Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Hey all, Firstly, does anyone know of performance comparisons for iMacs running a Fusion Drive vs an

  • 2. upgrade to Vega 48 and 3tb fusion, hope for the best.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4. upgrade to vega 48 and 3tb fusion, AND (while not so aesthetically pleasing) continue with my ext

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5

Escape_Artist

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 19, 2017
9
8
Hey all,
Firstly, does anyone know of performance comparisons for iMacs running a Fusion Drive vs an SSD in terms of numbers? Everything I've read says that an SSD is faster (of course it is), but I haven't found any numbers to give it scale.

Context: I'm upgrading soon (mid-2011 iMac, 32gb ram, boot from 1tb ssd) and I'm unsure of whether the Vega 48 or an SSD is more important. I hate the idea of paying triple the cost for an SSD I could install myself (and end my warranty), but I don't want to go from SSD to fusion and see a downturn in performance. I'd also rather not continue to boot from an external SSD if possible (aesthetic vanity I guess), even though I already have it ready to go.

Bottom line, If an SSD is a more valuable upgrade than the Vega, I'll have to go that way. BTW, I'm primarily a designer/illustrator (Adobe suite) with some video editing (After FX, Premiere) and perhaps AR.

My poll includes the options I see as viable, comment if you can see a better way.

TBH, I'm leaning toward #4 with a side of #5
Thanks all!
 

jerwin

Suspended
Jun 13, 2015
2,895
4,652
What interface are you using to connect the SSD now?

(USB, thunderbolt etc)
 

Escape_Artist

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 19, 2017
9
8
What interface are you using to connect the SSD now?

(USB, thunderbolt etc)
USB, and for a 2011 machine, it's doing the job really well. I know a USBC SSD would be ideal for the new machines, but if I already have this one on hand...
 

mikehalloran

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2018
2,239
666
The Sillie Con Valley
It
Depends
on
How
You
Use
It

Really, it does. Out of context, there are no raw numbers to compare. If you do tasks with small files, they should be the same. If working on files larger than the free space on the SSD (which you'll never really know unless the files are huge), performance will range somewhere between "slower" to "goodgawd, I haven't got all frickin' week". Because of the algorithms, you just can't predict that — unless using a DAW with VIs or working in AV, then yes you can.

I know, you want some little graph to make up your mind for you. It ain't that simple. You need to research what others who have the same needs as you are doing.

Silly surveys ain't gonna get you there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trsblader

Escape_Artist

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 19, 2017
9
8
I know, you want some little graph to make up your mind for you. It ain't that simple. You need to research what others who have the same needs as you are doing.

Silly surveys ain't gonna get you there.
I appreciate that it's variable and doesn't fit neatly into a box for users of all types, that's why I included my uses in the post. I threw it out there hoping that the community might include a member with similar needs who's been down this road and would have some real insight, and not just wave me away as a silly noob all the way from the 'Sillie Con Valley'.
But thanks for flexing :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: drewaz

Escape_Artist

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 19, 2017
9
8
When I had a late 2013 27" i7, ran two identical external SSDs for backups, one connected via Thunderbolt 1 and the second via USB3. TB was faster booting, however a SuperDuper SmartCopy backup ran just on identical times, to within a second!
Interesting that the backup was the same speed, perhaps the reason is software rather than hardware. Hmmm. Thanks for the input!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.