Is the lack of speed on the fusion drive over exaggerated?

[Apple_Robert]

Unless one is doing a lot of 4K editing and other high intense work, I think the SSD on the 2 - 3 TB drive will be more than enough for the typical user (Office, internet, picture viewing and storage etc. and occasional video converting etc.). By continuing to use the Fusion drive, (right now) Apple helps to make the iMac more affordable to a larger segment. When SSD prices drop more, I have no doubt that Apple will slowly faze out the HDD and Fusion drive.

My new iMac is but a few seconds slower than my Late 2016 MBP. I don't consider that a crucial / income altering differential. The new iMac is already a lot of money. Add AppleCare+, and it isn't hard to see why a lot of people realize that they can do just fine with a Fusion drive. It is only on geek sites like this, that the latest specs are suggested all the time.

I think many get preference confused with real need.

 

[scotttnz]

In my opinion it's a past-its-prime technology superseded by the affordability of flash drives.

I wish that were true. A top stock spec 27" iMac is NZ$3849 from Apple, but I can buy it at a discount locally for NZ$3464 today. Buying a BTO, and changing just the 2TB Fusion Drive to a 512GB SSD costs NZ$4189, and I can't find anyone willing to discount a custom build. So the price difference for me to change from the fusion to SSD is NZ$725, which when you are stretching to afford the iMac is far from insignificant. Add to that the cost of buying some external storage, because for many (including me) 512GB is not enough, and it is easy to see why some will choose the fusion drive as the best compromise for them. I don't think anybody is saying that it is not a compromise, but we all have differing cost\capacity\speed priorities, so it is good that we have options.

Having said that, I am currently leaning towards getting the 512GB SSD for my upcoming iMac. I'll just have to save a bit longer. I'll put the 960GB SATA SSD that is currently in my Mac Pro in an external enclosure for my data, which should be enough for a while. I have a 4TB drive for onsite backups already, and it's time to review my offsite backup plan anyway.

 

[robeddie]

In this case I don't think the correct statement is "ignorance is bliss". I think it has more to do with a person's needs.

To use a metaphor, Not all of us are race car drivers. Not everyone needs a Ferrari to drive to the grocery store.

Yet that does not prevent people who have no need for the fastest and latest from buying way more than they need just to have the fastest and latest technology. I wonder how many iPad Pro users, TB MacBook Pro users, and even iMac Pro users, who have purchased or will purchase a maxed out computer will use it just to browse the internet, read email, and look at Facebook.

Fusion drive seems fast enough for my modest needs, and that even includes some editing, exporting, and rendering in FCP.

To each his own. But let's put it this way: I spent a good amount of money on my 2017 iMac. It has the latest Kaby Lake processor, a great dedicated video card, top notch IO, and a second to none screen.

A spinning drive (fusion or standard HD) is by far and away the biggest bottleneck of most any computer these days. To many, the difference is day and night.

So it just doesn't work for me to leave the fusion drive in there - when for a relatively small sum more, I could make the whole system truely top notch.
[doublepost=1503447589][/doublepost]

I wish that were true. A top stock spec 27" iMac is NZ$3849 from Apple, but I can buy it at a discount locally for NZ$3464 today. Buying a BTO, and changing just the 2TB Fusion Drive to a 512GB SSD costs NZ$4189, and I can't find anyone willing to discount a custom build. So the price difference for me to change from the fusion to SSD is NZ$725, which when you are stretching to afford the iMac is far from insignificant. Add to that the cost of buying some external storage, because for many (including me) 512GB is not enough, and it is easy to see why some will choose the fusion drive as the best compromise for them. I don't think anybody is saying that it is not a compromise, but we all have differing cost\capacity\speed priorities, so it is good that we have options.

Having said that, I am currently leaning towards getting the 512GB SSD for my upcoming iMac. I'll just have to save a bit longer. I'll put the 960GB SATA SSD that is currently in my Mac Pro in an external enclosure for my data, which should be enough for a while. I have a 4TB drive for onsite backups already, and it's time to review my offsite backup plan anyway.

Apple way overcharges for SSD's. So the better option is to buy it with the fusion drive, then later on buy a much more affordable samsung or crucial or other brand SSD, and install it yourself. Both OWC and iFixit offer guides and tools to do just that.

 

[cynics]

So I'll make a counter argument. Yes, you can "get along" with the speed right this very moment. But when a couple of new os's come out and the slowness even becomes more relevant it will push you into the realm of having to replace your mac at a quicker rate than if you had just purchased a SSD drive in the first place. Right now you are experiencing the best performance of your system (as it exists). You can anticipate that performance will degrade over time and bring a need to replace the system.

I build that thought process into my purchase decisions. I don't just go with what is "ok" for now. I buy the most mac I can for my money at the time to help with the longevity of my mac. So I have a i5 3.8 with the 580 video card and a 512 ssd drive. I didn't purchase these specs for current needs. I purchased them with longevity in mind. So then if I bought the lowest end i5 processor with an 1tb fusion drive I know I'll be up for a replacement in 3-4 years versus 7-8 years on the 3.8 with a 512 ssd drive.

But above and beyond that, the fusion drive (at least the 1tb version) is just a crime against the iMac it is put into. Especially where the drive actually slows down the processor and other components from performing at their best. Especially when a 5400 rpm drive is put into the 21" iMac.

Now this is how I make my purchasing decisions but to each their own. Are you going to buy the $35 tennis shoes that you replace every 6 months or the $100 that you replace every two years.

I don't think now is the best time to use the degradation of performance argument. Its more of an "it is what it is" situation.

For example with APFS in High Sierra and its use of cloning a HDD will be able to copy files (on to itself) MUCH faster then is possible now. Maybe as fast as an SSD since files aren't actually being copied. So optimizations and features like that show HDDs performance actually increasing in the future.

Specifically touching on Fusion Drives, APFS will be able to take better advantage of them via corestorage (does a good job already IMO). Things like storing the metadata on the SSD will help in searching and getting info and being able to look at file types types to more intelligently know files that can and can't benefit from SSD speeds.

Conversely and admittedly with APFS, its optimized for flash storage. Basically the file system is "flash aware" and read and write to flash storage in a more efficient manor instead of forcing it to mimic a HDD. This will obviously benefit Fusion drive as well as pure SSD users.

Regardless, HDD, Fusion Drive and SSD owners will all see better performance moving forward.

Few and far between are CPU workloads that are hindered by HDD performance. Transcoding a video for example, its not like you are transcoding out faster than an HDD can read. Admittedly with high end video editing the HDD can bottleneck performance but that is regardless of the processor. The bottleneck is loading performance, like I said earlier the test of patience.

Our product buying ideology is similar yet different. You buy the best (or nearly the best) in hopes to future proof (at least it would seem to me) for a future unknown. I buy what I need now and what I'll need in the future or at least my best guess. For example I have a mid/high tier 2013. The reason I'll be upgrading (probably in 2018) is for CPU codec support and peripheral support (Thunderbolt). Both are things I couldn't have future proofed for in an 2013 iMac. While I could have benefited from better performance from a pure SSD or faster CPU I didn't need them (still don't) and would have essentially wasted my money. On the same note, if you have the money then go for it. Nothing wrong with that either.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Apple way overcharges for SSD's. So the better option is to buy it with the fusion drive, then later on buy a much more affordable samsung or crucial or other brand SSD, and install it yourself. Both OWC and iFixit offer guides and tools to do just that.

Apple uses proprietary blade-style SSDs. You could replace the HDD component of a Fusion Drive with a 2.5 inch SSD using a bracket but you're not going to see anywhere near the speeds of Apple's flash drives.

 

[robeddie]

Apple uses proprietary blade-style SSDs. You could replace the HDD component of a Fusion Drive with a 2.5 inch SSD using a bracket but you're not going to see anywhere near the speeds of Apple's flash drives.

True, but the gain over the fusion drive, IMO, justifies it. Even the slower SSD's trouce spinning drives because of the almost zero access speeds.

A ferrari might have a 190 top speed and my corolla maybe can hit 110, but when they're both crusing along at 75, they both blow past that little moped.

So yes, there's differences in SSD speeds, but it's a law of dimishing returns. The most noticable gains come from just going from spinning drive to SSD, even if it's a so-called 'slower' SSD.

 

[SaSaSushi]

True, but the gain over the fusion drive, IMO, justifies it. Even the slower SSD's trouce spinning drives because of the almost zero access speeds. The top end read speeds don't get you as much as just getting away from the sluggish access speeds of a spinning drive.

It's a viable long-term future plan for those who choose Fusion Drives to be sure. This is especially considering that it is not a matter of if but rather when the HDD will fail.

 

[robeddie]

It's a viable long-term future plan for those who choose Fusion Drives to be sure. This is especially considering that it is not a matter of if but rather when the HDD will fail.

Did you mean to write 'It's not a viable long-term future plan for those who choose Fusion Drives..." ?

 

[jlseattle]

Our product buying ideology is similar yet different. You buy the best (or nearly the best) in hopes to future proof (at least it would seem to me) for a future unknown. I buy what I need now and what I'll need in the future or at least my best guess. For example I have a mid/high tier 2013. The reason I'll be upgrading (probably in 2018) is for CPU codec support and peripheral support (Thunderbolt). Both are things I couldn't have future proofed for in an 2013 iMac. While I could have benefited from better performance from a pure SSD or faster CPU I didn't need them (still don't) and would have essentially wasted my money. On the same note, if you have the money then go for it. Nothing wrong with that either.

It isn't actually hope that I do this on. I do this on experience. I have a 2015 MacBook Pro that was $1200 that has an SSD (yes Apple can put an affordable SSD in the iMac if they chose to do that) and it performs beautifully. It's a slower processor (laptop grade and a few years old) and 128gb SSD. So I was SHOCKED to find out that the new i7 21" iMac (I liked the smaller screen and I don't need lots of hard drive so I got the 1tb fusion drive) that my new iMac with the i7 processor (which is super fast if you see the ratings) was substantially slower than my 2 year old MacBook Pro.

I seriously DO NOT need any other evidence than that.

I am wondering if those that buy the 1tb fusion drive are just so used to things being slow on the OS side that they think it is normal behavior. But the response from the OS is substantially better with a SSD drive. I went above my budget for the iMac to get to a machine that would at least perform as well as my SSD laptop (now I have it). It is just disappointing that I can buy a 1200 laptop and get better performance than the 1800 I spent on the 2017 21" iMac i7 1 tb fusion drive. Terrible. I seriously can't believe Apple even sells that configuration. And many people don't need 2 or 3 tb drives.

I'm just speaking to my experience. And boy was it an unhappy 2 month ordeal to get me to the machine I have now (which is amazing). And it is extremely frustrating that people are supporting the fusion drive because that doesn't incentivize apple to move away from this archaic technology. We need to have all Macs with SSD options only. The price won't go up with the Mac because they get volume discounting. They are just making more money selling 28gb SSD and 1tb 5400 rpm hard drive combos than they would selling 256 gb SSD drives. They SERIOUSLY need to fix this. We can't encourage them.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Did you mean to write 'It's not a viable long-term future plan for those who choose Fusion Drives..." ?

No, I mean if one is comfortable with doing open Mac surgery on an iMac once it is out of warranty then it could be an option to just replace the HDD at some point in the future with an SSD as you mentioned.

The tools are available.

 

[kschendel]

...We need to have all Macs with SSD options only. The price won't go up with the Mac because they get volume discounting. They are just making more money selling 28gb SSD and 1tb 5400 rpm hard drive combos than they would selling 256 gb SSD drives....

I'm so glad that someone here has access to Apple's price lists and can show us how 1 Tb SSD's cost the same as 1 Tb spinners. Or did you miss the fact that 256 GB is 1/4 of 1 Tb, and that matters to many customers? Did you buy that Macbook Pro new? because I don't think I've seen $1200 on any MBP list prices for some time. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't see how you can claim that Apple can get 1 Tb SSD's (especially fast PCIe ones) for the same price that they get a 32 Gb unit and a 1 Tb spinner. I'd be willing to bet that Apple's price for the latter is 1/10 their price for the former, and that matters in the final retail.

 

[cynics]

It isn't actually hope that I do this on. I do this on experience. I have a 2015 MacBook Pro that was $1200 that has an SSD (yes Apple can put an affordable SSD in the iMac if they chose to do that) and it performs beautifully. It's a slower processor (laptop grade and a few years old) and 128gb SSD. So I was SHOCKED to find out that the new i7 21" iMac (I liked the smaller screen and I don't need lots of hard drive so I got the 1tb fusion drive) that my new iMac with the i7 processor (which is super fast if you see the ratings) was substantially slower than my 2 year old MacBook Pro.

I seriously DO NOT need any other evidence than that.

I am wondering if those that buy the 1tb fusion drive are just so used to things being slow on the OS side that they think it is normal behavior. But the response from the OS is substantially better with a SSD drive. I went above my budget for the iMac to get to a machine that would at least perform as well as my SSD laptop (now I have it). It is just disappointing that I can buy a 1200 laptop and get better performance than the 1800 I spent on the 2017 21" iMac i7 1 tb fusion drive. Terrible. I seriously can't believe Apple even sells that configuration. And many people don't need 2 or 3 tb drives.

I'm just speaking to my experience. And boy was it an unhappy 2 month ordeal to get me to the machine I have now (which is amazing). And it is extremely frustrating that people are supporting the fusion drive because that doesn't incentivize apple to move away from this archaic technology. We need to have all Macs with SSD options only. The price won't go up with the Mac because they get volume discounting. They are just making more money selling 28gb SSD and 1tb 5400 rpm hard drive combos than they would selling 256 gb SSD drives. They SERIOUSLY need to fix this. We can't encourage them.

Well I agree, a pure SSD is by far a better experience on any system/OS. Its a performance difference that any users can "feel" and realize throughout their use regardless of what they are doing.

And your point about people more or less feeling a HDD or Fusion is ok because basically "they've known no other" is very valid. I use both SATA SSDs and HDDs daily and SSDs still shock me in performance at times (mostly boot). And its no surprise if you are coming from a pure SSD then going to an HDD (or Fusion prior to it sorting itself out) you may find the performance underwhelming at best. Although that carries the caveat that with a Fusion that not everything you do is stored on it because if so then there is no performance difference.

Regardless that shouldn't distract the fact that many users are still happy with their purchase. Especially if they favor the space over speed. Keep in mind, speed is relative to the user and their usage. Everything I'm doing right now (transcoding a bluray, and switching between Safari for MR, Messages, Photos and Gimp) is using around a max of 7 MB/s read and 2 MB/s write.

Pure SSD levels of performance would be realized with this workload with even with a 1tb Fusion, since they are (core apps + Handbrake and Gimp easily fit into 24gb). And the file to and from Handbrake couldn't even max out a decent thumb drive.

Now I'm not saying a Fusion drive is as good as a equally sized SSD just putting real world perspective on it from a different (my) point of view. Again I prefer an SSD and would gladly spend the additional money for one. But if someone said they did a couple piddly task on their Mac I could certainly understand the reasoning for not needing anything more than a Fusion Drive.

As far as storage options. Apple has been leading the market with quality options for a while now. Yes 5400 RPM HDD sucks but its commonplace amongst many computer manufacturers. Manufacturers like Dell and HPs "fusion like" options include a 32gb msata (slower than Apples 24gb PCIe) combined with a 5400 RPM HDD (slower than Apples 7200 RPM HDD used in the Fusion) using much dumber tech to fuse them working of a hardware level not OS. Many offer SATA 3 SSDs as premium options. And its hard to find 1tb SSDs and nearly impossible to find 2tb SSD options (I couldn't find any but said "nearly" to cover my ass).

I think you got the supply and demand thing backwards btw. Buying SSD options doesn't encourage them to not make HDD options. If anything it encourages them to not reduce the price of SSD options. If you increase the demand of a product the last thing that is done is reduce the price of it.

We'll eventually see SSD only options in the iMac when the price of PCIe SSD comes down to the point they can't put a reasonable price divide between them anymore. Thats assuming there isn't something better out of course. If so we will just be here debating slow PCIe SSDs vs next gen storage. Lol

 

[jlseattle]

I think you got the supply and demand thing backwards btw. Buying SSD options doesn't encourage them to not make HDD options. If anything it encourages them to not reduce the price of SSD options. If you increase the demand of a product the last thing that is done is reduce the price of it.

When more units are sold and volume grows, production will grow, and prices fall because costs of production decreases. And competitors will produce product to meet demand.

 

[bopajuice]

To each his own. But let's put it this way: I spent a good amount of money on my 2017 iMac. It has the latest Kaby Lake processor, a great dedicated video card, top notch IO, and a second to none screen.

A spinning drive (fusion or standard HD) is by far and away the biggest bottleneck of most any computer these days. To many, the difference is day and night.

So it just doesn't work for me to leave the fusion drive in there - when for a relatively small sum more, I could make the whole system truely top notch.
[doublepost=1503447589][/doublepost]

Apple way overcharges for SSD's. So the better option is to buy it with the fusion drive, then later on buy a much more affordable samsung or crucial or other brand SSD, and install it yourself. Both OWC and iFixit offer guides and tools to do just that.

But again I ask.... what do you use your computer for? Facebook, email, web browsing?
[doublepost=1503459926][/doublepost]

So I'll make a counter argument. Yes, you can "get along" with the speed right this very moment. But when a couple of new os's come out and the slowness even becomes more relevant it will push you into the realm of having to replace your mac at a quicker rate than if you had just purchased a SSD drive in the first place. Right now you are experiencing the best performance of your system (as it exists). You can anticipate that performance will degrade over time and bring a need to replace the system.

I build that thought process into my purchase decisions. I don't just go with what is "ok" for now. I buy the most mac I can for my money at the time to help with the longevity of my mac. So I have a i5 3.8 with the 580 video card and a 512 ssd drive. I didn't purchase these specs for current needs. I purchased them with longevity in mind. So then if I bought the lowest end i5 processor with an 1tb fusion drive I know I'll be up for a replacement in 3-4 years versus 7-8 years on the 3.8 with a 512 ssd drive.

But above and beyond that, the fusion drive (at least the 1tb version) is just a crime against the iMac it is put into. Especially where the drive actually slows down the processor and other components from performing at their best. Especially when a 5400 rpm drive is put into the 21" iMac.

Now this is how I make my purchasing decisions but to each their own. Are you going to buy the $35 tennis shoes that you replace every 6 months or the $100 that you replace every two years.

What do you use your computer for? Web browsing? Responding to mac rumors?

 

[robeddie]

But again I ask.... what do you use your computer for? Facebook, email, web browsing?
[doublepost=1503459926][/doublepost]

What do you use your computer for? Web browsing? Responding to mac rumors?

No. That's what I use my iPad mini for

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

Been waiting ten years for this so called price fall on SSDs but it is not happening. Shareholders want their fair share of profits blow purchasers.

 

[jlseattle]

But again I ask.... what do you use your computer for? Facebook, email, web browsing?
[doublepost=1503459926][/doublepost]

What do you use your computer for? Web browsing? Responding to mac rumors?

Many things, I don't do heavy processing. I work with photo editing, office suite, email, gaming (blizzard games), and I watch movies. I am learning programming with Xcode as a hobby. But I do not do video editing. But that doesn't negate my experience.
[doublepost=1503464422][/doublepost]

Been waiting ten years for this so called price fall on SSDs but it is not happening. Shareholders want their fair share of profits blow purchasers.

That's our capitalist market driven society at work. They should earn a profit and do more research for even better technology. Spinning hard drive technology is all profit minus minor expenses to produce and get to your door ($80 is probably generous estimate of costs). SSD's costs recoup research costs and future technology development.

 

[Flynnstone]

I have to think most people's CPU % is hovering around 1% most of the time. Mine is.
So at the moment I can't tell if my hard drive is a SSD (it is) or a floppy
Another way to look at it is a Mac with a Fusion drive is far better than a Windows PC (7,8 10) with pure high speed SSD drive with anitvirus software!

 

[jlseattle]

I have to think most people's CPU % is hovering around 1% most of the time. Mine is.
So at the moment I can't tell if my hard drive is a SSD (it is) or a floppy
Another way to look at it is a Mac with a Fusion drive is far better than a Windows PC (7,8 10) with pure high speed SSD drive with anitvirus software!

Haha so true!

 

[Negritude]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this convo is that Apple actually went backwards and crippled the 1TB Fusion drives by reducing the size of the SSD. My 2012 Quad Core Mac Minis, for example, have 1TB Fusion drives that are 128GB SSD + 1TB HDD. While obviously not as fast as a pure SSD, I thought that original configuration was good. I remember that many people, when the Fusion drives first came out, started building their own, and they often created 256GB+1TB drives. Both configurations were more than capable and still are.

They should all be configured so that they have at least 128GB of SSD for every 1TB of HDD:

128GB SSD + 1TB HDD
256GB SSD + 2TB HDD
384GB SSD + 3TB HDD
512GB SSD + 4TB HDD

The above would be a much better realization of what Fusion is capable of.

So, it's not just about the limitations of the Fusion technology in the abstract, but the specific context of the cynical and exploitative way that Apple tends to make their products less capable over time. It's not enough to criticize the technology, you need to criticize Apple as a corporation itself.

 

[robeddie]

But again I ask.... what do you use your computer for? Facebook, email, web browsing?
[doublepost=1503459926][/doublepost]

What do you use your computer for? Web browsing? Responding to mac rumors?

Actually, the irony of that question is that the SSD is the one thing that most people will see the full potential of. It will make your computer feel 'snappier', better, faster doing EVERYTHING - whether it's opening ms office, copying a small file or ... editing a huge video project.

It's all the other components that most people don't really utilitize to their full potential. They'd be wise to save their money on processor power, ram, video card ... pretty much anything other than the SSD - if all they're doing is light use.

We've all heard the stories and/or know people with 6 or 7 year old computers who installed an SSD and they were blown away by how it transformed their user experience and it convinced them to keep their 'old' computer for another several years.

And yea, you know how I mentioned that when I'm just doing email I mostly use my ipad mini ... well guess what, that ipad, or any other device used for just simple basic uses, would suck pretty bad if it didn't have an SSD.

So let me throw a question back at you: Why straddle your otherwise awesome, current model desktop computer with a slow storage drive? One thats slower than the ssd in my measly little ipad mini?

 

[robeddie]

Been waiting ten years for this so called price fall on SSDs but it is not happening. Shareholders want their fair share of profits blow purchasers.

Huh?!? 7 years ago a 1tb ssd was around $1600. Now its around $300.
So what on earth are you talking about?!?

 

[vkd]

Well done but that's an iMac older than the Fusion Drive itself and another, much easier upgrade option for a 2011 iMac (USB2 only) would be to invest in an inexpensive Thunderbolt enclosure and boot the Mac from that. I'm pretty sure you can also "Fuse" it with the internal HDD in that configuration as well.

In Japan you may find an as you say "inexpensive" Thunderbolt enclosure (perhaps) but I can assure you that these items are so absurdly expensive in the so-called west as to be cost-prohibitive. Not to mention that they daily become a more rare item now that the never popular Thunderbolt 1 port spec has been superceded.

Do you know offhand whether a Thunderbolt connected SSD will be able to get better speed than SATA3 on this computer?

 

[mihai.ile]

Actually, the irony of that question is that the SSD is the one thing that most people will see the full potential of. It will make your computer feel 'snappier', better, faster doing EVERYTHING - whether it's opening ms office, copying a small file or ... editing a huge video project.

It's all the other components that most people don't really utilitize to their full potential. They'd be wise to save their money on processor power, ram, video card ... pretty much anything other than the SSD - if all they're doing is light use.

We've all heard the stories and/or know people with 6 or 7 year old computers who installed an SSD and they were blown away by how it transformed their user experience and it convinced them to keep their 'old' computer for another several years.

And yea, you know how I mentioned that when I'm just doing email I mostly use my ipad mini ... well guess what, that ipad, or any other device used for just simple basic uses, would suck pretty bad if it didn't have an SSD.

So let me throw a question back at you: Why straddle your otherwise awesome, current model desktop computer with a slow storage drive? One thats slower than the ssd in my measly little ipad mini?

If "the SSD is the one thing that most people will see the full potential of" then fusion drive works good since it has an SSD.
We are not talking in having HDD only vs SSD. Fusion drive already contains an SSD for most used files. While I agree the 1TB fusion has a waaay to small SSD, the 2 and 3TB options already start to have a decent SSD to store your most used files.
Yes SSD only is faster/better than fusion drive, but at what cost? You can not ignore the price of things, and many do not ignore it and can not afford 1,2,3TB of SSD only.

For me I choose 2TB fusion since I think 128gb ssd is good enough for my usage and I do not see a huge benefit in having GB and GB of lossless audio files stored on a very expensive SSD.

Given my usage (and I do think many users are in also the same type of usage) and to answer the original thread question, yes, I do believe the lack of speed of a fusion drive is exaggerated.

 

[robeddie]

If "the SSD is the one thing that most people will see the full potential of" then fusion drive works good since it has an SSD.
We are not talking in having HDD only vs SSD. Fusion drive already contains an SSD for most used files. While I agree the 1TB fusion has a waaay to small SSD, the 2 and 3TB options already start to have a decent SSD to store your most used files.
Yes SSD only is faster/better than fusion drive, but at what cost? You can not ignore the price of things, and many do not ignore it and can not afford 1,2,3TB of SSD only.

For me I choose 2TB fusion since I think 128gb ssd is good enough for my usage and I do not see a huge benefit in having GB and GB of lossless audio files stored on a very expensive SSD.

Given my usage (and I do think many users are in also the same type of usage) and to answer the original thread question, yes, I do believe the lack of speed of a fusion drive is exaggerated.

If the extra few hundred buckos is too much, I get that. We all have a budget.

But I just think of all the scouts on these forums who talk about 'future-proofing' their computers with the max ram, etc.
Well there is no better way to 'future-unproof' your system than to get it with a fusion drive.

In a couple years time, those compromised drives will be extinct.