.
Fusion drive seems fast enough for my modest needs, and that even includes some editing, exporting, and rendering in FCP.
To play devils advocate I would argue ease of use/implementation within the Apple ecosystem.
For tech savvy users such as yourself using external options for "Photos", iTunes, installing various applications, etc may not be that difficult. However it could be a very daunting task for the less tech savvy and they may find value in an internal single drive (as viewed by the OS and user) option.
I've run into a number of problems with iTunes stored externally especially when it comes to streaming with the Mac asleep and drives not waking up. OR drives not going to sleep. All fixed now but a headache at the time. Because of that I plan on replacing my internal 1tb HDD with a 2tb SSD just to keep everything simple (plus the added speed boost).
Plus, if you need a certain amount of storage why would someone buy an AIO with an inadequate amount? Its one thing to eventually run out, or if you have NAS you know you'll be using but taping external drives to the back of the Mac seems counterproductive.
So I'll make a counter argument. Yes, you can "get along" with the speed right this very moment. But when a couple of new os's come out and the slowness even becomes more relevant it will push you into the realm of having to replace your mac at a quicker rate than if you had just purchased a SSD drive in the first place. Right now you are experiencing the best performance of your system (as it exists). You can anticipate that performance will degrade over time and bring a need to replace the system.
I build that thought process into my purchase decisions. I don't just go with what is "ok" for now. I buy the most mac I can for my money at the time to help with the longevity of my mac. So I have a i5 3.8 with the 580 video card and a 512 ssd drive. I didn't purchase these specs for current needs. I purchased them with longevity in mind. So then if I bought the lowest end i5 processor with an 1tb fusion drive I know I'll be up for a replacement in 3-4 years versus 7-8 years on the 3.8 with a 512 ssd drive.
But above and beyond that, the fusion drive (at least the 1tb version) is just a crime against the iMac it is put into. Especially where the drive actually slows down the processor and other components from performing at their best. Especially when a 5400 rpm drive is put into the 21" iMac.
Now this is how I make my purchasing decisions but to each their own. Are you going to buy the $35 tennis shoes that you replace every 6 months or the $100 that you replace every two years.
That would be a great analogy if increased speed were the only selling point of SSD over Fusion. It is not. Decreased heat, power consumption, noise and less hardware failure associated with spinning drives benefit all users.
Yes, but if the $35 shoes last 18 months the decision isn't quite as clear cut. I"m not entirely convinced that a future OS will be so bloated as to swamp the 1Tb fusion if it's not swamped currently. (and in any case, that's going to be more a function of RAM.) For lightweight use of the sort that the OP described, a 2009 iMac with the same fusion drive setup (if such a thing were possible, which it isn't) would probably work almost as well as a 2017. I base this off of my own experience with an early 2009 converted to sata 2 SSD (much slower than the SSD side of the fusion in a 2017).
I'm not arguing against pure SSD when there's money to pay for it, in the size you need. I just don't agree that Apple should stop shipping HDD's, at least not until they can hit their storage size / price point targets with SSD. Obviously they can't or they would have done so long ago, like they did with the MBP line. I'll point out (again) that SSD has not become any less expensive in the last year to 18 months, quite the reverse.
I'm not arguing against pure SSD when there's money to pay for it, in the size you need. I just don't agree that Apple should stop shipping HDD's, at least not until they can hit their storage size / price point targets with SSD. Obviously they can't or they would have done so long ago, like they did with the MBP line. I'll point out (again) that SSD has not become any less expensive in the last year to 18 months, quite the reverse.