Eager for a fully loaded 2012 BTO 27" iMac

[ChromiumXarsus]

I’m eager to find out how much a fully loaded BTO 27” iMac will cost. I’ll opt for the 3.4GHz Core i7, 768 GB SSD, 680MX graphics card, and 32 GB of RAM (from 3rd party). I already have an external SuperDrive so that’s not an issue. I also have a 1 TB external SSD Thunderbolt work drive plus a 4 TB Thunderbolt backup drive. I’ve spent a couple decades as a professional photographer and also keep myself busy working video projects, which is why I want (not necessarily need) the beefier bells & whistles.

I’m hopeful it’s not very much more expensive than a fully loaded most previous generation iMac… If it’s not too much more I may have a better chance of convincing my finance officer (wife) to let me also purchase a high-end DAC and Audioengine 5+ speakers to complete the upgrade.

[GoCubsGo]

Yeah umm me too.

[iHailCarlo]

Glad you are happy.

[RoastingPig]

im getting the 3.2GHz i5 with the bto 680mx and since theres an ifixit store on campus imma have them put in a 256 samsung 830 so i can hear this kitty purrr.

[digitalfailure]

That's the same spec as I'm waiting for a price on

[Jethryn Freyman]

*drools.

When I get my hands on one of these, hopefully by the years' end, I'll be sticking it with OWC memory and SSD, then benchmark it like there's no tomorrow for make benefit of mankind.

<3

[forty2j]

Preliminary estimate for that beast is about $3700. Mainly the 768GB SSD is going to hurt. You'd save $750-1000 by going with the 1TB Fusion instead. Or you can see if you can do the SSD after market; the iFixit teardown of the 21" when it comes out in the next couple weeks should give a good clue.

[DisMyMac]

I have some shopping to do today- need to pick up a water filter and some AA batteries.

A computer would be nice, but they don't sell anything I want at the moment.

[RoastingPig]

768 ssd bto option is such a waste of money

[Isengardtom]

Originally Posted by RoastingPig

768 ssd bto option is such a waste of money

I think so too
Probably fusion drive is a better solution

[iMcLovin]

Originally Posted by Isengardtom

I think so too
Probably fusion drive is a better solution

a better or cheaper solution ?

[leman]

Originally Posted by iMcLovin

a better or cheaper solution ?

Well, cheaper while offering very similar performance for the usual tasks. The SSD performance probably only matters for just 20% or so of your data and fusion makes sure that these 20% get onto the SSD.

[flynz4]

Originally Posted by leman

Well, cheaper while offering very similar performance for the usual tasks. The SSD performance probably only matters for just 20% or so of your data and fusion makes sure that these 20% get onto the SSD.

I disagree. The OP is a professional photographer. The SSD portion of the Fusion drive is only 128GB. As a pro... the OP probably will not likely have space to hold large/complex jobs in the SSD... and with the Fusion drive, the OP doesn't even get the choice of what data actually loads into the SSD... so it is unlikely to help a lot for even relatively small projects.

Hence... it will probably be slow waiting for the single 1TB or 3TB HDD to continually seek and thrash.

The best option would be to have as large as possible SSD into which the OP could directly import the entire project at hand. Then... once the project is complete... migrate the project to a nice Thunderbolt array (ex: Pegasus R4 or R6) which would hold the entire photo library. This allows fast access to the full photo library at "good enough" speeds since it is very common to search and browse a photo library long after its individual projects are complete.

Over time... SSD sizes will grow significantly, and multi-TB SSDs will be available which will allow us to use computers that are 100% solid state. In the mean time... Fusion drives are a nice step for the casual consumer... but a SSD/external array combo is probably best for the more demanding user. For such a user... spending an extra $3K for the largest SSD and Pegasus Thunderbolt array is a bargain. Time is a precious resource.

/Jim

[ChromiumXarsus]

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Here’s something else to consider in the debate...

Perhaps the individuals that pay the extra money for new technology are doing everyone a favor. Is it not the demand for such configurations that drives the competition that ultimately results in lower costs in subsequent reiterations of the products? Take for example one of the first CD-ROM drives, Philips CM100, which hit the market in 1986 with a MSRP of $1,495 (Roberts, 1986). Is it not plausible that those who opted to pay that amount for that technology may have fostered the reality of being able to buy a USB SuperDrive today for $80?

Roberts, T. (1986). Philips CD-ROM And The Electronic Encyclopedia For IBM. Retrieved on November 5, 2012 from http://www.atarimagazines.com/comput...lips_cdrom.php

I’m not saying I’ll spend the extra money as some sort of altruistic gesture of good will towards society… Just that perhaps doing so, for what ever reason any of us may have, could have benefits for everyone.

[LachlanH]

Originally Posted by ChromiumXarsus

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Here’s something else to consider in the debate...

Perhaps the individuals that pay the extra money for new technology are doing everyone a favor. Is it not the demand for such configurations that drives the competition that ultimately results in lower costs in subsequent reiterations of the products? Take for example one of the first CD-ROM drives, Philips CM100, which hit the market in 1986 with a MSRP of $1,495 (Roberts, 1986). Is it not plausible that those who opted to pay that amount for that technology may have fostered the reality of being able to buy a USB SuperDrive today for $80?

Roberts, T. (1986). Philips CD-ROM And The Electronic Encyclopedia For IBM. Retrieved on November 5, 2012 from http://www.atarimagazines.com/comput...lips_cdrom.php

I’m not saying I’ll spend the extra money as some sort of altruistic gesture of good will towards society… Just that perhaps doing so, for what ever reason any of us may have, could have benefits for everyone.

You have a point. The more people who buy SSD's means greater demand for SSD's = bigger market = more companies interested in selling SSD's = competition = lower prices & innovation.

Having said that, rather it be your money than mine :P

[LachlanH]

Originally Posted by ChromiumXarsus

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Here’s something else to consider in the debate...

Perhaps the individuals that pay the extra money for new technology are doing everyone a favor. Is it not the demand for such configurations that drives the competition that ultimately results in lower costs in subsequent reiterations of the products? Take for example one of the first CD-ROM drives, Philips CM100, which hit the market in 1986 with a MSRP of $1,495 (Roberts, 1986). Is it not plausible that those who opted to pay that amount for that technology may have fostered the reality of being able to buy a USB SuperDrive today for $80?

Roberts, T. (1986). Philips CD-ROM And The Electronic Encyclopedia For IBM. Retrieved on November 5, 2012 from http://www.atarimagazines.com/comput...lips_cdrom.php

I’m not saying I’ll spend the extra money as some sort of altruistic gesture of good will towards society… Just that perhaps doing so, for what ever reason any of us may have, could have benefits for everyone.

You have a point. The more people who buy SSD's means greater demand for SSD's = bigger market = more companies interested in selling SSD's = competition = lower prices & innovation.

Having said that, rather it be your money than mine :P

[flynz4]

Originally Posted by ChromiumXarsus

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Thanks,

In my case, I am NOT a professional photographer, but I am a pretty serious amateur. My entire Aperture 3 (A3) library (currently about 350GB) will fit into the "new larger" SSD. At this point... that is my current BTO plan. I suspect that if BTO prices go absolutely crazy... then I might use an external Thunderbolt attached SSD. My preference would be to use an internal SSD.

I know that my A3 library will continue to grow in size... but I suspect that the SSD capacity will likely be marginally OK for my A3 library over the time of my personal use of this iMac (est 2-3 years). If for some reason my A3 library outgrows my SSD capacity... then I will use referenced master for part of my library... and migrate them to my 8TB Pegasus R4 (configured as 4TB RAID 10). Hence, I am confident that for my prime usage... the 768 GB SSD will suffice.

BTW: For iMacs... my plan is to buy a new machine every 2-3 years... but then pass down the older machine to my wife. This means that we will keep each iMac for 4-6 years. My wife does nothing that is performance, or capacity challenging.

/Jim

[LachlanH]

Originally Posted by ChromiumXarsus

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Here’s something else to consider in the debate...

Perhaps the individuals that pay the extra money for new technology are doing everyone a favor. Is it not the demand for such configurations that drives the competition that ultimately results in lower costs in subsequent reiterations of the products? Take for example one of the first CD-ROM drives, Philips CM100, which hit the market in 1986 with a MSRP of $1,495 (Roberts, 1986). Is it not plausible that those who opted to pay that amount for that technology may have fostered the reality of being able to buy a USB SuperDrive today for $80?

Roberts, T. (1986). Philips CD-ROM And The Electronic Encyclopedia For IBM. Retrieved on November 5, 2012 from http://www.atarimagazines.com/comput...lips_cdrom.php

I’m not saying I’ll spend the extra money as some sort of altruistic gesture of good will towards society… Just that perhaps doing so, for what ever reason any of us may have, could have benefits for everyone.

You have a point. The more people who buy SSD's means greater demand for SSD's = bigger market = more companies interested in selling SSD's = competition = lower prices & innovation.

Having said that, rather it be your money than mine :P

[flynz4]

Originally Posted by ChromiumXarsus

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Thanks,

In my case, I am NOT a professional photographer, but I am a pretty serious amateur. My entire Aperture 3 (A3) library (currently about 350GB) will fit into the "new larger" SSD. At this point... that is my current BTO plan. I suspect that if BTO prices go absolutely crazy... then I might use an external Thunderbolt attached SSD. My preference would be to use an internal SSD.

I know that my A3 library will continue to grow in size... but I suspect that the SSD capacity will likely be marginally OK for my A3 library over the time of my personal use of this iMac (est 2-3 years). If for some reason my A3 library outgrows my SSD capacity... then I will use referenced master for part of my library... and migrate them to my 8TB Pegasus R4 (configured as 4TB RAID 10). Hence, I am confident that for my prime usage... the 768 GB SSD will suffice.

BTW: For iMacs... my plan is to buy a new machine every 2-3 years... but then pass down the older machine to my wife. This means that we will keep each iMac for 4-6 years. My wife does nothing that is performance, or capacity challenging.

/Jim

[LachlanH]

Originally Posted by ChromiumXarsus

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Here’s something else to consider in the debate...

Perhaps the individuals that pay the extra money for new technology are doing everyone a favor. Is it not the demand for such configurations that drives the competition that ultimately results in lower costs in subsequent reiterations of the products? Take for example one of the first CD-ROM drives, Philips CM100, which hit the market in 1986 with a MSRP of $1,495 (Roberts, 1986). Is it not plausible that those who opted to pay that amount for that technology may have fostered the reality of being able to buy a USB SuperDrive today for $80?

Roberts, T. (1986). Philips CD-ROM And The Electronic Encyclopedia For IBM. Retrieved on November 5, 2012 from http://www.atarimagazines.com/comput...lips_cdrom.php

I’m not saying I’ll spend the extra money as some sort of altruistic gesture of good will towards society… Just that perhaps doing so, for what ever reason any of us may have, could have benefits for everyone.

You have a point. The more people who buy SSD's means greater demand for SSD's = bigger market = more companies interested in selling SSD's = competition = lower prices & innovation.

Having said that, rather it be your money than mine :P

[LachlanH]

Originally Posted by ChromiumXarsus

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Here’s something else to consider in the debate...

Perhaps the individuals that pay the extra money for new technology are doing everyone a favor. Is it not the demand for such configurations that drives the competition that ultimately results in lower costs in subsequent reiterations of the products? Take for example one of the first CD-ROM drives, Philips CM100, which hit the market in 1986 with a MSRP of $1,495 (Roberts, 1986). Is it not plausible that those who opted to pay that amount for that technology may have fostered the reality of being able to buy a USB SuperDrive today for $80?

Roberts, T. (1986). Philips CD-ROM And The Electronic Encyclopedia For IBM. Retrieved on November 5, 2012 from http://www.atarimagazines.com/comput...lips_cdrom.php

I’m not saying I’ll spend the extra money as some sort of altruistic gesture of good will towards society… Just that perhaps doing so, for what ever reason any of us may have, could have benefits for everyone.

You have a point. The more people who buy SSD's means greater demand for SSD's = bigger market = more companies interested in selling SSD's = competition = lower prices & innovation.

Having said that, rather it be your money than mine :P

[flynz4]

Originally Posted by ChromiumXarsus

Thank you to flynz4 for responding with a lot of what I was going to add to my original post.

Thanks,

In my case, I am NOT a professional photographer, but I am a pretty serious amateur. My entire Aperture 3 (A3) library (currently about 350GB) will fit into the "new larger" SSD. At this point... that is my current BTO plan. I suspect that if BTO prices go absolutely crazy... then I might use an external Thunderbolt attached SSD. My preference would be to use an internal SSD.

I know that my A3 library will continue to grow in size... but I suspect that the SSD capacity will likely be marginally OK for my A3 library over the time of my personal use of this iMac (est 2-3 years). If for some reason my A3 library outgrows my SSD capacity... then I will use referenced master for part of my library... and migrate them to my 8TB Pegasus R4 (configured as 4TB RAID 10). Hence, I am confident that for my prime usage... the 768 GB SSD will suffice.

BTW: For iMacs... my plan is to buy a new machine every 2-3 years... but then pass down the older machine to my wife. This means that we will keep each iMac for 4-6 years. My wife does nothing that is performance, or capacity challenging.

/Jim

[flynz4]

Duplicate post.

Moderators... please delete.