SSD Vs Fusion Drive iMac

[Mikebike125]

Can you buy a Fusion drive to install yourself on an older iMac? Is this something that anyone can purchase or is it something that only Apple has? I liked reading all that everyone has written about the drives and think a fusion drive would be nice to have. I have an older 2007 Aluminum iMac and need to replace the drive. Just want to know if I can purchase a fusion drive to put in.

 

[Alesc]

Can you buy a Fusion drive to install yourself on an older iMac? Is this something that anyone can purchase or is it something that only Apple has? I liked reading all that everyone has written about the drives and think a fusion drive would be nice to have. I have an older 2007 Aluminum iMac and need to replace the drive. Just want to know if I can purchase a fusion drive to put in.

Fusion Drive is a software technology.
To build a Fusion Drive, you must have 2 drives (often it is a SSD and a HDD) and you build the Fusion Drive yourself with the Terminal (you must run at least OS X 10.8.2).

You can read about that here or there for example.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote above:
[[ My understanding is that a small part of the fusion is SSD storage. ]]

That's "sort of" what fusion is.

A "fusion" drive is actually TWO drives inside the iMac:
- An SSD (probably 128gb on yours)
and
- A HDD (probably 1tb on yours).

They are "melded together" by CORE storage so that they appear as ONE drive icon on your desktop, for a total of 1.125tb of storage.

Frequently-accessed files (such as the OS itself) are kept on the SSD for quick access.
Less-frequently-accessed files get "offloaded" to the HDD as the SSD fills up.

It's important to keep a backup drive, because if one component of the fusion drive fails (either the SSD or the HDD), the NEITHER DRIVE can be accessed.

It's possible to "split apart" the fused drives into "separate" SSD and HDD drives, but you have to know what you're doing.

 

[Mikebike125]

That seems a little much for me, plus I don't want to lose my DVD drive for the extra needed space. I think the Seagate drive seems the best choice.

 

[Alesc]

[...]
A "fusion" drive is actually TWO drives inside the iMac:
[...]

That seems a little much for me, plus I don't want to lose my DVD drive for the extra needed space. I think the Seagate drive seems the best choice.

Both drives aren't to be necessarily inside the Mac. You can for example use the internal HDD with an external TB drive
It's not the "cleanest" solution, but it is working.

 

[steve62388]

Fusion Drive is a software technology.
To build a Fusion Drive, you must have 2 drives (often it is a SSD and a HDD) and you build the Fusion Drive yourself with the Terminal (you must run at least OS X 10.8.2).

You can read about that here or there for example.

I can confirm those Macworld instructions work under Yosemite. I have an external Lacie Fusion drive.

 

[henriquede81]

The Fusion Drive is a marketing gimmick. Pure and simple. It exists solely to show a larger storage drive number.

While the startup time and some app launch times will be faster with Fusion than a regular pure HD, the OS will still use the regular HD part of Fusion for most operations that require disk access–so day-to-day use will barely benefit.

Pure SSD on the other hand is lightening fast. The speed increase is extremely noticeable at worst, and staggeringly faster at best.

In other words, if you're looking for speed, pure SSD is the only way to go. It's almost like getting a new computer.

However, if all you're doing is web/email/office apps type of things, the return on investment in SSD isn't worth it because those apps simply aren't disk-intensive applications to begin with.

I'm still saying (FEB 2015!) that Fusion Drive is the SMART choice if you have limited money resources!

That bla bla bla about much better performance compared to a pure-SSD is pure-Bulls*** ... because the difference for a normal usage is residual.

Nevertheless, with the Fusion Drive you can update the HDD part of it, much easier and cheaper in a couple years if you need it for a standard SATA SSD drive ... 3TB?... 6TB? Who knows?

Please note that you have no SATA socket in a pure-SSD iMac: updates will always be compromised because of that.

 

[/V\acpower]

Is it PCIe or SATA? SATA SSDs are slower than PCIe.

----------



The 128 GB SSD will be about the same as a rMBP of that vintage because the rMBP predates the switch to PCIe SSDs (it uses SATA). The 256 GB in the SSD-only iMac and modern rMBPs can be up to a third faster with sequential reads/writes since it takes advantage of the faster PCIe speeds.

From Apple mid 2013 iMac Press Release (September 24, 2013) :

The updated iMac now features support for PCIe-based flash storage that makes Fusion Drive and all-flash storage options up to 50 percent faster than the previous generation.

https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/09/24Apple-Updates-iMac.html

 

[/V\acpower]

This is just not true. I have a PCIe SSD on my MacBook Pro. It is a fery fast Samsung drive, 700Mbps writes and reads. I also have a 1Tb Fusion Drive on my iMac 5K. I don't see much difference between the two in my regular workflow. I did notice that an app I didn't use for a while took a bit longer to load, but that's it. The system boots really fast, Photoshop opens really fast, apps open fast, etc.

New Fusion Drives (I think 2013 and up) have PCIe SSDs. If you hate them, you can always manually split them and choose what goes to that fast SSD and what to the HD. I was planning to do that, but found out there really is no need, as Apple does a great job of managing everything.

Now, SSDs have advantages. Reliability, silence, consistency. Also they don't need to be defragmented (although OS X does this for HDDs in background anyway) etc. Also, some people (video professionals, for example) need really fast speeds for media files. However, claiming that FD is a "marketing gimmick" is just wrong. It just isn't true. I had a HDD-only iMac and it was incredibly slower than the one with the FD.

I would like to hear what data-intensive tasks you do to consider FD as slow. Did you even try it? And don't give me that 'it's ok for email and surfing' BS. An iPad is good for those - people are creating amazing things with 5, 6, 7 (and more) year old iMacs and a modern computer with a FD is MORE than capable of doing really powerful stuff.

Besides, if you don't believe me - read this excellent piece by Anand Shimpi
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6679/a-month-with-apples-fusion-drive

"For the first time since late 2008, I went back to using a machine where a hard drive was a part of my primary storage - and I didn’t hate it. Apple’s Fusion Drive is probably the best hybrid SSD/HDD solution I’ve ever used"

This doesn't sound like a marketing gimmick to me, and - don't take this the wrong way - but I'll take Anand's word over an emotional forum post.


So - let's put things in perspective:

SSD is better than a FD but also more expensive.
256Gb SSD is a good choice if you plan on using external Tb drives.
FD is a really good option for a lot of people.
512Gb/1Tb SSDs are amazing and have a price of a whole computer. Not for everyone.

Actually the way I see the Fusion Drive is that anyway in a regular "SSD + HDD External Storage" option, the files that I would manually keep on the SSD (OS, Apps, some recently downloaded files) would be on SSD side of the Fusion drive and that the SSD space I would probably have "wasted" anyway will be automatically filled and used by the Fusion Drive.

I mean, there is no way I would use a SSD more efficiently than with a Fusion Drive.

Of course, pure SSD is better if having consistent access speed on specific files or folders is very important for your workflow (or if money isn't an issue), but for most peoples (And I don't mean that in like "For your mom", there is lot of peoples doing serious stuff with their computers where speed consistency isn't THAT vital) I guess Fusion Drive make a lot of sense.

 

[MacGizmo]

#1 I'm still saying (FEB 2015!) that Fusion Drive is the SMART choice if you have limited money resources!

#2That bla bla bla about much better performance compared to a pure-SSD is pure-Bulls*** ... because the difference for a normal usage is residual.

#3Nevertheless, with the Fusion Drive you can update the HDD part of it, much easier and cheaper in a couple years if you need it for a standard SATA SSD drive ... 3TB?... 6TB? Who knows?

#4Please note that you have no SATA socket in a pure-SSD iMac: updates will always be compromised because of that.

#1: Fair enough. But you're probably not buying a new iMac if you have "limited money resources"

#2 Spoken like someone who regrets buying the Fusion Drive. I'm sorry young fella, but you're wrong. Every aspect of using the computer is faster on the pure SSD drive Macs. EVERY ASPECT. Anyone who owns both can tell you this.

#3 You keep believing that. It's good to have dreams. Also, nobody 'upgrades' internal hard drives on an iMac — with the exception of people who realize they got suckered into saving money on a Fusion Drive and finally want to replace it with pure SSD.

#4 See response to #3. Beyond that, very few consumers upgrade anything in an iMac — because most consumers know absolutely nothing about how a computer works.

 

[aevan]

#1: Fair enough. But you're probably not buying a new iMac if you have "limited money resources"

I've seen this argument several times on these forums and it's not only untrue, to be honest, it's also a little bit insulting. This is a very wrong attitude to have. Some people have limits for the budget they can spend on a computer - for some it is below $1000, for some it is below $2000, and for some it is just around $2500. You have no right to insinuate that someone shouldn't get an iMac (or anything else for that matter) just because they can't afford to add a couple of extra 100s to the already hefty price tag.

#2 Spoken like someone who regrets buying the Fusion Drive.

To me, it actually sounds the other way around. You're speaking like someone who tries to justify their purchase.

I'm sorry young fella, but you're wrong.

Typical argumentum ad hominem. You have no idea what his age or experience is, but you're using it to position yourself above him. That's a bad way to make an argument.... fella.

Every aspect of using the computer is faster on the pure SSD drive Macs. EVERY ASPECT. Anyone who owns both can tell you this.

You assume too much. I own both a FD Mac and a pure PCIe SSD Mac and I can tell you the difference is not very noticeable in most situations.

 

[AppleFan360]

You assume too much. I own both a FD Mac and a pure PCIe SSD Mac and I can tell you the difference is not very noticeable in most situations.

Me too and agree. Under normal usage, the difference is small. It's only when I open large photo libraries or apps that I haven't opened in a long time where I see a lag. Saying "every aspect" is faster is simply wrong.

 

[marzer]

A gimmick? Hardly...

The Fusion Drive is a marketing gimmick. Pure and simple. It exists solely to show a larger storage drive number.

While the startup time and some app launch times will be faster with Fusion than a regular pure HD, the OS will still use the regular HD part of Fusion for most operations that require disk access–so day-to-day use will barely benefit.

Pure SSD on the other hand is lightening fast. The speed increase is extremely noticeable at worst, and staggeringly faster at best.

In other words, if you're looking for speed, pure SSD is the only way to go. It's almost like getting a new computer.

However, if all you're doing is web/email/office apps type of things, the return on investment in SSD isn't worth it because those apps simply aren't disk-intensive applications to begin with.

No, far from it, it is not a marketing gimmick. It's an algorithmic technology that has been in use for some time now. Apple is the first to employ it at the consumer level, but data centers have used it for quite some time to manage data. In those applications its known as data tiering. I assure you, it's real and it works. Simpler and more effective than data caching for file management in a tiered storage application.

In a fusion drive, the SSD is the priority device. It holds the OS as top priority data and then applications and user data are prioritized in-turn after that. Core Storage also reserves a 4GB buffer on the SSD to buffer HDD operations. The vast majority of consumer data activity will not exceed that buffer. That's why under general, common use activities the Fusion Drive consistently maintains near-SSD operating speeds. The small trade off of it being near-SSD some of the time is that, all of the time, you can have the convenience of a very large single data volume that exceeds the single SSD capacity/affordability available in today's market.

So no, the difference between SSD-only and Fusion Drive is not the difference in speed between "lightening fast" and using "the regular HD part of Fusion for most operations that require disk access". But rather, "lightning fast" vs. near-lightening fast for the majority of operations that require disk access. And it exists solely to provide high-speed data access to an affordable mass storage volume.

As for the best use case for a Fusion Drive:

- For the minority of uses that have time sensitive data activities that frequently exceed the 4GB buffer space, then yes the Fusion Drive would not be the best choice. Go for SSD only, and manually offload to a larger second tier device.

- For non-time sensitive data activity that frequently exceeds the buffer space, then Fusion Drive may or may not be acceptable given the users patience and the convenience to them of not needing to manage second tier offloading.

- For non-time sensitive data activities that infrequently exceeds the 4GB buffer, impact of the HDD lag would of course be negligible.

However, for the broader consumer base, data needs are commonly non-time sensitive and infrequently exceed the buffer space. Therefore, the Fusion Drive runs consistently at near SSD speeds. And of course, it's this broad base that does not want to be burdened with manual data tiering.

For a system operated under light load, light data activity, it's likely that user would consistently experience at-SSD speed of the Fusion Drive. Because the data tieering would be taking place during the ample system idle time with no impact to the user's experience.

And before anyone pulls a "young fella" card on me...LOL!...I've done extensive Fusion Drive testing and experimenting over the past two years. Using external and internal, mass storage and solid state devices of a variety of types including SD cards and Memory sticks. From TB to FW interfaces. I've even posted feedback along the way here on MR if you do a search.

 

[aevan]

No, far from it, it is not a marketing gimmick. It's an algorithmic technology that has been in use for some time now. Apple is the

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. It was a pleasure to read - and it matches my experience. My workflow consists of working in Photoshop (large files with lots of pixels and layers) and Zbrush, opening a lot of image files, browsing through my large Evernote library and websites in Stache while running a standard complement of iTunes, Safari, Messages and several other apps. It's probably not super-demanding stuff, but it's far from a casual surf/email situation also. For this workload I don't see much difference (if any) compared to the same thing when I'm on my MacBook Pro, away from my desk. In comparison, running things from my previous HDD-only Mac was much, much slower. While I could get all the work done there as well (and I loved that computer!) - this is a much faster experience.

 

[gnasher729]

It's important to keep a backup drive, because if one component of the fusion drive fails (either the SSD or the HDD), the NEITHER DRIVE can be accessed.

It's _always_ important to keep a backup drive, because if any hard drive fails, it cannot be accessed. (Plus Time Machine saves your back if you delete files by accident, or if your computer gets stolen).

 

[cynics]

I feel people overrate their "need for speed" and/or those with that need for speed blindly assume everyone has the same usage as theirs.

I see it at work daily. "Dude you need and SSD, and i7 and x amount of RAM blah blah" then watch them click away on Facebook and Tweet about how fast their Mac is hours on end. Only time they benefit from the speed increase is when running their precious benchmarks for bragging rights.

I have a friend that bought into the whole Mac needing an SSD now he has a tiny SDD (512gb) and external HDD thats causes him the occasional issue (unmounting). And he has NOTHING on his iMac that warrants an SSD especially since he ends up moving stuff from the SSD to the external HDD (movies). Only thing he can brag about is boot time which he does only when the power goes out (never) and during OS X updates (rarely ever lol).

For my usage the 3tb Fusion drive is a no brainer. I would take a 5tb fusion over a 1tb SSD given the same price point.

And thats what it comes down too, YOUR personal requirements and needs. Do you need the storage or speed? If money is no concern then just go with the 1tb SSD and get external SSD's for additional storage. If money is a concern then you need to ask yourself if you'll need more storage then the SSD you can afford offers.

 

[AppleFan360]

And thats what it comes down too, YOUR personal requirements and needs. Do you need the storage or speed? If money is no concern then just go with the 1tb SSD and get external SSD's for additional storage. If money is a concern then you need to ask yourself if you'll need more storage then the SSD you can afford offers.

Well said. Many (especially here on MacRumors) don't understand that reasoning.

 

[Cape Dave]

Spinners are antiques. If you can possibly afford it, get pure SSD inside you computer.

If you are still in love with spinners then get 1000 external spinners and enjoy them.

Why add a mechanical part, and a damn complex one at that, which just gives another possible reason for having to ship your beloved imac away to the shop to replace what is already an antique computer part.

Heat producing noise producing antique part at that.

With capacities increasing exponentially, spinners will soon be just a piece of dust in the rear view mirror of tech.

I feel incredibly strongly about this and I realize that I do not mince words. But I feel if I can somehow get even one person to see the light, I have done my job.

The incredible experience of actually using a pure SSD machine will convince anyone. It is like Broadband compared to dialup. No one on this earth has ever said bring back dialup because it is cheaper.

Yes, I know some still have dialup because they cannot get anything else. I say that they have never experienced the Internet at all and should move.

SSD is simply a better overall computing experience. I can be operating in a program (and a real piggish one at that, like Outlook or Photoshop) before another user even sees their desktop. About 12 seconds as I recall.

 

[Alesc]

I've stop reading when it comes to heat and noise... Usual BS about Fusion Drive... When you criticise something, that's better to have at least tried it 10 seconds...

 

[aevan]

The incredible experience of actually using a pure SSD machine will convince anyone. It is like Broadband compared to dialup. No one on this earth has ever said bring back dialup because it is cheaper.

The incredible experience of actually using a pure SSD + external HDDs is almost identical to an incredible experience of actually using a Fusion Drive. I have experience with both, and as you can see, so do many others on this forum. Marzer explained it very nicely. I'm sorry, but you haven't been reading a thing that has been said here. No one is comparing HDDs (or spinners as you call them) to SSDs. We're talking about Fusion Drive. To use your analogy, SSDs are 100Mbps broadband, FD is 90Mbps broadband and HDDs are dial-up.

And, agreed with Alesc. Heat and noise argument is just getting stale, guys. Even if you could argue about the noise part (I personally never hear my FD, but ok, maybe you have some super-hearing), the heat argument is completely BS because it is objectively measurable and the difference is a few degrees celsius max.

For me, it is quite obvious what's going on. There are a bunch of people with specs in their signatures on this forum. For them it's obviously not about real-world usage, it's about numbers and prestige.

 

[AppleFan360]

I feel incredibly strongly about this and I realize that I do not mince words. But I feel if I can somehow get even one person to see the light, I have done my job.

Nobody is arguing that a pure SSD system isn't the best experience, but, at least at this point, SSD's are still not a good value for the amount of storage space you get vs how much they cost. You can feel as strongly as want about it but you can't spend someone else's money. The Fusion drive is an excellent bridge for now but there is no doubt that pure SSD systems will be standard in the near future. Then you can start harping about nano storage or whatever comes along next.

 

[cynics]

Spinners are antiques. If you can possibly afford it, get pure SSD inside you computer.

If you are still in love with spinners then get 1000 external spinners and enjoy them.

Why add a mechanical part, and a damn complex one at that, which just gives another possible reason for having to ship your beloved imac away to the shop to replace what is already an antique computer part.

Heat producing noise producing antique part at that.

With capacities increasing exponentially, spinners will soon be just a piece of dust in the rear view mirror of tech.

I feel incredibly strongly about this and I realize that I do not mince words. But I feel if I can somehow get even one person to see the light, I have done my job.

The incredible experience of actually using a pure SSD machine will convince anyone. It is like Broadband compared to dialup. No one on this earth has ever said bring back dialup because it is cheaper.

Yes, I know some still have dialup because they cannot get anything else. I say that they have never experienced the Internet at all and should move.

SSD is simply a better overall computing experience. I can be operating in a program (and a real piggish one at that, like Outlook or Photoshop) before another user even sees their desktop. About 12 seconds as I recall.

I don't think anyone is arguing that an SSD isn't better in terms of tech. However like your dial up vs broadband analogy there was a time that broadband was restricted too business or people that were incredibly wealthy. AOL, CompuServe, local dial up services for 10-20 bucks vs T1/T3 lines for 100-200+ bucks + incredibly high installation rates.

The value just wasn't there for your average person that just wanted access to the internet nor was the internet virtually dependent on it. Although not to the same extreme SSD's are similar.

Noise and heat are moot points IMO. Most drives in iMac's I've heard are quieter then the fan at idle. And temps within the drive are similar to the LCD proximity which shouldn't be a concern for anyone.

Mechanical drives will be around until SSD's prices drop. Which I, like you, hope is sooner then later. But until they do we'll be seeing them for awhile.

You are forgetting the main purpose of these drives. When you are selecting the type of storage you want from Apples website the main purpose is storage. If you can afford a 1tb SSD and don't need anymore storage then by all means have at it.

My only gripe with the fusion drive is that I believe if it didnt exist Apples SSD prices would be more affordable. There would be too large of a gap between HDD and SSD thus dropping SSD prices a bit. The FD was a perfect in between option. However SSD's even in the wild aren't exactly cheap either.

 

[Alesc]

And those who criticise Fusion Drive for the noise or the speed and recommand 100$ external drives for datas are really funny people... These external drives will be slow and will make much more noise than an iMac with Fusion Drive.

If you want silent and fast external storage, it will cost you a lot more than the Fusion Drive option for the same counts of GB...

 

[matreya]

My issue with Fusion drives is that Apple use Seagate drives, and quite frankly I wouldn't trust a Seagate drive as a drive to last several years inside a Mac which is very difficult to upgrade.

 

[yjchua95]

And those who criticise Fusion Drive for the noise or the speed and recommand 100$ external drives for datas are really funny people... These external drives will be slow and will make much more noise than an iMac with Fusion Drive.

If you want silent and fast external storage, it will cost you a lot more than the Fusion Drive option for the same counts of GB...

Better to have the spinner fail externally than internally.

And the best part about external storage is that if you have more than one Mac (most people I know do), you can access your data from any Mac you want. Just stick in the external and off you go.