Why the Hate for Fusion Drives?

[varian55zx]

I am not sure what you are ding to your hard drives. Spinning drives are still viable technology. Statically, they are not much more prone to breakdown than most other major components in a computer system (PSU, CPU, Mobo). Anecdotally, the only drive I have ever had fail on me dropped from a bed to a concrete floor and probably was smashed internally. I am at work now, surround by ancient drives. IDE drives that have run 24/7 for years, most likely over ten years given the connector, without issue. Hard drives that are eight and nine years old are still in use at home.

But the idea is SSDs have rendered HDDs obsolete in literally all facets, the only issue is the cost/gb is too high so HDDs remain in use, in my opinion because these companies want to ride the SSD train for as long as possible, while still profiting from hard drive sales as well.

I don't blame them. I'd just like to see 1tb SSDs in every computer, but I'm the consumer. Of course I want to see that.

As for breaking I believe HDDs are more prone to breakage there are moving parts, and they all have a lifespan. I can also cite many anecdotal incidents of both external and internal HDDs failing, sometimes after rather short
periods of time. Give the HDDs to the dog as far as I'm concerned.

 

[makrom]

But the idea is SSDs have rendered HDDs obsolete in literally all facets, the only issue is the cost/gb is too high so HDDs remain in use, in my opinion because these companies want to ride the SSD train for as long as possible, while still profiting from hard drive sales as well.

I don't blame them. I'd just like to see 1tb SSDs in every computer, but I'm the consumer. Of course I want to see that.

As for breaking I believe HDDs are more prone to breakage there are moving parts, and they all have a lifespan. I can also cite many anecdotal incidents of both external and internal HDDs failing, sometimes after rather short
periods of time. Give the HDDs to the dog as far as I'm concerned.

If cost wouldn't be a relevant issues, iMacs would be completely different. It's not that they have the most stingy component selection, but cost is always an issue, no matter what. And as it stands today, even at iMac pricing, it just wouldn't be economically feasible to equip a computer with 3TB of SSD storage. Sure, technically it's possible, but I imagine that only a minority would be willing to spend more than 1/3 of their budget on internal storage.
As for lifespans, the latest studies I have seen give SSDs an advantage, but a rather modest one. A key factor is that with SSDs, a lot of failures are attributed to controllers rather than memory chips. But for normal consumers who don't want to spend a fortune on replacing a controller, the effect is just the same. There is only one feasible answer, regardless of SSD or HDD: backups. Thinking you won't need them since you are using an SSD is a ridiculous illusion.
I too have lost several HDDs, but there are huge differences for failure rates between models and manufacturers. And just last year, I had a 960GB SSD die on me after like 1 year of light and non-abusive usage.

 

[DoNoHarm]

If cost wouldn't be a relevant issues, iMacs would be completely different. It's not that they have the most stingy component selection, but cost is always an issue, no matter what. And as it stands today, even at iMac pricing, it just wouldn't be economically feasible to equip a computer with 3TB of SSD storage. Sure, technically it's possible, but I imagine that only a minority would be willing to spend more than 1/3 of their budget on internal storage.
As for lifespans, the latest studies I have seen give SSDs an advantage, but a rather modest one. A key factor is that with SSDs, a lot of failures are attributed to controllers rather than memory chips. But for normal consumers who don't want to spend a fortune on replacing a controller, the effect is just the same. There is only one feasible answer, regardless of SSD or HDD: backups. Thinking you won't need them since you are using an SSD is a ridiculous illusion.
I too have lost several HDDs, but there are huge differences for failure rates between models and manufacturers. And just last year, I had a 960GB SSD die on me after like 1 year of light and non-abusive usage.

I think the pricing on iMacs is not driven by cost alone. You and I can buy a 1TB SSD drive for $250. That means Apple can get it for $100. The fact that they didn't install a door next to the ram door where we can replace the SSD (and maybe why they got rid of the magnetic screen) is 100% related to profit.

 

[makrom]

I think the pricing on iMacs is not driven by cost alone.

Of course there are other factors. Everyone knows that Apple's ~30% profit ratio doesn't come out of thin air.

You and I can buy a 1TB SSD drive for $250. That means Apple can get it for $100.

This is rather unlikely though. While they won't be paying MSRP, 1TB fast NAND for $100 would be extremely cheap, I haven't seen such figures anywhere.

The fact that they didn't install a door next to the ram door where we can replace the SSD (and maybe why they got rid of the magnetic screen) is 100% related to profit.

I wasn't arguing that they aren't overcharging for storage upgrades. But there's absolutely no point in discussing whether Apple will be turned into an NPO since this won't happen. They will make iMacs as long as the profits are right, otherwise, they'll just scrap them. And as a profit driven company, they won't be selling barebone iMacs for $1000 or 3TB SSD for $300, $600 or whatever. Even if they would be willing to lower their profit margins, a 3TB SSD iMac would cost a lot. NAND purchase pricing times Apple profit ratio make for a price tag that wouldn't be worth it for many people.
As it is, there' s simply no business case for Apple to offer 3TB SSD models, unless they'll charge a lot for it.

 

[varian55zx]

I just wanted to post this up in the thread because it is relevant to the discussion. This is specifically for the Fusion haters out there (who of course have never tried it), who are using pure SSD on a pre- late 2015 iMac.

http://barefeats.com/imac5k12.html

This is the benchmark test that hasn't been mentioned yet. It's literally faster. The new fusion drive blows your pure SSD away, embarrassingly, in terms of read speeds, and beats it in one test in write speeds and barely loses in the other, by a completely negligible amount. Don't kid yourself, it's fast. Not only that, you can see how it compares to the current SSD in these tests. It holds its own. It really holds its own. Everyday as I benefit from the great speed of my 2tb fd, I reflect on the fact that I made the right choice compared to the puny SSD options. The fact is while no longer a newer technology (really at all), SSD is still REDICULOUSLY overpriced to the point that it isn't even feasible to get for a good portion of users, like myself, who need/prefer/ are used to internal storage. It's ridiculous how overpriced it is.

 

[makrom]

I just wanted to post this up in the thread because it is relevant to the discussion. This is specifically for the Fusion haters out there (who of course have never tried it), who are using pure SSD on a pre- late 2015 iMac.

http://barefeats.com/imac5k12.html

This is the benchmark test that hasn't been mentioned yet. It's literally faster. The new fusion drive blows your pure SSD away, embarrassingly, in terms of read speeds, and beats it in one test in write speeds and barely loses in the other, by a completely negligible amount. Don't kid yourself, it's fast. Not only that, you can see how it compares to the current SSD in these tests. It holds its own. It really holds its own. Everyday as I benefit from the great speed of my 2tb fd, I reflect on the fact that I made the right choice compared to the puny SSD options. The fact is while no longer a newer technology (really at all), SSD is still REDICULOUSLY overpriced to the point that it isn't even feasible to get for a good portion of users, like myself, who need/prefer/ are used to internal storage. It's ridiculous how overpriced it is.

I am generally favourable towards FDs, but I don't think this test is that meaningful. It looks like their testing scenario happened to mostly address the SSD part of the FD, and unsurprisingly, the 2015 PCIE FD SSD is quite fast. Other tests have shown that the current 5k SSDs all have very fast read speeds (>1500MB/s), while write speeds seem to be quite a bit better for the bigger ones.
Once your Mac is fuller with frequently used files and you are copying huge media files, it will be significantly slower than these graphs suggest. The main question for any buyer should rather be whether this is a realistic scenario or not.

 

[cynics]

I'm reading through here and notice a lot of people use an SSD for their commonly used apps and an external HDD for media.

Isn't that essentially what a FD is but built in?

To me the FD seems like a perfect solution to two types of people. The people that need more than 1tb and the people that DONT need a lot of storage.

SSD seems like a very limiting option for me in an AIO. In a desktop where you can easy add and remove SSDs seems to make more sense (to me).

That said I haven't decided what to do with my next iMac. I need more then 1tb so I might get a 1tb SSD and utilize my NAS (which can be cumbersome) or just get a 3tb fusion.

 

[DoNoHarm]

Has anyone here actually tried replacing the screen on their iMac? Looking at the instructions on ifixit, replacing the sticky tape on the screen doesn't really look like it's that big of a deal. I mean, it's tape guys, not radioactive material... My thought is that for those who "need" the extra SSD, why not just buy some SSD media to replace the 128GB part of the fusion drive and install it along with the spinning HD and have a 1TB SSD + 5TB fusion drive? To me that sounds like a huge advantage over the SSD only option.

 

[varian55zx]

Once your Mac is fuller with frequently used files and you are copying huge media files, it will be significantly slower than these graphs suggest. The main question for any buyer should rather be whether this is a realistic scenario or not.

Well sure, is it realistic? Maybe. Is it idealistic? Probably, but these tests are always held in ideal scenarios for the machines, not just this one. Look the point is the new FD beats the hell out of even just last gen's SSD, and you know there are the types in here who have the older SSD, that say how bad the FD is. Well the FD isn't bad at all, is it.

I also opted for the 2tb fusion with my Mac and I'm just using this for leisure time stuff, I don't edit picture or videos, or game, but I doubt I'll be filling it up anytime soon as my previous drive was smaller than this one on my older iMac, and my rMBP has smaller storage as well. In addition to that, I have many tb's of external storage as well.

 

[maflynn]

I am generally favourable towards FDs, but I don't think this test is that meaningful. It looks like their testing scenario happened to mostly address the SSD part of the FD, and unsurprisingly, the 2015 PCIE FD SSD is quite fast. Other tests have shown that the current 5k SSDs all have very fast read speeds (>1500MB/s), while write speeds seem to be quite a bit better for the bigger ones.
Once your Mac is fuller with frequently used files and you are copying huge media files, it will be significantly slower than these graphs suggest. The main question for any buyer should rather be whether this is a realistic scenario or not.

If you fill up the drive, the weakness of the Fusion drive will certainly be more evident but I think if you use the fusion drive and not fill it up, the system will effectively manage the files, putting the oft used files on to the flash storage, thus making your normal typical tasks much faster.

I can't really speak for anyone but I believe usage cases are such that people work on very specific tasks, for periods of time, and the Fusion drive will help. They also then move on to surfing, emails, and other activities that don't really see any benefit of an SSD. Its only those people who work on high volume of large files (those who do video or photography, or sound) will see the weakness in the Fusion drive, but given their specific needs, they already know that the SSD is a better choice then the Fusion drive.

I've made some assumptions on my augment based on my opinion, which I could be wrong, but its my belief that for normal consumer type usage (that excludes the professional stuff noted above) we'll not really notice a performance degradation over time, because files won't stay on the hard drive but get moved to the SSD as needed. A full hard drive will certainly impact that as I noted, but but I wonder how difficult it will be for a consumer to fill up a 2 terabyte drive.

 

[cube]

deleted

 

[garysauctions]

You and I can buy a 1TB SSD drive for $250. That means Apple can get it for $100.

Wouldn't it be cool if that were even close to being true.

Try placing an order for 20,000 units from the manufacturer and see what the price break is ..... I know an organization that did and it's nowhere near what you think.

Oh and that $250 1TB SSD you speak of, make sure it is brand new and not a second or refurb unit. .... I wouldn't recommend them in an Enterprise environment!


.

 

[DoNoHarm]

Wouldn't it be cool if that were even close to being true.

Try placing an order for 20,000 units from the manufacturer and see what the price break is ..... I know an organization that did and it's nowhere near what you think.

Oh and that $250 1TB SSD you speak of, make sure it is brand new and not a second or refurb unit. .... I wouldn't recommend them in an Enterprise environment!


.

http://www.amazon.com/Mushkin-MKNSSDRE1TB-Reactor-SATA-2-5inch/dp/B00PAFJJRA/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1456662277&sr=1-2&keywords=ssd&refinements=p_n_feature_three_browse-bin:6797521011

Sorry, you were saying? $253.99 as of posting...

EDIT: Here's some more info regarding margins (40.1%) which typically include cost of advertising, assembly, keeping the lights on and cleaning the floors in the stores, etc.

http://www.apple.com/ca/pr/library/2016/01/26Apple-Reports-Record-First-Quarter-Results.html

 

[garysauctions]

http://www.amazon.com/Mushkin-MKNSSDRE1TB-Reactor-SATA-2-5inch/dp/B00PAFJJRA/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1456662277&sr=1-2&keywords=ssd&refinements=p_n_feature_three_browse-bin:6797521011

Sorry, you were saying? $253.99 as of posting...

EDIT: Here's some more info regarding margins (40.1%) which typically include cost of advertising, assembly, keeping the lights on and cleaning the floors in the stores, etc.

http://www.apple.com/ca/pr/library/2016/01/26Apple-Reports-Record-First-Quarter-Results.html

Sorry, you were saying that Apple gets them for $100 per unit.

I was saying try ordering 20,000 units and see what the price break is.

It's not nearly what you might think it might be.

Ask that Amazon seller what the cost would be on a 20,000 unit order.

It is a shame that Apple is making a profit off of its customers, companies should not be allowed to do that ..... they should sell product at cost ..... right?


.

 

[cynics]

http://www.amazon.com/Mushkin-MKNSSDRE1TB-Reactor-SATA-2-5inch/dp/B00PAFJJRA/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1456662277&sr=1-2&keywords=ssd&refinements=p_n_feature_three_browse-bin:6797521011

Sorry, you were saying? $253.99 as of posting...

EDIT: Here's some more info regarding margins (40.1%) which typically include cost of advertising, assembly, keeping the lights on and cleaning the floors in the stores, etc.

http://www.apple.com/ca/pr/library/2016/01/26Apple-Reports-Record-First-Quarter-Results.html

Wouldn't this be a little more accurate?

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SM951...768&sr=8-2-spons&keywords=Samsung+SM951&psc=1

Except obviously compatible with a Mac and 1tb (512gb linked) which would easily double or triple its cost for a consumer to purchase...

$343 for 512gb at time of posting.

 

[DoNoHarm]

Sorry, you were saying that Apple gets them for $100 per unit.

I was saying try ordering 20,000 units and see what the price break is.

It's not nearly what you might think it might be.

Ask that Amazon seller what the cost would be on a 20,000 unit order.

It is a shame that Apple is making a profit off of its customers, companies should not be allowed to do that ..... they should sell product at cost ..... right?


.

If you apply Apple's publicly disclosed margins to a $250 component, you get precisely $100 for a $250 part. And no, I'm not the one saying they should sell products at cost. In fact, I think you're the one suggesting they're somehow acting like a charity and selling their products at cost. If you have data that suggest otherwise, I'd genuinely be curious to see.

Wouldn't this be a little more accurate?

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SM951...768&sr=8-2-spons&keywords=Samsung+SM951&psc=1

Except obviously compatible with a Mac and 1tb (512gb linked) which would easily double or triple its cost for a consumer to purchase...

$343 for 512gb at time of posting.

The retail cost for you and me of that particular component is likely driven by supply and demand. Apple is going to go by wholesale costs. Since the fusion drive is slower than the $250 SSD while still fitting in the iMac, it does not make sense for Apple to replace it with a drive that somehow costs Apple more than the standard SSD architecture while also providing slower performance.

 

[garysauctions]

If you apply Apple's publicly disclosed margins to a $250 component, you get precisely $100 for a $250 part.

According to the information you provided, Apple has a GROSS profit margin somewhere between 39 and 39.5%.

I am sure that if they got 40.1% they and their stock holders would be ecstatic.

What does that bring a $250.00 down to?

If the margin was 50%, that would get it down to $125.00.

But like I was saying ..... it you want near Apple cost pricing, place an order for 20,000 units!

Then you can resell 19,999 units and make $$$$$$$$$$

 

[DoNoHarm]

According to the information you provided, Apple has a GROSS profit margin somewhere between 39 and 39.5%.

I am sure that if they got 40.1% they and their stock holders would be ecstatic.

What does that bring a $250.00 down to?

If the margin was 50%, that would get it down to $125.00.

But like I was saying ..... it you want near Apple cost pricing, place an order for 20,000 units!

Then you can resell 19,999 units and make $$$$$$$$$$

Agreed!

 

[cynics]

The retail cost for you and me of that particular component is likely driven by supply and demand. Apple is going to go by wholesale costs. Since the fusion drive is slower than the $250 SSD while still fitting in the iMac, it does not make sense for Apple to replace it with a drive that somehow costs Apple more than the standard SSD architecture while also providing slower performance.

As someone that buys wholesale, supply and demand is just a relevant as it is to an average consumer if not more so.

The SSD portion of a FD is not slower then a 250 dollar 1tb SSD. The tech you listed is no longer relevant.

Also it does not cost more. 128gb PCIe NVMe SSD + 2tb HDD (fusion drive) is less expensive then a 1tb PCIe NVMe SSD.

The point of my post was its difficult for you (as a consumer) to buy the tech Apple is using in 1tb. And if you could it would be as expensive if not more so then what they are charging.

I'm not disputing that Apple has a mark up added in because they can obtain the hardware cheaper then you and I could. But using a Generic SATA SSD from Amazon that is literally 3 times slower then what Apple is using is only supporting your argument, not reality....

 

[marzer]

Since the fusion drive is slower than the $250 SSD while still fitting in the iMac, it does not make sense for Apple to replace it with a drive that somehow costs Apple more than the standard SSD architecture while also providing slower performance.

I think you are under the impression Apple still uses conventional SSD. That is not the case. The latest Apple computers and laptops, including Fusion drive configurations, use the latest high-speed PCIe solid state cards.

 

[jmoore5196]

I don't 'dislike' Fusion drives; I save my 'dislike' for animate objects like people and noisy cats.

I do not like trusting my data to a spinning hard drive. As Fa8362 noted, drive failure will probably change the way you feel about the evolutional technology involved. Using internal drives for software is sage wisdom.

I have 512GB SSDs in my iMac, MBP and MBA. I have four spinning (7200rpm) drives with TM backups and critical data backed up across all four. I also use Dropbox and iCloud. I'll grant there's still a slim possibility a meteor or earthquake might take out all my data, but barring that sort of event (when I'll have bigger problems than lost data anyway) I think I'm relatively secure.

 

[Airmaxone]

I plan to buy an imac this year. I'm thinking of buying the 21.5 retina imac. I was watching videos on youtube about the imac retina. There was one guy who recommended upgrading to a fusion drive. Is it really worth it?

 

[varian55zx]

I plan to buy an imac this year. I'm thinking of buying the 21.5 retina imac. I was watching videos on youtube about the imac retina. There was one guy who recommended upgrading to a fusion drive. Is it really worth it?

If you're buying a new Mac you have to get it with an SSD or fusion drive. You have to. I just went through this whole buying process but I settled on the retina 5K 27 inch iMac. You have to get an SSD or fusion. Before any other single component, decide on which storage option is better for you, and go from there in terms of processor, or anything else.

Personally I'd recommend the 5K iMac 27 inch. Have you looked into that? Not only is it better than the 21.5 in nearly every way, once you factor in the cost of a 2tb fusion on the 21.5, the prices are essentially the same. The screen size is also much, much better. I've used both and the 27 is truly much, much better. Good luck

 

[makrom]

Well sure, is it realistic? Maybe. Is it idealistic? Probably, but these tests are always held in ideal scenarios for the machines, not just this one. Look the point is the new FD beats the hell out of even just last gen's SSD, and you know there are the types in here who have the older SSD, that say how bad the FD is. Well the FD isn't bad at all, is it.

The only thing this test shows is that the 2015 5k SSDs are significantly faster than previous ones. This is quite well known, FDs basically use regular SSDs. If you never exceed ~128GB, a current gen FD would be significantly faster than any previous SSD.
But then again, I don't think anyone even tried to argue that.
[doublepost=1456710641][/doublepost]

I plan to buy an imac this year. I'm thinking of buying the 21.5 retina imac. I was watching videos on youtube about the imac retina. There was one guy who recommended upgrading to a fusion drive. Is it really worth it?

Yes, absolutely. If there's one upgrade everyone should get, it's this one. The 21.5" models have excruciatingly slow HDDs and even though the SSD of the FD only has 24GB, it helps a lot.
[doublepost=1456710876][/doublepost]

I don't 'dislike' Fusion drives; I save my 'dislike' for animate objects like people and noisy cats.

I do not like trusting my data to a spinning hard drive. As Fa8362 noted, drive failure will probably change the way you feel about the evolutional technology involved. Using internal drives for software is sage wisdom.

I have 512GB SSDs in my iMac, MBP and MBA. I have four spinning (7200rpm) drives with TM backups and critical data backed up across all four. I also use Dropbox and iCloud. I'll grant there's still a slim possibility a meteor or earthquake might take out all my data, but barring that sort of event (when I'll have bigger problems than lost data anyway) I think I'm relatively secure.

You should neither trust your data to a HDD or SSD. Neither has a big risk of losing data on it and from what current statistics imply, neither is much better at it than the other one. Just do backups and you are done, this can't be circumvented by picking SSD over HDD.
[doublepost=1456711235][/doublepost]

If you fill up the drive, the weakness of the Fusion drive will certainly be more evident but I think if you use the fusion drive and not fill it up, the system will effectively manage the files, putting the oft used files on to the flash storage, thus making your normal typical tasks much faster.

I can't really speak for anyone but I believe usage cases are such that people work on very specific tasks, for periods of time, and the Fusion drive will help. They also then move on to surfing, emails, and other activities that don't really see any benefit of an SSD. Its only those people who work on high volume of large files (those who do video or photography, or sound) will see the weakness in the Fusion drive, but given their specific needs, they already know that the SSD is a better choice then the Fusion drive.

I've made some assumptions on my augment based on my opinion, which I could be wrong, but its my belief that for normal consumer type usage (that excludes the professional stuff noted above) we'll not really notice a performance degradation over time, because files won't stay on the hard drive but get moved to the SSD as needed. A full hard drive will certainly impact that as I noted, but but I wonder how difficult it will be for a consumer to fill up a 2 terabyte drive.

Obviously you are right that the significance of the disadvantage of FDs over SSDs largely depends on the usage scenario. I can think of several other realistic scenarios where the difference becomes more relevant, but I generally agree that most people wouldn't notice a big difference between FD and SSD with their usage profile.

 

[varian55zx]

but I generally agree that most people wouldn't notice a big difference between FD and SSD with their usage profile.

Exactly. Unless you're someone who's constantly editing/using many extremely large files, you're not going to notice. I have pure SSD on my rMBP and the fusion on iMac and it's basically the same thing. No regrets at all buying the fusion.