I seriously do not get this mini quad frame design that's like H and X mixed.. It's just the arm configuration, it makes no sense to me at all. In fact, an X quad actually uses more material on the arms than a H quad if you draw it on paper. That's just more frame weight and longer arms (more weight and easier to break).

I can totally see it being a marketing ploy. All the winners race X, but if you want the convenience of a larger center-space here's a "Fusion". 
Here's an exercise to illustrate my point. Take the Fusion, and just adjust it's connection point to the center-frame up and down the frame. Now you have shorter arms and the motor configuration is exactly the same.

It's the silliest hype train of the past year. A true X frame vs an H-X frame has a few differences though.

The impact strength of the frame comes from the ability of the arms to displace their shocks through contact on two opposing arms. If the design is optimized for this you can run very thin 4mm arms and rarely have an arm break at a fairly long arm length.

The potential for additional mass is high, but if you design it as such your hardware can be minimized. In the same vein an H-X frame loses that (the right of your image). In addition, the center frame section is subjected to torsion, with thinner plates (not t ypically thicker than 4mm). A true-x style center binds the arms through double sheer and also adds considerable thickness to the center section, which is lost with the H-X design. There are a lot of nuances here, but ultimately it comes down to what you want to fly, your personal beliefs and what you enjoy. Look at the automotive world. There are plenty of variations, different motor positions, construction approaches and they are all viable.

Regardless the body, X arms and H arms does make a difference though. Its got to do with weight and rigidity.

Most H style frames have to run two base plates on either side of the arms to be strong enough, all of that extra carbon and hardware adds weight. Most X frames are also more rigid than the equivalent H frame as all of the arms are in contact with each other and are generally all sandwiched between two plates right in the middle.

But Even if weight might be higher, the mass gets more centralized, which makes a significant difference to flight characteristics. Take the formula for moment of inertia. I = m * r^2 radius being squared to the mass means that even a small move towards the center of rotation significantly reduces the rotational inertia. So even if there is slightly more mass on an X frame with a longer center pod, most of the additional mass is closer to the center.

Allows for shorter "body" which can help so mostly arms get the beating at crashes
Shorter path for cables make up for some weight at the same time as shorter cable can be thinner carrying the same currents and also creating less inductance
Can have less screws as arms help lock on each other
Maybe stiffness is not always the winner when it comes to crash resistance. Maybe longer arms give better flex? Depending completely on design though.


Just some spontaneous thoughts. That being said, I think my favorite frames the ones that are kind of a hybrid, with the center pod that is somewhere between the X pod frames, and the long center frame Xs. Best balance between handling and convenience.

"In fact, an X quad actually uses more material on the arms than a H quad if you draw it on paper. That's just more frame weight and longer arms (more weight and easier to break)."

---

Regarding weight, an H will need longer wires, so in the end it's probably not much of a difference.

I my H for its aerodynamics though...