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

[bopajuice]

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?

Very good points. You have made me reconsider my position. I agree an SSD enhances the experience. I would rather have an SSD as opposed to a slow spinner. I also agree my comments would seem more reasonable when questioning other features like processor and graphics capabilities. No need for an i7 just to read email. In my opinion of course.

On the other hand I am reading here that people say a Fusion Drive is pretty fast. Not as fast as an SSD that's for sure, but "pretty fast".

I have a Mac mini that is the middle of the road model. It was set up to use a Fusion drive and has the connections, but only had a 1TB spinner when I bought it. I am now going to use a Fusion drive set up in the mini, but I will split it up. I am installing a 256gb SSD for the OS and Apps, and will use the 1TB spinner for storage.

Now I wonder if it would be better just to use it as a Fusion Drive...

 

[robeddie]

Very good points. You have made me reconsider my position. I agree an SSD enhances the experience. I would rather have an SSD as opposed to a slow spinner. I also agree my comments would seem more reasonable when questioning other features like processor and graphics capabilities. No need for an i7 just to read email. In my opinion of course.

On the other hand I am reading here that people say a Fusion Drive is pretty fast. Not as fast as an SSD that's for sure, but "pretty fast".

I have a Mac mini that is the middle of the road model. It was set up to use a Fusion drive and has the connections, but only had a 1TB spinner when I bought it. I am now going to use a Fusion drive set up in the mini, but I will split it up. I am installing a 256gb SSD for the OS and Apps, and will use the 1TB spinner for storage.

Now I wonder if it would be better just to use it as a Fusion Drive...

OMG! This may be the first time anyone ever changed anyone else's mind on macrumors

Personally, I'm going to bite the bullet and get a 2tb crucial SSD for my new iMac and replace the fusion drive. It'll cost around $550, but then will have a good amount of fast internal storage, and for even more storage, will have a 6tb spinning drive attached via TB3 externally. Then, when the inevitable happens, and the spinning drive starts to fail ... I won't have to crack open the case again to get at it.

 

[EugW]

OMG! This may be the first time anyone ever changed anyone else's mind on macrumors

Personally, I'm going to bite the bullet and get a 2tb crucial SSD for my new iMac and replace the fusion drive. It'll cost around $550, but then will have a good amount of fast internal storage, and for even more storage, will have a 6tb spinning drive attached via TB3 externally. Then, when the inevitable happens, and the spinning drive starts to fail ... I won't have to crack open the case again to get at it.

Personally I think it's crazy to replace the drive when it's still under warranty, since you are voiding the warranty. You can run the SSD over Thunderbolt.

 

[robeddie]

Personally I think it's crazy to replace the drive when it's still under warranty, since you are voiding the warranty. You can run the SSD over Thunderbolt.

I am running an SSD over thunderbolt currently, and that's how I can speak with direct experience how an SSD (even connected externally) is clearly better than the fusion drive.

And yes, I have considered holding off a bit on doing the internal install, at least until the year warranty is up. But at the same time, it looks like a fairly easy install, and I've opened up and serviced many iMacs in the past ... so I'm not really all that worried about it.

 

[Chancha]

I am running an SSD over thunderbolt currently, and that's how I can speak with direct experience how an SSD (even connected externally) is clearly better than the fusion drive.

And yes, I have considered holding off a bit on doing the internal install, at least until the year warranty is up. But at the same time, it looks like a fairly easy install, and I've opened up and serviced many iMacs in the past ... so I'm not really all that worried about it.

A 2TB SATA SSD isn't that cheap either, if compared to the PCI SSD BTO upgrade that Apple is charging (which isn't at premium like BTO RAM). When I bought my iMac 2017 I was considering your option as well, but the warranty issue mentioned above came to mind and then the (lack of) cost difference also. The way I see it is that, the only reason to make it worth for replacing to a SATA SSD from the get go is to have both slots with SSD for maximum internal I/O performance. But then the SATA bay speed is achievable via TB3 and you can still TRIM / boot macOS externally that way.

 

[robeddie]

A 2TB SATA SSD isn't that cheap either, if compared to the PCI SSD BTO upgrade that Apple is charging (which isn't at premium like BTO RAM). When I bought my iMac 2017 I was considering your option as well, but the warranty issue mentioned above came to mind and then the (lack of) cost difference also. The way I see it is that, the only reason to make it worth for replacing to a SATA SSD from the get go is to have both slots with SSD for maximum internal I/O performance. But then the SATA bay speed is achievable via TB3 and you can still TRIM / boot macOS externally that way.

Would love to see an external TB3 enclosure for an SSD, so if you have a link to one, do share.

Currently Im using the apple tb3 to tb2 adapter with an external tb2 enclosure for the ssd

 

[propower]

These were finally in stock and I picked one up last week
https://www.akitio.com/thunderbolt3-series

This TB3 4 drive holder will give you the same speed from your SSD as if you put it inside the box. If you really want you can RAID drives to get faster. I haven't booted from it yet (I also have SSD internal on the iMac) but I expect no issues doing that. I ran the BlackMagic MultiDock for many years with no issue. This new one is way faster.

 

[Chancha]

Would love to see an external TB3 enclosure for an SSD, so if you have a link to one, do share.

Currently Im using the apple tb3 to tb2 adapter with an external tb2 enclosure for the ssd

TB3 enclosures are indeed still rare, but they are there, mostly multi-bay housings for RAID arrays such as the Akitio Thunder 3 Duo Pro. I don't think I have seen a single-drive enclosure without already shipping a drive inside though.

EDIT:
wow it seems the company just 2 hours ago announced a new Quad X product. "It will be available from Q3 at a price of $379", gee that's really cheap for TB3.

 

[robeddie]

A 2TB SATA SSD isn't that cheap either, if compared to the PCI SSD BTO upgrade that Apple is charging (which isn't at premium like BTO RAM). When I bought my iMac 2017 I was considering your option as well, but the warranty issue mentioned above came to mind and then the (lack of) cost difference also. The way I see it is that, the only reason to make it worth for replacing to a SATA SSD from the get go is to have both slots with SSD for maximum internal I/O performance. But then the SATA bay speed is achievable via TB3 and you can still TRIM / boot macOS externally that way.

Actually, apple's 2tb ssd option (which is only avail on the top end 27" iMacs), is $1316, compared to $549 for the 2tb crucial sata SSD. So that's almost two and a half times more expensive. True, the apple drive is 'faster', but my experience is there's a law of diminishing returns after a certain speed, so I'm fine with that.

Now, as far as the TB3 enclosures linked above, those are interesting. Very tempting, but I also think it would be pretty slick to just have the 2tb installed internally. I'll have to noodle that one.

 

[Taz Mangus]

TB3 enclosures are indeed still rare, but they are there, mostly multi-bay housings for RAID arrays such as the Akitio Thunder 3 Duo Pro. I don't think I have seen a single-drive enclosure without already shipping a drive inside though.

EDIT:
wow it seems the company just 2 hours ago announced a new Quad X product. "It will be available from Q3 at a price of $379", gee that's really cheap for TB3.

That enclosure is not compatible with Mac computers:

 

[Chancha]

Actually, apple's 2tb ssd option (which is only avail on the top end 27" iMacs), is $1316, compared to $549 for the 2tb crucial sata SSD. So that's almost two and a half times more expensive. True, the apple drive is 'faster', but my experience is there's a law of diminishing returns after a certain speed, so I'm fine with that.

Now, as far as the TB3 enclosures linked above, those are interesting. Very tempting, but I also think it would be pretty slick to just have the 2tb installed internally. I'll have to noodle that one.

You are right, I was shopping around SSDs and apparently only stopped my considerations at 1TB, for the 2TB options being so expensive, especially for PCI/M.2 ones including Apple's.

All the TB3 options are very interesting but at the same time risky, none of them have been around long enough to get actual usages for real problems to surface. At times I considered just step back down to TB2 peripherals which opens up a much larger spectrum of choices, but the price of those aren't cheap, and the mDP/TB1/2 connector is on its way out.

 

[propower]

https://www.akitio.com/portable-storage/akitio-thunder3-quad-mini
This is the one for Macs today with the new X version coming that will include 2.5 and 3.5 inch drives.

I just booted from my Thunder3 Quad Mini - slower than the internal SSD but no problems either. I understand caution when adopting new devices though and will be happy to report back in a few months. I use this as mostly backup but I appreciate getting the full SSD speed - ability to just leave a few SSDs in for various reasons and the daisy chain for any other devices.

 

[Chancha]

That enclosure is not compatible with Mac computers:

The issue is easily solved with TB3 enabler:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/21/tb3-...orted-thunderbolt-3-devices-hack-macbook-pro/

The Akitio Thunder 3 Duo and Quad indeed do not work out of the box with Macs, each of the the connected Macs need to run/install that script to enable "unsupported TB3 devices" to work in macOS, which had to do with very early TB chipset for unknown reasons blocked by Apple. Users have reported to have no issues using the devices this way. Also the Akitio Thunder 3 Quad Mini and Quad X are both using newer chipsets which means they are fully compatible with Macs now.

 

[robeddie]

You are right, I was shopping around SSDs and apparently only stopped my considerations at 1TB, for the 2TB options being so expensive, especially for PCI/M.2 ones including Apple's.

All the TB3 options are very interesting but at the same time risky, none of them have been around long enough to get actual usages for real problems to surface. At times I considered just step back down to TB2 peripherals which opens up a much larger spectrum of choices, but the price of those aren't cheap, and the mDP/TB1/2 connector is on its way out.

Agreed about the concern about reliability of the TB3 devices. Plus I'd love one that is smaller and just made for a single drive. All the options linked here so far are larger enclosures made for multiple drives.

Getting back to your first sentence, you stopped at 1tb. But why? The 1tb crucial sata SSD is $290, the 2tb crucial sata SSD is $550. So twice the capacity for less than twice the price - not too bad, imo.

https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-MX300-Internal-Solid-State/dp/B01KKZLX46

 

[SaSaSushi]

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.

I don't think $85 for the Delock 42510 Thunderbolt enclosure is absurdly expensive. Yes, you will need to invest in a Thunderbolt cable, of course, but 0.5 meter will do fine. If you are going to use it in a 2017 iMac then you will also need a Thunderbolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3 adapter.

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

Yes, it will likely not run quite as fast as it would directly connected to SATA inside the iMac nor will it run considerably slower.

You can see some benchmarks of the Delock at this review I did for an Inateck UASP USB3 enclosure a few years ago.

 

[neliason]

I'm just surprised here in late 2017 we're still having these discussions. Fusion drives came along a half decade ago as a compromise solution when SSD's were extraordinarily expensive.

I kind of think some who still swear by fusion drives are those who bought into Apple's marketing and have this delusion that fusion drives are some kind of 'baddass' technology. They're a compromise, plain and simple. A compromise that makes little sense in 2017, and will make even less sense as time goes by.

I have no experience actually using a Fusion drive but I wouldn't call them just a compromise. They are a way to create one logical drive from many physical drives. You can of course mount additional drives and use their space, but the space will be at the mount point and not available across the computer. I can see this as fitting a need for many customers that alternatives would not.

 

[cynics]

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.

Thats true to a very minor extent. However once a product is established in the market what you are describing is just the more progression of price vs time.

Obvious example is the arbitrary $100 price Apple charges for NAND upgrades in the iPhone. Some competitors charge $50, however since the demand is there Apple will merrily continue to charge $100. However everyone stopped buying it the price would drop.
[doublepost=1503612447][/doublepost]

I have no experience actually using a Fusion drive but I wouldn't call them just a compromise. They are a way to create one logical drive from many physical drives. You can of course mount additional drives and use their space, but the space will be at the mount point and not available across the computer. I can see this as fitting a need for many customers that alternatives would not.

They aren't a compromise IMO, just another option. And with how corestorage works at a block level with the Fusion Drive it can really be quite impressive. The 1tb Fusion is 'meh' due to the SSD portion size but 2tb and 3tb for average users are likely able to leverage the 128gb portion enough to make the 256gb SSD option relatively pointless.

It would be cool if Apple used PCIe SSDs and SATA SSDs in their Fusion Drives. Let corestorage leverage the PCIe SSD to keep commonly used stuff on it + OS and everything else on the SATA SSD. Save the pure PCIe SSD options for the enthusiast and professionals that need it.

 

[vkd]

I don't think $85 for the Delock 42510 Thunderbolt enclosure is absurdly expensive. Yes, you will need to invest in a Thunderbolt cable, of course, but 0.5 meter will do fine. If you are going to use it in a 2017 iMac then you will also need a Thunderbolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3 adapter.



Yes, it will likely not run quite as fast as it would directly connected to SATA inside the iMac nor will it run considerably slower.

You can see some benchmarks of the Delock at this review I did for an Inateck UASP USB3 enclosure a few years ago.

Seems strange you are pushing me this enclosure when you yourself said on your linked post:

"I also got my hands on the Inateck UASP USB3 FEU3NS-1E Enclosure and wanted to post my results with the SSD in that as well. The Inateck is a pretty amazing little enclosure at only $18. That's about 5 times less than I paid for the Delock 42490 Thunderbolt enclosure."

Not only that, but:

"In terms of performance, the Inateck beat the Thunderbolt enclosure in both read and write in BlackMagic"

I'm presently getting av. 400MB/s read/write on my Fusion drive so can't see any advantage in paying through the nose for an enclosure without a connecting cable included that will run slower.

Another point worth noting is that you're on a 2017 i7 iMac, I'm on a 2011 i5 iMac but bus speed dictates nobody maxes out above 400MB/s, internally, externally, Thunderbolt, USB3, SSD or Fusion Drive. In fact I can go as far as to say that a 2011 i5 iMac with Fusion Drive is equally as fast as comparative 2017 iMac SSD on T/B or USB3. I suppose PCIe SSD would be quicker but if it was on the SATA3 bus it doesn't matter if you bought your computer 1000 years in the future it will still be same speed as ever.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Seems strange you are pushing me this enclosure when you yourself said on your linked post:

"I also got my hands on the Inateck UASP USB3 FEU3NS-1E Enclosure and wanted to post my results with the SSD in that as well. The Inateck is a pretty amazing little enclosure at only $18. That's about 5 times less than I paid for the Delock 42490 Thunderbolt enclosure."

If you really read the review you know I said that there were advantages to both the TB and USB enclosures.

In my personal case the lack of TRIM with the USB enclosure was too much of a price to pay to go with it as an option for booting the OS. Also, it made BootCamp a much more difficult proposition and made firmware updates impossible.

Yes, the performance tests gave the Inateck a slight edge at install but lacking TRIM that was very likely to change over time.

 

[Jacoblee23]

One week later, and still no issues whatsoever. I suppose time will tell.