That's about how fast a 2TB 7200rpm SATA HDD is... 203/192 Read/Write is basically up there with the best of them... How do you come to the conclusion that it is performing "very poorly"?
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.
iMac 1TB Fusion... OS on SSD part?
- Thread starter kirkbross
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm pretty sure you don't... And if they are much better than that you probably are measuring read/writes to the buffer rather than to the disk (or have an SSHD in a USB Cabinet rather than a pure HDD).
Check out harddrive benchmarks on userbenchmark.com, you'll basically arrive at those same numbers. WD Black 6TB which is the drive with the fastest average in measured Read/Write speed has an average speed of 188/215 Read/Write. As I said, those numbers would place this drive amongst the best of SATA 7200RPM Drives...
Poorly is a matter of opinion I suppose. Slower than an SSD? Absolutely, but a spinning hard drive isn't going to yield "poor performance" especially to the average user. My Mac didn't get any slower out of the box because someone else has an SSD. What I'm saying is that it's all relative.
Yet no tests of the Fusion Drive before you split it.Here are my speed tests again if anyone is interested.
120GB SDD from split up Fusion Drive:
2TB HDD from split up Fusion Drive:
And the 1TB SSD (I think the 512 and 256GB have the same speed, only the smaller ones from the fusion drives have a much slower write speed):
[doublepost=1452899614][/doublepost]
Once more... Fusion does not move the entire OS, apps, or folders into the SSD (unless by accident of circumstance). It moves BLOCKS, based on upon actual utilization. A block may contain many files, or a fraction of a file. What Fusion does is based on system calls - either a particular file is needed, or it is not.
All but the simplest apps are not individual files - they are bundles (packages) that may contain thousands of files. Do a Get Info on an app one of these days, and then Show Package Contents. The OS, as anyone who's poked into the Library knows, is highly modular. If you ignore that modularity and treat either OS or app like a monolithic entity, then you lose the efficiencies that come along with it.
(Does the system load all of the OS into RAM? Of course not, it loads only what is needed. It is those calls that determine what is read off of the HDD. In the case of Fusion, those reads and writes also determine what gets moved off the HDD and into SSD. The only significant differences is that the entire block gets moved to SSD, rather than just a part of that block.)
Yes, and I think the contention is that that with the 2TB Fusion drive, the OS can move more blocks to the flash area thus giving a more robust feeling of performance. That is, only a small portion of files (or blocks) will fit on the 24GB of the 1TB Fusion drive, but much more can be moved on to the 128GB of the 2TB Fusion drive.
To add my $0.02 worth, here - I purchased the mid-tier 27" 2015 with 1TB Fusion Drive that came with a faulty display.
Coming from a purely SSD based machine, I found it considerably slower and was disappointed with the performance.
Ordered the 2TB Fusion Drive as a replacement and couldn't be happier with the performance - it's night and day. Statistics aside, I found that real world experience made for a huge difference.
I played with some display models before eventually pulling the trigger and in some instances it took about 20 seconds for Excel to open up on the iMac. I only opened up apps that I was familir with and the machine just felt sluggish. There's now way, that I was willing to plunk down over a thousand dollars on a machine when my 2012 rMBP was markedly faster.
Same here, the 2 TB model that I have is much much faster.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd hardly describe the iMac as sluggish, even with the "pathetic" 1TB drive. I just replaced a Dell XPS with a 3.6GHz i7 that I bought in October of 2015, and the iMac is markedly faster.
I've certainly said, from the start, that there will be users who can benefit from 128 GB. The issue is whether all users need that much, or even most need that much. Would you advocate that every computer user install 32 GB RAM, or needs 2 TB of storage (regardless of type), or a 12-core Xeon? Of course not. The only difference here is working knowledge of how Fusion works (or rather, the lack thereof). In the absence of hard knowledge, people will err on the side of caution.
I would normally agree, but the difference in speed is dramatic - I'm normally one for buying mid-tier (which would have been the 24Gb Fusion), but it was so slow when compared to my 2013 MBA.
The difference really is night and day between the two tiers. I'm not sure Apple should be offering the 24Gb model. I'm not a power user by any means, but the extra money is well spent here.
The difference really is night and day between the two tiers. I'm not sure Apple should be offering the 24Gb model. I'm not a power user by any means, but the extra money is well spent here.
No I wouldn't, as that is a waste.
As for the 2TB of storage, you're right there's a lot of storage that I won't use, but what I get is well worth the increase in price. I get a 128GB of flash storage (not 24), and a 7200 rpm drive (because I have a 5k iMac). Those both are nice improvements over the 1TB Fusion drive.
Last edited:
I don't have any benchmarks to compare, I just know from experience that a dedicated GPU is definitely faster than integrated. I'm not saying integrated is incapable of doing what you want to do, but I don't have hands on dealing with those apps on that hardware. I do use aperture on my MacBook Air (2015 13 inch) from time to time. It's not bad, but of course my iMac is faster.
[doublepost=1453062176][/doublepost]
Yeah, but the 1TB fusion in the 27 inch is a 7200 RPM drive. Are we not talking about the same machine?
[doublepost=1453062287][/doublepost]
Huh? There's no difference in speed between the two, you just get more storage with the 2TB. Assuming you fill up the 24GB pretty quick then sure you'd notice a difference...but out of the gate? I don't see how or why there would be a difference in speed, except of course perception based on getting an upgrade.
Are we talking about the 21 inch iMac or the 27? Maybe that's why I'm getting confused on the whole speed debate....
Last edited by a moderator:
No problem. I avoid the typical "that's going to be crap!" attitude of some other posters here. It's all relative, and if it suits your needs, great!
I was under the impression that it was only a 5400 rpm drive.
Still, I think the 2TB drive itself is a better use of the money because it comes with 128GB of flash storage. That provides the system with more fast storage to make the computer respond more efficiently and hold more of the user's data in fast storage.
I found this post to be most helpful and hope you do not mind me posting ..
Please let me know what you think about these choices .. Thank you.
I prefer the 21 inch iMac to sit in front of all day ..
I am using nearly 1TB of storage and max out 12GB researching on Firefox.
I am purchasing:
21 inch iMac with Retina display
3.1GHz i5
16GB
2TB Fusion Drive
Please let me know what you think about these choices .. Thank you.
I prefer the 21 inch iMac to sit in front of all day ..
I am using nearly 1TB of storage and max out 12GB researching on Firefox.
I am purchasing:
21 inch iMac with Retina display
3.1GHz i5
16GB
2TB Fusion Drive
Nice setup, enjoy your new baby, and smart move on the 2TB Fusion drive. It gives you the growth potential that you need, plus you get a larger flash storage then the 1TB Fusion drive.
Here are my speed tests again if anyone is interested.
120GB SDD from split up Fusion Drive:
And the 1TB SSD (I think the 512 and 256GB have the same speed, only the smaller ones from the fusion drives have a much slower write speed):
And I guess I got ripped off totally by Apple. I tried black magic on my late 2014 27" RiMac with a 512ssd drive and only get 656.3MB/s write and 728.5MB/s read. This is the pure SSD and I am getting less than a fusion drive.
Apple just sucks I guess as they shaft certain customers.
They increased the bus for 2015. Your speeds are normal.