Yup, makes much more sense in a laptop; not as necessary, in my opinion, for a desktop machine. (Which, by the way, is what we are discussing here, right? This is a thread about the Mac Mini...)
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.
2.6 GHz/8 GB/ 1 TB Hard Drive vs 2.8 GHz/16 GB/ 1 TB Fusion Drive
- Thread starter Axemantitan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yup, makes much more sense in a laptop; not as necessary, in my opinion, for a desktop machine. (Which, by the way, is what we are discussing here, right? This is a thread about the Mac Mini...)
I'm probably going to with 2.6 Ghz/8 GB RAM. How much of a performance difference would I notice between a 256 GB SSD and 1 TB Fusion drive?
It's hard to say, as it depends on what you do. In everyday tasks, you probably won't notice too much. In any case, I wouldn't make this decision based on that performance difference. I would make it from a storage standpoint - if you need more storage, get the Fusion drive, but if you don't - go for what the SSD offers -- more speed, quiet, more reliable due to the lack of moving parts, etc.
I generally don't like to dismiss peoples opinions outright, and maybe you're just trying to be sarcastic or something, but this "advice" is utterly ridiculous.Not quite the same issue here. The SSD only improves performance with respect to hard-drive speeds. I have three easy steps to make the SSD-vs-HD difference negligible:
1) Install an adequate amount of RAM in your machine.
2) Keep your important applications running at all times.
3) Never turn your computer off.
Once you do this, there's no appreciable benefit to the use of SSDs.
Actually, I'm used to running my machines 24/7, as I have my own e-mail server and router. I've got UPSs to cover short power outages, so uptime on my machines generally runs into the months. (This is one area where I definitely prefer OSX over Windows, as OSX machines tend to be able to handle long periods of uptime like this without trouble. Although my Linux boxes are also rock-solid when up for months at a time. And the Mini runs cool and quiet, which is perfect for my needs.)
So, if you're going to keep your machines on anyway, there's little reason to keep closing and reloading apps over and over again. I generally have my e-mail, web browser, terminal shells, and compiler SDK up and running continuously...
And what does any of that have to do with the OP? I think you're conflating your own obscure/unique usage with someone who just wants to use their computer like a normal person.
Ah, sorry, I was responding to user Jerwin's post (#23), describing the performance of the low-end iMac. In that case, the lack of performance was due to a far-inferior CPU, not a HD/SSD issue. I was trying to point out that there are, in fact, ways to avoid the HD/SSD performance difference, whereas if you're stuck with a weak CPU, you're just completely out of luck.
My apologies again, but yes, I do consider myself a normal person. I guess that's just a personality quirk of mine.
No, it's not the CPU, it is the HD/SSD issue (i.e. lack of an SSD that makes that iMac suck). Sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you, but I get the sense you really don't understand how SSD's support system performance. You might want to do a little more research on the topic.
Hmm. Very well, ignore everything I've said. Instead, let me quote from the above-mentioned ArsTechnica article itself, as I'm sure they know better than I do:
They certainly believe that the iMac performance difference is CPU (and GPU) based. (And they've got a lot of fancy statistics and graphs to back up that opinion...)
The article is saying that it doesn't represent a great value when you can spend a couple hundred more bucks for a significantly faster version of it.
But that's not the primary issue with its performance, it's the SSD. The CPU/GPU are good enough for a significant user base and essentially the same internals as in the MBA that sells by the millions. That's not to say I wouldn't recommend a better CPU/GPU for longevity and/or certain usage, but it's the SSD that holds it back.
To quote the same article:
This is ridiculous we're even having this discussion. I'm out.
I/O intensive stuff will see a massive difference. Otherwise, in day to day usage, the difference is almost nil.
