SSD vs Fusion Drive

[met985]

Then go for it I went from a regular HDD to a fusion drive to an SSD, and several times per day it was like being back on the HDD with the fusion drive, whereas the difference moving from a fusion drive to a pure SSD solution was like night and day. But I mean, this is based on my personal usage pattern so I am in no way saying you'll experience the same thing.

Thanks! Honestly I'm quite still uncertain but at the end I will go for the FD.
What do you use the iMac for so that you've noticed so much the difference?

 

[Half Rick]

Thanks! Honestly I'm quite still uncertain but at the end I will go for the FD.
What do you use the iMac for so that you've noticed so much the difference?

Nothing special, really, I guess it's just that all those pictures and videos of the kids take up so much space in different iPhoto libraries and whatnot. I would probably be happy with a FD if I'd get an external drive for those files. But to quote the kids: I don't wanna!

Also, it's hard to go back once you've realised how fast it can be

 

[Nateamus84]

There are three reasons why I will not buy a fusion drive.

One, almost everybody in the creative world that I talk to, their first response is: Don't - Just go with SSD.
Two, The page for the FD says: 2tb and 3tb models both have 128gb SSD for OS and macOS auto handles what happens with this drive basically .. and you get the best performance out of if you setup your system with 32gb ram.
Three, we are in a thunderbolt3 and usb-c world now, external ssd drives on 1, 5, 10 gbit speeds, yes pls.
The SSD we get without a big storage internal on HDD (not ssd) means less warm, less noise, way faster chip, and we get to really decide what goes on the drive and not. Not just macOS saying "this is a frequently used file, we will use the ssd to help with the cache" ..

This is the question I had. for photo and video editing. I was advised by one mac rep to get the 2T fusion and another suggested the SSD for my workflow. Well I know that in video editing I want to place the project file on the SSD for speed of the cache files. SO leaning to getting a 250 or 512 SSD. I am assuming if I get a thunderbolt 2/3 or USB-C drive then they will be SSD? I also have a 250 Samsung SSD from old laptop. I could use an enclosure for. So I am guessing that 250SSD would be plenty for the boot drive of imac and all programs I will be using.
[doublepost=1499800635][/doublepost]

Imagine this

That internal hdd will spin at what. Maybe 150 mbyte per second ??

The external usb-c on ssd will "spin" at 475 mbyte per second on a bad day

Whats a good metal enclosure for Samsung EVO 840
[doublepost=1499801248][/doublepost]Media sonic and Orico both make enclosures. Media sonic at $18 Orico at $9 differences?

 

[294307]

If you have regular workflows the 1 TB Fusion Drive with a 32 GB SSD isn't as dire as people seem to suggest. I have this configuration and I haven't noticed the dread of a mechanical drive - and at least 60 GB of the total data on my iMac is stored on the spinning drive. I admit, I have only used SATA-based SSDs in the past which are hardly comparable to the speedier SSDs that a Mac comes with, but from my experience the operating system does appear to work quite efficiently to move frequently used files and apps that form part of your regular workflow over to the SSD. I'm a developer and it's not all that bad. I can't be the only professional user with this storage configuration that finds that to be the case.

 

[flyinmac]

SSD drives have a limited number of times that they can have the same space written to.

If it were me, I'd only put files on the SSD which are less frequently changed.

I always process video on a spinner. That's a lot of data that gets written, moved, deleted, and written again for the next project.

A huge chunk of your SSD getting written to over and over again if you work with a lot of video projects.

 

[scotttnz]

I had fusion drive in my first Mac, and I was very happy with its performance, and the overall user experience with not having to worry about where to store different files. But that was 2012, and now it is 2017. Surely we should be past the need for this transitional technology?
I work with enterprise storage arrays, and auto tiering hybrid arrays have largely given way to all flash arrays, largely thanks to data reduction technologies such as compression and deduplication reducing the cost per usable TB. This hasn't happened on desktops, probably due to the processing overhead required, so we are still stuck with this compromise: fast, reasonable price, high capacity - choose any two.

I'm planning to buy a 27" iMac later this year when I have the money saved, and I really want to go SSD. Cost is the problem. Apple charge NZ$340 to upgrade the 2TB fusion in the top stock spec to a 512GB SSD, which isn't too terrible, but the stock spec models can often be found at up to 10% discount, while I would be stuck paying apples price for a BTO. That makes the cost difference $700-800 which is significant. Add to that the cost of additional external storage, and I'm not sure I can justify it.

 

[Nateamus84]

This is the question I had. for photo and video editing. I was advised by one mac rep to get the 2T fusion and another suggested the SSD for my workflow. Well I know that in video editing I want to place the project file on the SSD for speed of the cache files. SO leaning to getting a 250 or 512 SSD. I am assuming if I get a thunderbolt 2/3 or USB-C drive then they will be SSD? I also have a 250 Samsung SSD from old laptop. I could use an enclosure for. So I am guessing that 250SSD would be plenty for the boot drive of imac and all programs I will be using.
[doublepost=1499800635][/doublepost]


Whats a good metal enclosure for Samsung EVO 840
[doublepost=1499801248][/doublepost]Media sonic and Orico both make enclosures. Media sonic at $18 Orico at $9 differences?

[doublepost=1503516657][/doublepost]Just Got a 5k with SSD, and it is slick. Soon to get USB-c drive for editing video. any suggestions.

thanks for the tips.

 

[Trebuin]

Could someone post a crystal bench of the 2017 iMac ssd, I'm interested in the 4K results

 

[SaSaSushi]

Could someone post a crystal bench of the 2017 iMac ssd, I'm interested in the 4K results

Because one cannot access the Mac SSD from BootCamp, it is impossible to run CrystalDiskMark on that drive.

A Japanese developer has created a Mac version of CrystalDisk called Amorphous DiskMark with permission of the CrystalDisk developer.

These are my results: (i7 4.2GHz, 512GB SSD)

 

[Trebuin]

Because one cannot access the Mac SSD from BootCamp, it is impossible to run CrystalDiskMark on that drive.

A Japanese developer has created a Mac version of CrystalDisk called Amorphous DiskMark with permission of the CrystalDisk developer.

These are my results: (i7 4.2GHz, 512GB SSD)

I'm assuming you mean the SSD portion of the Hybrid setup, given that my iMac (before it failed) had windows working fine on the SDD...I was just dumb enough to delay benchmarking it.

BTW,
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

I'm actually surprised how slow the 4k read is, but it's still better than some I've seen out there. It's definitely no Samsung 960 EVO on speeds.

 

[cynics]

Because one cannot access the Mac SSD from BootCamp, it is impossible to run CrystalDiskMark on that drive.

A Japanese developer has created a Mac version of CrystalDisk called Amorphous DiskMark with permission of the CrystalDisk developer.

These are my results: (i7 4.2GHz, 512GB SSD)

Thanks for letting me (us) know about this app. Hopefully this takes the place of the video specific Blackmagic disk test in short order.

Would you mind rerunning it at a 3 or 5 test count and 1GiB/1000MiB test size? Not only will you potentially get better results its the standard used in CrystalBenchMark.

The 4K speeds look fine to me, about what I would expect from a PCIe SSD even compared to the 960 EVO. However I was expecting a bit more with the other test. That is why I would like to see a larger test size, supposedly that is where Apples SSD shined in reviews.

 

[Trebuin]

Thanks for letting me (us) know about this app. Hopefully this takes the place of the video specific Blackmagic disk test in short order.

Would you mind rerunning it at a 3 or 5 test count and 1GiB/1000MiB test size? Not only will you potentially get better results its the standard used in CrystalBenchMark.

The 4K speeds look fine to me, about what I would expect from a PCIe SSD even compared to the 960 EVO. However I was expecting a bit more with the other test. That is why I would like to see a larger test size, supposedly that is where Apples SSD shined in reviews.

A buddy of mine does profession reviews of SSDs at thessdrevew & he recommends looking at the 4k results, which Blackmagic doesn't show. Sure, single large file transfers can be far superior in some cases, but most of the time, we're working in or close to that 4k file range. I remember my 2017 imac's SSD hung around mid 2k using AJA system test, but it doesn't cover the 4k, which is more critical for our workload.

 

[cynics]

A buddy of mine does profession reviews of SSDs at thessdrevew & he recommends looking at the 4k results, which Blackmagic doesn't show. Sure, single large file transfers can be far superior in some cases, but most of the time, we're working in or close to that 4k file range. I remember my 2017 imac's SSD hung around mid 2k using AJA system test, but it doesn't cover the 4k, which is more critical for our workload.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Just that the 4K results look very similar to most 960 EVO scores. However the rest are lacking a bit, relatively speaking.

And yes, Blackmagic isn't a good benchmark for speed. Its for determining if your storage is up to snuff for video editing.

 

[Trebuin]

I'm not disagreeing with that. Just that the 4K results look very similar to most 960 EVO scores. However the rest are lacking a bit, relatively speaking.

And yes, Blackmagic isn't a good benchmark for speed. Its for determining if your storage is up to snuff for video editing.

Sorry, I meant not to really disagree as well. I do think that Apple's SSD is trailing some, but not by far. Given that the large file transfer is significantly slower, I still don't think that will make much of a difference in the end...we're at a much smaller percentage difference vs say a 20 vs 40 on the 4k. Basically, I was trying to determine if I should go large or small on the SSD when I finally bite the bullet again on the upgrade. The 2017 was a nice machine until it broke on me. Since I managed to finish my time critical project before that, I can now wait until the iMac pro is released, but I'm still deciding on that vs the 2017 iMac.

 

[SaSaSushi]

I'm assuming you mean the SSD portion of the Hybrid setup

My apologies for my stupid comment. I meant to say I can't access the iMac's SSD from BootCamp because I am running it off of a Samsung SSD in an external Thunderbolt enclosure.

Would you mind rerunning it at a 3 or 5 test count and 1GiB/1000MiB test size? Not only will you potentially get better results its the standard used in CrystalBenchMark.

It's my pleasure. Let me know if you need any other results. Also, not knowing anything about 4k, please let me know if these result are acceptable speeds.

Here are my results of 1GiB at a 5 test count:

 

[robeddie]

My apologies for my stupid comment. I meant to say I can't access the iMac's SSD from BootCamp because I am running it off of a Samsung SSD in an external Thunderbolt enclosure.



It's my pleasure. Let me know if you need any other results. Also, not knowing anything about 4k, please let me know if these result are acceptable speeds.

Here are my results of 1GiB at a 5 test count:

Thank you for finding this program! I always felt the blackmagic tests were a little limited. I've run this program in windows and am delighted to be able to use a mac version now.

 

[cynics]

My apologies for my stupid comment. I meant to say I can't access the iMac's SSD from BootCamp because I am running it off of a Samsung SSD in an external Thunderbolt enclosure.



It's my pleasure. Let me know if you need any other results. Also, not knowing anything about 4k, please let me know if these result are acceptable speeds.

Here are my results of 1GiB at a 5 test count:

Whoa! Now thats what I like to see. I almost question an error on the 4k write speeds. That is considerably faster than any SSD I've seen. Albeit thats not too many but even googling results of a Samsung 960 PRO fall far short of that.

 

[robeddie]

My apologies for my stupid comment. I meant to say I can't access the iMac's SSD from BootCamp because I am running it off of a Samsung SSD in an external Thunderbolt enclosure.



It's my pleasure. Let me know if you need any other results. Also, not knowing anything about 4k, please let me know if these result are acceptable speeds.

Here are my results of 1GiB at a 5 test count:

That's wild. I used the same program and tested it on the built in apple SSD portion of the former fusion drive, and got much lower results - and dog slow in the 4K writes. I wonder why my results are so differnt from yours...

 

[SaSaSushi]

Whoa! Now thats what I like to see. I almost question an error on the 4k write speeds. That is considerably faster than any SSD I've seen. Albeit thats not too many but even googling results of a Samsung 960 PRO fall far short of that.

I only ran it once. I will run it a few more times at 5 count, 1GiB and if there is any difference in overall average I will post back. I might get a copy of Paragon HFS+ or MacDrive to see if I can run CrystalDiskMark from Windows too.

 

[robeddie]

SSD drives have a limited number of times that they can have the same space written to.

If it were me, I'd only put files on the SSD which are less frequently changed.

I always process video on a spinner. That's a lot of data that gets written, moved, deleted, and written again for the next project.

A huge chunk of your SSD getting written to over and over again if you work with a lot of video projects.

Not sure what you're talking about.

"An ongoing project from Tech Report demonstrates what the experts have been saying for some time: fearing an SSD’s untimely death is more about myth than substance."

On reads and writes alone (barring some kind of unlikely mechanical failure) even under heavy use, it'll last you many more years than you're likely to own the computer its installed in.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pcwo...test-blows-away-ssd-durability-fears.amp.html

 

[SaSaSushi]

I wonder why my results are so differnt from yours...

Because the SSD portion of your Fusion Drive is only 32GB.

 

[Ken1222]

Greetings everyone - I have a 2011 21.5" inch iMac and soon will purchase a 27" 5K. I'm getting ready to retire so there will be no software development no heavy duty gameplaying, just email, facebook, youtube, web browsing, photo viewing, and maybe an occasional game. I do want the 27 because it's easier on my eyes once I scale down the display.

Am undecided on SSD or FD. I'll probably keep the computer for 5 years or so. My current drive is 1TB and has plenty of room left.

Am I wasting my money by going for all SSD? I'm willing to go for 2TB and get the 128GB SSD, but have read a lot of emails regarding the difference in speed, and FD reliability issues, but in the 6 years plus that I've had my iMac, have never had ANY issues at all. Since I'm not a heavy duty user I'm thinking the 2TB FD is the best cost-effective solution for me...just wondering if anybody else has any thoughts on this.

Thanks very much!

 

[Apple_Robert]

Greetings everyone - I have a 2011 21.5" inch iMac and soon will purchase a 27" 5K. I'm getting ready to retire so there will be no software development no heavy duty gameplaying, just email, facebook, youtube, web browsing, photo viewing, and maybe an occasional game. I do want the 27 because it's easier on my eyes once I scale down the display.

Am undecided on SSD or FD. I'll probably keep the computer for 5 years or so. My current drive is 1TB and has plenty of room left.

Am I wasting my money by going for all SSD? I'm willing to go for 2TB and get the 128GB SSD, but have read a lot of emails regarding the difference in speed, and FD reliability issues, but in the 6 years plus that I've had my iMac, have never had ANY issues at all. Since I'm not a heavy duty user I'm thinking the 2TB FD is the best cost-effective solution for me...just wondering if anybody else has any thoughts on this.

Thanks very much!

I suggest going with the SSD option. Just because you have never had any problems with your current model, that doesn't mean you won't with the Fusion Drive model. With the Fusion Drive, you have two separate pieces of hardware to worry about. And if one goes bad, you lose access to all of it.

If you get the SSD upgrade option, it will be a lot faster than purchasing after market and having someone swap out the Fusion Drive.

A Fusion Drive will not be able to take full advantage of the upcoming OS (High Sierra). Having an SSD will afford you better file management, speed and security management with the new OS, that the Fusion drive (at least at this time) cannot take advantage of.

 

[Ken1222]

Thanks, very good points...I forgot to take into account High Sierra.
Another mental struggle is SSD size...512 vs 1TB

 

[Apple_Robert]

Thanks, very good points...I forgot to take into account High Sierra.
Another mental struggle is SSD size...512 vs 1TB

From what you said in your initial post, I think 512 SSD would be more than enough. However, if you plan to store (now or after you get a new machine) a lot of high resolution photos, videos and games, I would go the 1TB SSD route. You can then get a WD My Passport External Drive and connect it to the Thunderbolt port for Time Machine or Carbon Copy Cloner backups. You won't have to worry about moving files on and off your drive with the 1TB SSD. And if you do need to do that at times, a connected Thunderbolt ready drive makes life easier.

Also, consider getting the new trackpad. Makes using the new iMac even better.