unsure to go fusion or ssd?

I think the main advantage of SSD over fusion is no moving parts (apart from the fan ) That's why I went for it, I knew my data would comfortably fit into a 512 and could probably have fitted it into a 256 but didn't want to be watching the space all the time, and then I'd have a silent fast machine.

From a performance point of view, an SSD and a fusion will be the same because your active data will be on the SSD part of the fusion. So if you only want speed, then get a 1tb fusion and that should comfortably do you. Spend the extra money compared to all SSD on additional memory (add it yourself).

Enjoy

 

There's also reliability to consider. I've had HDDs fail lots on iMacs, and I expect the SSDs to last longer. I'd rather have an SSD inside, where its inaccessible, and HDD(s) external, where they are accessible.

I think the Fusions are using a 128GB SSD and a HDD. Essentially they are like a RAID in that they create a virtual drive out of different mechanical ones. The beauty of the Fusion is that it supposedly figures out what needs to be on the SSD for fast access and what doesn't. So even though a user might opt for say a 512 SSD, the optimization of the Fusion might allow them to get about the same performance boost out of a 256. Most users can probably get by with a 128 SSD in a Fusion configuration. If you're doing a ton of multitasking that requires disk access, and/or other users/connections are doing reads and writes a lot, sure, might need something bigger. You can't go wrong with a bigger SSD.

And you don't get as much of a performance hit with either Thunderbolt or USB 3 external HDDs, so you have room to expand storage there.

 

Yes, data not on the SSD is gonna be accessed more slowly. That's the point. Whether that slows your real world use depends on how often you need that data; if it's frequently used the Fusion drive is supposed to account for that.

Creating a Fusion is possible, but not trivial. Supposedly you can do it with any volume, even external, but I bet that's not optimal and I would think risky (if there's a hesitation in mounting or it gets disconnected or whatever = ouch). But if you get a big SSD the need for Fusion kinda drops away, since you've got most frequently accessed stuff on the SSD already, manually.

 

I've got a fusion drive on my Mini and have been very happy with it. Speed is generally comparable to an SSD equipped machine in my experience and I've got all the space I need.

Hopefully by the time I replace the drive a few years down the line there will be nice big SSDs available for a pretty reasonable price.

 

I just took the plunge on an iMac with fusion after debating whether to go with 256GB SSD.

Even though the fusion HDD on a 21" iMac is 5400rpm I decided that for my uses, I'd get all my apps etc on the flash segment and the HDD would only be used for media storage.

I believe a good reason not to go for fusion is if you're likely to use Bootcamp regularly, as Windows would be installed on the HDD. If you can afford 512GB SSD and it would accommodate most of your key data, I'd go for that.

 

Both SSD and Fusion are good reliable solutions in my opinion. SSD is sometimes faster, but probably not noticeable to most users. Your choice will depend upon your storage requirements and the $$ you want to spend.

I have 256 GB SSD in my 2011 iMac (no fusion then available). I'm VERY happy with it. Fast, quiet and no moving parts to fail. My total usage on it is 54 GB.

My wife has the 1 TB fusion on her 2012 iMac. Same story there - she is very satisfied with the speed and quietness and has had zero problems.

When I replace my iMac in 2014 or 2015, I'll probably go with a 512 GB SSD - should be less $$ then.

 

I went with a t 512g SSD. I could have lived with 256g but only if I excluded the possibility of a bootcamp partition which I do need as I do enjoy gaming and far too many companies don't offer OS X ports (or good ones)

 

Just went for 512 SSD myslef upgrading from a 24 (2009) Imac to 27" this time. Old Imac has lasted me a good few years and after reinstalling its like a new machine.

I really wanted to save some money and go for the 256GB but I thought I would always be looking at the storage space. Went for the 16gb ram and 512SSD and will do the upgrade ram to another 16gb at a later date.

 

Boot camp doesn't appear to use the SSD piece at all (I say this because my Win7 boot camp disk performance is atrocious and visibly slower when loading apps). So if this matters to you, your choice to not go Fusion might be easier to make.

If the 3TB physical HDD is 7200rpm I would have thought Windows side performance would be acceptable but it's quite slow. I have a 7200rpm platter in my laptop and it benches far better.. Maybe it's a 5400rpm? Will Google around. So far people seem to think the Fusion 27" iMac is using 5400rpm but uses a 7200rpm if it's a non-fusion.

I just confirmed my suspicions:
Do computers that come with a Fusion Drive support Boot Camp?
Yes. Use the Boot Camp Assistant to create a Windows partition and install Boot Camp. The Windows partition will exist on the hard disk drive, not the Flash drive, and is not part of Fusion Drive Logical Volume Group. 3TB Fusion Drive configurations need to update to OS X Mountain Lion v10.8.3 or later to install Windows 8. See iMac (27-inch, Late 2012): Boot Camp alert with 3TB hard drive for more information.

 

The only advantage -- the ONLY one -- that fusion offers vis-a-vis two "standalone" drives (SSD and HDD) is the convenience of not having to "manage two drives on the desktop" instead of one (which can be confusing for the novice or unsophisticated user).

A standalone SSD drive will always be faster, and never suffer from slowdowns as the fusion (CORE storage) routines move blocks back and forth from SSD to HDD, and vice versa.

If you are an experienced user and don't have any problems about knowing where you want things to go, I'd recommend you let fusion alone, and choose to let the SSD and HDD live as standalone drives.

Also -- if EITHER of the two "fused" drives in a fusion setup goes bad, the data on BOTH drives is lost. I've yet to see anything posted anywhere about recovering files from the "good half" of a failed fusion drive. Of course, you should back up in any case.

I normally maintain no less that SEVEN separate drive icons and volumes on my desktop at all times, and know where files are supposed to be on all of them.

 

While true on the technical front, it's also 100 bucks cheaper and you're getting a terabyte of extra space

You sound like someone who does a LOT more drive management than most, your average user isn't going to have a real need for anything more than one extra drive.

Personally, I'm technical enough to install my own hardware and do any drive management necessary, but for my fairly straightforward needs (design and animation) there just isn't much call for it other than making sure I've got things backed up.

 

It shouldn't do because that's the point if it, once you start using a new file it shifts the blocks onto the SSD, moving off stuff you aren't using. So in theory you are pretty much always getting SSD speed.

 

You mention in your first post you're getting a 27". Then it's 7200rpm drive.

 

The 3.5" drive supposedly doesn't fit in the 21", so they use a 2.5" 5200rpm drive in the 21".

 

I went 1TB Fusion and TBH I am kinda disappointed with it.

I wish I'd gone straight SSD, and I'm considering selling to do so.

 

For me, I want the speed. SSD is faster. External storage is cheap. No brainer for me. I want my OS/apps on the fastest possible drive, and that's SSD.

 

It's quite simple. Your hard drive is a disk, and at the outside of the disk you have more inches per track than on the inside, therefore more bytes per track, so your read/write speed is higher on the outside than on the inside. If you partition your drive 2 TB for Mac / 1 TB for Windows, all of your Windows partition is on the slowest part of the drive. There can be more than 50% difference in speed.

(On the other hand, that's why using one TB on a 3 TB drive is much faster than using one TB on a 1 TB drive, because all your data is on the fastest third of the drive).

Something like Parallels instead of Bootcamp might be better. Parallels takes part in the "Fusion" disk, so your most used Windows data will also be on the SSD drive.

----------

It's not magic. You have 128 GB that are very fast, and 1 TB or 3 TB that are slower. The 128 GB go further than with an ordinary SSD drive, because only the data that you actually use goes to the SSD drive. For example, iTunes is about 200 MB, but there are translations to different languages, images of all iPods and iPhones and so on, lots of things that you never use, _and these parts stay on the hard drive_.

Yes, if you haven't used data for ages (and the SSD is full with stuff that was used more), it will be slow. But if you use that data again, it gets moved to the SSD automatically. And 128 GB goes quite far.

 

Yes you can create a Fusion drive between the internal and an external disk. It's a destructive process, so be sure to backup your system first.

I don't find the Fusion drive to be noticeably slow, but I only have about 150GB on my machine as all media/library/archive data resides on network storage. So most of the local data resides right on the SSD portion of the Fusion drive.

 

I faced the same choice a few weeks back. I ultimately decided to go with a 256 GB SSD and augmented it with 6 TB of Thunderbolt storage.

I have the bulky stuff (iTunes library, Aperture library, etc) on one thunderbolt drive and some of the home folders on another thunderbolt drive (with symbolic links from the home subfolder in the SSD). It all works very nicely.

I did try moving my entire home folder into a thunderbolt drive but I got some odd behaviors so I backed away from that.