768GB Flash down to $900

[hummer28]

So I am a newb as it relates to storage solutions. However, the thought of having 768GB of SSD storage at this price point is very appealing to me. The issue is that I am currently utilizing 1.3TB (out of 3TB) of data on my late-2012 iMac. How would one overcome such an obstacle? How would I use Time Machine to migrate my current backup over to a hard drive with less space than necessary. Could I manage data between my local HD and an external solution? I currently have a WD 8TB Thunderbolt drive as my external backup. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

 

[plasmaj]

this does make the purchasing decision more difficult. The difference between

(1) a base imac ( 2.9Mhz i5 + 660m ) upgraded with a 768GB SSD drive,

and

(2) a fully upgraded one (3.4Mhz i7 + 680mx) upgraded with a 1 TB fusion drive

is only $100 now ($70 with the edu discount thanks to the lack of discount when moving from the base iMac to the upper model)

that makes it a tough decision in my opinion. The HDD is more likely to become a relic than the processor or GPU (even given the the 660m's weakness). I guess it comes down to user needs now. a hard core gamer or someone who needs a lot of processing power would choose (2) . But for someone dealing with large files that don't require a huge GPU (e.g. photoshop) would probably choose (1).

I guess another benefit of (2) may be that hopefully in the future you can get an external SSD with thunderbolt much cheaper than you can now and use that as your primary drive. Though you are pretty much stuck with the CPU and GPU.

 

[drambuie]

Apple's lower SSD pricing is probably due to Samsung lowering the 830 SSD series pricing after the introduction of the 840 and 840 Pro. At my local computer parts store, Samsung 830 SSDs have dropped about $100 per 256GB in the last month, or so.

 

[flynz4]

So I am a newb as it relates to storage solutions. However, the thought of having 768GB of SSD storage at this price point is very appealing to me. The issue is that I am currently utilizing 1.3TB (out of 3TB) of data on my late-2012 iMac. How would one overcome such an obstacle? How would I use Time Machine to migrate my current backup over to a hard drive with less space than necessary. Could I manage data between my local HD and an external solution? I currently have a WD 8TB Thunderbolt drive as my external backup. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

Considering that you will need an external drive to hold some of your primary data, I would suggest the following:

1) Move whatever data will NOT be on your SSD after migration off of your computer now... to whatever external drive you will be using.

2) Make a second copy of it for now.

3) Backup your computer via Time Machine... excluding your external drive.

4) Restore your TM data to your new computer... which will just populate your 768GB SSD

5) Attach your external drive to your new computer.

6) Set up TM or whatever backup programs you use to back up all drives

7) Enjoy


Personally, I think it is overkill to use your TB drive as a backup. Instead, I would use that as the external drive for your excess primary data. I would buy a 3TB TC and use that to back up everything.

I would also recommend subscribing to a cloud backup service. There are many out there. They are inexpensive and safe. I personally use Crashplan+.

/Jim

 

[WilliamG]

Apple's lower SSD pricing is probably due to Samsung lowering the 830 SSD series pricing after the introduction of the 840 and 840 Pro. At my local computer parts store, Samsung 830 SSDs have dropped about $100 per 256GB in the last month, or so.

830s haven't dropped in price that I can see... Still around $200 for a 256GB, which is the price they've been for quite a few months now, due to the extreme reliability and just plain awesomeness.

 

[flynz4]

I called apple support for my pending/processing imac order. They are not aware of the price drop . They said I will be charged the new price when the imac is shipped.

Oh, this is my first post here, I'm new to mac world and love this community.

I'd call back and talk with someone else. When I called... they re-ran the configuration (as if it was a new order)... then they applied the new total to my existing order. My order number, or delivery date did not change.

I think you just got the wrong person who was confused.

/Jim

 

[ajv2003A]

Still a lot, but more reasonable. But it's a smack in the face for all customers who bought the $1300 option or another one because the difference was too high. Couldn't they think of this before? It's a shame...

Which ever time frame they chose to drop the price, there would be someone who is effected. This argument does not hold water.

 

[Slow Programmer]

It has got to suck to be one of those initial buyers in the $1300 club right now.

 

[hfg]

It has got to suck to be one of those initial buyers in the $1300 club right now.

No ... not really ... I have been happily using mine since late last year. If I ordered one today it would be a over a month before it was delivered.

Everyone knows the price will go down if they wait ... but how long are you going to wait for the next great deal and do without the enjoyment?

 

[Norcal.]

$900 is still crazy and i'd never pay that for 768gb.

 

[xgman]

I've had both the fusion and the 768. Oddly enough the Fusion drive imac with otherwise identical specs benched better in Geekbench than the 768 did. Maybe it's the SSD chips themselves on the fusion version are faster chips. Both bench faster than an external TB Samsung 840 Pro boot drive though.

 

[freddiecable]

agree. at least 512 and 768. maybe it's because they don't want to have too many alternatives for logistic reasons?

Still I prefer to have 256/512 options as well, its not like they don't make them

 

[barokt]

I've had both the fusion and the 768. Oddly enough the Fusion drive imac with otherwise identical specs benched better in Geekbench than the 768 did. Maybe it's the SSD chips themselves on the fusion version are faster chips. Both bench faster than an external TB Samsung 840 Pro boot drive though.

I just want to kindly ask if you use both 768GB and Fusion which one is better?
I'm really confused about that.
I'm use C4D, After Effects and Final Cut ProX and i really need something to do that without any glitch.
I suspected fusion drive is not enough for to this kind a 3D and MotionGraphic jobs.
Thanks...

 

[hfg]

It has got to suck to be one of those initial buyers in the $1300 club right now.

It is probably the buyers who passed on the all-SSD option at $1300, but would have purchased it at $900, rather than the compromise Fusion model they now have who are unhappy. They are stuck with a machine less than what they wanted, and it is now beyond the return period.

The buyers who justified to themselves the original cost of all-SSD are probably still happy with their purchase. Sure, they would like to have the money back, but that is all behind them now and they continue to enjoy their purchase.

 

[Mike Valmike]

$900 is still crazy and i'd never pay that for 768gb.

It's actually not crazy this time, amazingly. Right now, today, OWC's 6G 480GB SSD drive is $600, and their 240GB SSD drive is $300. Add the two together and you're at par with Apple's offering, which only takes up one slot (and a card SSD slot at that, not a SATA bay).

Which reminds me, you can still add an HDD if you get the 768 card, right? Like let's say I get a 4TB SATA and drop it in there, and set it up as a 4.7TB Fusion. That should work, right?

 

[Lancer]

That sucks for people that paid $1300 when they ordered their iMac's. I might have gone for the SSD at that price instead of the 3TB fusion.

IMO if you bought it at the old price I'd be looking to get a refund on the difference or at least some iTunes cards. This is why Apple doesn't usually do price changes mid cycle, it pisses off too many people...

FYI it's $1080AU, so take off the 10% GST and adjust the currency and it comes to about $980US, why are we being gouged an extra $80?

 

[hfg]

I just want to kindly ask if you use both 768GB and Fusion which one is better?
I'm really confused about that.
I'm use C4D, After Effects and Final Cut ProX and i really need something to do that without any glitch.
I suspected fusion drive is not enough for to this kind a 3D and MotionGraphic jobs.
Thanks...

Fusion is, and will always be, a compromise compared to an all-SSD configuration.

It is a clever software integration designed to give some or most users a better experience than that of a hard disk only environment by providing most of the speed of a SSD along with the inexpensive capacity of a hard disk. If the piece of data you need is on the SSD, it will succeed, but you will notice the difference when it has to fetch the data from the hard disk.

The experience is much better as the ratio of SSD / HD increases, and the DIY Fusion drives I have running with large 512GB SSDs joined to modest 1 or 2TB hard disks perform pretty well, but I only use them for secondary storage, preferring all-SSD for my main workspace. It is unfortunate that Apple only provides a single small 128GB SSD option for the Fusion choices, but that did, arguably, help to keep the cost down.

----------

It's actually not crazy this time, amazingly. Right now, today, OWC's 6G 480GB SSD drive is $600, and their 240GB SSD drive is $300. Add the two together and you're at par with Apple's offering, which only takes up one slot (and a card SSD slot at that, not a SATA bay).

Which reminds me, you can still add an HDD if you get the 768 card, right? Like let's say I get a 4TB SATA and drop it in there, and set it up as a 4.7TB Fusion. That should work, right?

As far as I know, the 768GB SSD iMacs don't have the SATA cable assembly which attaches to the drive, although they do have the SATA port on the motherboard (I have seen no tear-downs of this model to confirm this either way). I would imagine that simple cable will become available as a part from the normal sources in due time and should be simple to install.

If you look at the excellent tear-down post with pictures provided by R.OG, you will clearly see the SATA drive cable, which is a standard SATA disk power/data on the drive end, and standard SATA data but special power connection at the motherboard end. There is an Apple part number for this cable, but I have not found the cable available as of yet from the typical sources.

 

[Lancer]

I'm pretty sure the size of the SSD on Apples Fusion Drive will increase over time, wouldn't be surprised if the 2013 iMac has double the SSD.

BTW is it 128 or 120Gb as I checked my 27" and it was just a touch over 120Gb and not 128Gb.

 

[hfg]

I'm pretty sure the size of the SSD on Apples Fusion Drive will increase over time, wouldn't be surprised if the 2013 iMac has double the SSD.

BTW is it 128 or 120Gb as I checked my 27" and it was just a touch over 120Gb and not 128Gb.

It is the old "marketing" dispute which has been around forever (1000 vs. 1024). Some SSD makers also allow for more "over provisioning" which further reduces the useable space in exchange for longer life and reliability.

And: the 768GB SSD is actually 750GB useable.

 

[Lancer]

It is the old "marketing" dispute which has been around forever (1000 vs. 1024). Some SSD makers also allow for more "over provisioning" which further reduces the useable space in exchange for longer life and reliability.

And: the 768GB SSD is actually 750GB useable.

I'm not sure as my 1Tb HDD comes up ar 999Gb on the new iMac so I would assume the 128Gb SSD would be close to that mark. But you might be right about the protection buffer.

FYI my 2Tb external HDD which used to come up at 1.81Tb on my G5/Leopard now also come up as just under the 2Tb mark.

Also the only thing I've notice with Fusion is when the system is running just on the SSD then had to access the HDD it takes a second or so for it to spin up to speed. Nothing major ad my most used programs launch in seconds, some instantly depending if they have font libraries to access like PS and Word.

 

[iMcLovin]

This is typical Im not pissed. I bought the 768 flash. Its by far the best option, but I guess apple realized that their crazy price made a lot of people not ordering it....

So should we be pissed, those who bought it for 1300 usd ? I guess the question you should then ask is, would you wait to get the imac until a month+ from now (meaning end of march) ? I got mine in december, would I ever wish to live without this imac from december until end of march to save a few bucks...the answer is simple: NO!

 

[flynz4]

$900 is still crazy and i'd never pay that for 768gb.

The good news is that you don't have to.

Personally... I think it is a great deal. I'd pay $1800 for a 1.5TB option if it was available. Unfortunately... I cant buy that one.

I suspect that when I replace this iMac (in about 2 -3 years)... we will be up to at least 2TB SSD options.

/Jim

 

[hfg]

As I look around at the various 2.5" SSDs I have purchased over the past couple of years, they have all come way down in price since I originally purchased them, as has the memory RAM modules I have in my computers. No sense in getting upset about it ... I knew it would happen. But these modules are serving the purpose I purchased them for, at the price I justified and paid at that time.


Amazon and Newegg seem to be selling the 2.5" OCZ 1TB SSD at $2500 each ... what do you suppose these will be selling for in the next 4 months?

 

[DisMyMac]

Apple's lower SSD pricing is probably due to Samsung lowering the 830 SSD series pricing after the introduction of the 840 and 840 Pro.

I'd wait for 840 Pros to appear in Macs before buying. It's 10 better and professional performance:

Samsung 830 vs 840 pro

 

[drambuie]

I'd wait for 840 Pros to appear in Macs before buying. It's 10 better and professional performance:

Samsung 830 vs 840 pro

Then the price would go back up, as $900 is around the retail price of an 840 Pro 512GB + 256GB. A 768GB unit would be much more. For the 830, 512 + 256 is around $600.