Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 768GB Flash Storage $1300 club
- Thread starter animatedude
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
anyone here placed or going to place an order for an iMac with the 768GB flash storage?
my next purchase wether it's Mac mini or iMac, is going to be an all flash storage option.
please share your experiences here and spare us the whole "you can buy much cheaper SSD from amazon", some of us don't like to mess with equipments and rather pay a premium for Apple product/service.
I know it's not what you want to hear, but it really is a waste of money. You are literally paying the cost of another entry-level iMac/13" MacBook Pro for an SSD that will likely plummet in price in the next year or two. This is why Apple is putting in place the Fusion Drive options on its desktops and switching its laptops to SSD-only designs. Apple knows that SSDs are the future, but that they are otherwise too costly to be the present. I mean, it's your money, but geez man, that's a lot of money. It takes most people quite a while to earn $1300 that they can throw at a single computer upgrade, let alone a new computer.
Exactly! this is what so many high-end users don't understand about us.
In fact i think Apple should start considering an all SSD third standard option for $2999,i don't think i speak for myself when i say i rather pay for a computer and take it home right away instead for waiting on a BTO option to take weeks to ship.
I want to know their reason for not offering a 256 or at least 512 version. I would be damn happy with with a 256 solution. It works on laptops just fine
yeah exactly, a 250 or 512GB version for $400-600 would be common sense. It's clear with the fusion drive you can put in 1 ssd and 1 regular hdd, so why not offer those alternatives to the users, so they can have a 250GB pure ssd for performance/os related and a 1TB regular hdd for photos etc..
Apple can still add their price premium to the SSDs, they completely dropped the ball on the configuration instead we have a straight price jump from $250 to $1300
Whoever came up with this idiotic config options needs to be shown the door just like the map guy.I agree $1300 is an erratic gesture from Apple.
Considering that it is a "configured" system one would think Apple would have a few SSD options; 240G, 480G etc...
Many potential customers would like to experience SSD but don't really need the 768GB size - 240G & 480G would have been a great welcome at a somewhat affordable price.
Considering that it is a "configured" system one would think Apple would have a few SSD options; 240G, 480G etc...
Many potential customers would like to experience SSD but don't really need the 768GB size - 240G & 480G would have been a great welcome at a somewhat affordable price.
yeah exactly, a 250 or 512GB version for $400-600 would be common sense. It's clear with the fusion drive you can put in 1 ssd and 1 regular hdd, so why not offer those alternatives to the users, so they can have a 250GB pure ssd for performance/os related and a 1TB regular hdd for photos etc..
Apple can still add their price premium to the SSDs, they completely dropped the ball on the configuration instead we have a straight price jump from $250 to $1300
this is not the first time Apple makes weird configuration options on a big refresh,remember the SSD options on the Macbook Airs from 2010? usually they fix these configuration on the silent refreshes.
So yea...expect the 512 GB SSD option to pop up on next year refresh on both the Mac minis and iMac..
----------
on the magical all new thinner iMacs with all SSDs and Retina Display from 2015.
Richard, many valid points, but you miss some basic facts i believe:
1- Once you go with the Lacie option you don't only save money, but you also end up having more than 300gb+ more of flash storage (the fusion plus the full 1TB of the Lacie). That's way above 30% more flash storage for less money, this enough should be enough not to choose the Apple solution.
2- The Lacie option is very likely much faster than the Apple one, as it's a RAID setup. Benchmarks are already out there based on the MBPro Retina, and they speak clear.
3- I can't honestly see as something complicated to just have the OS, your apps and that's it installed on the Fusion, then forget it for the rest of your life. Maybe you won't use the 100% flash storage available in the fusion...but you have 256gb more that you can fill...you can even just not purchase the Fusion and leave the Apple stock drive completely empty: You'll still have more and faster storage for way less the money!
Net, no "rational" option can justify the Apple premium price. You are left with kind of "heart" feelings like "i love it this way, all integrated, i have the money and that's it". Which is valid and obviously very personal, but not justifiable with number-based facts.
Personally speaking, when knowing that i would have more storage, faster, for less of the money, i couldn't go into it without feeling stupid, same way i would if i purchased extra RAM from Apple.
Yep, and in the meantime all those with more money than sense jump on the most expensive upgrade. No point in confusing them with cheaper options; Apple is going to get their large margins while they can. This SSD will be a lot cheaper in the very near future...
I'm part of this club as well. It wasn't easy parting with the $1,300, but it will meet my needs. First, I need more flash storage than the Fusion drive provides (I open very large design files from my team and also want to keep my aperture library on the main drive. Second, I want to boot Windows 7 using bootcamp on the SSD (I do a little gaming and like the native bootcamp speeds, plus I need to double check some of my agency's web work in IE). Third, I didn't want to have to deal with a regular spinning HDD failure.
So, I figured, I'll partition 128GB more or less for Windows 7 and the rest for Mac OS. I have a Mac Mini Server that is hooked up to a 4-disk RAID array with my iTunes video content (movies and TV shows). And, for the rest of my files that I don't use that often, I will store them on my ReadyNAS Ultra. The 768GB SSD was the only option that made sense for me.
So, I figured, I'll partition 128GB more or less for Windows 7 and the rest for Mac OS. I have a Mac Mini Server that is hooked up to a 4-disk RAID array with my iTunes video content (movies and TV shows). And, for the rest of my files that I don't use that often, I will store them on my ReadyNAS Ultra. The 768GB SSD was the only option that made sense for me.
Sorry for repeating myself but it psychologically interests me: why haven't you decided that purchasing an external bigger, faster, cheaper SSD wasn't better?
No polemic intended, just interested in the rationale.
----------
The sum of this thread anyway i think is that we all should agree at just how Apple is great at marketing its products, at least for the time being.
For each of us there's something "crazy" that other users are doing, be it purchasing the SSD, an "overpriced" imac or whatever, but still each one of us fall in its own "honeytrap", and each one of us i believe is quite happy with what it's getting.
I think reality distortion field is still out for us all...and Apple keeps on piling the cash.
As long as we pay, they deserve it!
Here are the speeds of my DIY LaCie 1TB SSD "LittleBigDisk" Thunderbolt external disk (with a MacBook Pro host ... don't have my new iMac yet). Since it is a RAID-0 configuration, I expect it to be faster than the built-in blade SSD.
I also show a speed test of the 512GB blade-SSD in a 2012 MacBook Air which may be representative of what could be expected in the new iMac.
-howard
Left is LaCie ThunderBolt ----- Right is the MacBook Air blade-SSD
I also show a speed test of the 512GB blade-SSD in a 2012 MacBook Air which may be representative of what could be expected in the new iMac.
-howard
Left is LaCie ThunderBolt ----- Right is the MacBook Air blade-SSD
Attachments
Prices on the SSD marked are droping rapidly. Paying 1300 on this today already is to much, you´ll never make any of that money back two/three years from now.
Just get a normal version and have someone at a place that is alowed to open your iMac without voiding your warrenty build in a normal SSD... 250-500gb are already selling quiet cheap these days and you can just use your old 1TB data in an external harddrive for the data you don´t need to be able to access in a second 24/7.
I mean, if i was realy realy rich and money dident matter. Sure i would take it. But for a normal earning family man, no way.
Just get a normal version and have someone at a place that is alowed to open your iMac without voiding your warrenty build in a normal SSD... 250-500gb are already selling quiet cheap these days and you can just use your old 1TB data in an external harddrive for the data you don´t need to be able to access in a second 24/7.
I mean, if i was realy realy rich and money dident matter. Sure i would take it. But for a normal earning family man, no way.
Great question -- there are a few reasons. First, I hate the idea of having an external drive on my desk. I know it sounds superficial, but the iMac will sit on a very nice mahogany desk and I like to keep the desk free of clutter. So, it will just have a lamp, the mac, my phone, and a pair of Swan speakers. Second, bootcamp only works natively on internal drives and I don't feel like doing any of the tricks to get it on an external. Lastly, I simply don't want to manage an external drive. I simply just want to install my apps and data on my internal drive. Fusion does this for most people in an economical way, but I won't want to sacrifice performance since I need about 400GB for Mac OS + apps + data that I will be accessing constantly.
At the end of the day, I don't like paying $1,300 for the drive. But, it is exactly what I was looking for (I would have also settled for two internal SSDs, one 512GB and one 256GB). Trying to manage data another way, dealing with bootcamp on a partition on the regular HDD portion of the fusion setup, jumping through hoops to install on an external and having to either keep it always connected or having to connect it every time I want to use it, etc. was just not worth the savings.
I am another 'stupid' person who has 'wasted' their money on the 768gb SSD upgrade.
Why? Some of us have different priorities. I'm lucky enough to earn a good (but not massive) salary, but I work hard for it so my free-time is more precious. I like the idea of having a high-spec, all-in-one computer, but I don't have the time to fully research the feasibility and reliability of all the third-party options. Indeed, in the time I would otherwise 'waste' researching all the third-party options I can earn more than enough to pay Apple to fit my SSD.
Why does an SSD-only iMac appeal to me? Having had mechanical hard and optical drives fail on me in the past, I like the idea of having a solid state computer. I also want all of my Aperture library on a fast SSD drive. There is agreement that SSD is the way things are going, and I can have that now (albeit at a price). I desperately need something to replace my failing 2008 24 inch iMac, and I can't wait for Apple to charge more sensible prices for SSDs (but then will they ever do that?)
Whilst I am sure there are 'cheaper' ways to achieve what I want (whether an external Thunderbolt SSD or getting an authorised dealer to install a third-party SSD), it is more convenient, 'neater', safer AND MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE for ME to buy the whole package from Apple.
Why? Some of us have different priorities. I'm lucky enough to earn a good (but not massive) salary, but I work hard for it so my free-time is more precious. I like the idea of having a high-spec, all-in-one computer, but I don't have the time to fully research the feasibility and reliability of all the third-party options. Indeed, in the time I would otherwise 'waste' researching all the third-party options I can earn more than enough to pay Apple to fit my SSD.
Why does an SSD-only iMac appeal to me? Having had mechanical hard and optical drives fail on me in the past, I like the idea of having a solid state computer. I also want all of my Aperture library on a fast SSD drive. There is agreement that SSD is the way things are going, and I can have that now (albeit at a price). I desperately need something to replace my failing 2008 24 inch iMac, and I can't wait for Apple to charge more sensible prices for SSDs (but then will they ever do that?)
Whilst I am sure there are 'cheaper' ways to achieve what I want (whether an external Thunderbolt SSD or getting an authorised dealer to install a third-party SSD), it is more convenient, 'neater', safer AND MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE for ME to buy the whole package from Apple.
I'd be careful in assuming that moving to an SSD will get you away from disk failures. I had a PC laptop with a 256GB SSD that failed. When it does, there's a good chance nothing is recoverable, whereas a mechanical drive can have some small possibility of recover.
In reality, almost every recent study I've seen shows that SSD failure rates are approximately equivalent to those of mechanical drives, if perhaps very slightly worse.
You may be aware of this already, but the way you phrased that made it sound like you expected SSDs to be more reliable than their mechanical counterparts, and that's not really the case.
I was aware of the two different series of LaCie drives with different SATA bus speeds. I was already running a pair of 512GB M4 SSDs in RAID-0 in my aging 2008 Mac Pro to hold my OS X and large Aperture (300GB) library, so I had the expensive parts already.
I initially purchased a refurbished 1TB LaCie (dual 500GB 7200 drives) and replaced the disk drives with my SSDs. I then discovered on eBay that refurbished 2TB LaCie drives (dual 1TB 5400 drives) were available, and had the same part number as the new ones claiming to have SATA-III capability. When I received the larger one and replaced the hard disks with my SSDs, I was disappointed to get the same results as the previous enclosure.
I also tested both units with the hard disks installed, and the 2TB outperformed the 1TB unit, which I found surprising because of the rotational rpm of the disks. I expected the greater data density to up the speed, but the faster drives were 5400 rpm.
Hard Disks:
1TB LaCie --- 7200rpm --- 154w / 153r MBs
2TB LaCie --- 5400rpm --- 197w / 201r MBs
(note: switching enclosures did not change results, 2TB drives were always faster)
I did not break the RAID-0 to enable testing single disk speeds.
SSD:
Single --- 199w / 250r MB/s in either enclosure (either drive, non RAID)
RAID-0 --- 375w / 484r MB/s in either enclosure (both drives in RAID-0 for speed)
At this point, I am unsure if the enclosures are SATA-II or SATA-III bus.
SystemReport does not display the SATA bus link speed through the ThunderBolt interface.
The newer unit has the same part number as current SATA-III models, but because they were refurbished (look new), they could be older chipped models being dumped. (most likely)
Or, they could both be SATA-III chipped enclosures, because that is all they make these days.
Or, LaCie could be using SATA-III on SSD models, and SATA-II on hard disk models in current production.
Hopefully, someone will post DiskSpeedTest with a newly purchased LaCie 1TB SSD unit and I can compare their results with mine.
-howard
Last edited:
It's too bad Apple stuck with SATA III for this 768GB SSD, especially since it's a custom built device. If they'd gone with a 1000MB/s PCIe drive it would have been well worth the price. OCZ has a nice 960GB RevoDrive X3 Max IOPS with read write rates of 1600/1500 MB/s, but it has a price of $2300. Their slower X3 RevoDrives are about $1.50 - $2.00 per MB. Maybe Apple will have PCIe SSDs for the new Mac Pro.
OWC also has some nice (although pricey) PCIe bus SSDs which are dual controller RAID-0 on the board. The Mercury Accelsior 960 GB is a cool $1720! A 480 GB unit can be had for $850.
If that's really "per MB" I would expect the company to take buyers to dinner first ; )
