The first 24 GB would be as fast as the first 24 GB that is correct. However the remainder drive would perform at ~500 MB/s instead of the ~150 MB/s the hard drive would support. Small benchmarks on the Fusion drive perform excellent, which isn't a very good representative of the overall performance of the drive. You need to compare a benchmark that would force it to access the HD like large libraries of rarely accessed media files.
How often do you think average MR forum member needs to move/use 10-20GB at once?
Benchmarks should be more like real life usage, but tens of gigabytes per day just isn't that.
Anyway, I was ansering about should the two ssd's be fusioned.
[doublepost=1490620682][/doublepost]
That's the timming for the Fusion in my iMac:
View attachment 693502
That another is from the SSD connected to USB3:
View attachment 693503
What do you think, folks?
I think you are measuring the wrong speed, if you are thinking about running macOS. Running an os is about IOPS not about gigabyte size video files.
[doublepost=1490621036][/doublepost]
Is the 1TB full SSD less likely to break (and therefore going to last longer) than the fusion drive?
Lets say that one drive dies when you throw a normal dice and get 1.
Is it easier to get one 1, when you throw two dices?
[doublepost=1490621092][/doublepost]
Based on the images in reply 76 above, I wouldn't change a thing.
You cannot buy a USB3 (or thunderbolt) drive that will give you read speeds of 720mbps.
Just leave it alone.
You can't buy as fast ssd as Apple has used years in their iMacs?
[doublepost=1490621573][/doublepost]
I might come through as slow here, but what's the best configuration for managing huge iTunes and Photos libraries on an iMac? SSD + USB3 drive(s) or a large fusion drive?
If Photos library doesn't fit to ssd, then more frequently used photos would load faster in fusion drive.
How much "managing" itunes need speed from storage?
