iMac storage prices vs current market prices

Discussion in 'iMac' started by twilexia, Dec 2, 2015.

  1. twilexia, Dec 2, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2015

    twilexia macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2015
    #1
    I made a comparison between the iMac storage options and current market options (hope this helps people):

    HDD, I chose the Seagate Barracuda series in 1tb, 2tb, and 3tb models.
    SSD, for the fusion drive SSD I chose the Samsung SM951 PCie M.2 128GB NVMe. This is 124$. Reads are 1500MB/s and writes are 600 MB/s, very close to what we see in the SSD portion of the Fusion drive.
    For the pure SSD I chose the Samsung 950 NVMe PCIe M.2 256GB/512gb models, pretty comparable read/writes. No 1TB standalone SSD comes close (Samsung EVO is 1/3 to 1/4 PCIe speeds)

    I think the correct way to do this is to assume that when Apple determined the $1799 base price for the 27", 100$ of that is the 1TB HDD. Which means the base price for a theoretical 0-storage model for the 27" retina is $1699. This means all storage options will have an increase of 100$. New premiums:

    1TB HD: 100/47-1= 112% premium
    1TB FD: 200/70.25-1= 184%
    2TB FD: 400/188-1= 112%
    3TB FD: 500/209-1=139%
    256GB SSD: 300/198-1=51%
    512GB SSD: 600/345-1=74%
    1TB SSD: 1100/690-1=59%

    So now the SSDs look a lot better than the options - with the 1TB Fusion drive being the absolute largest premium % wise (worst bang for your buck if comparing to market rates - you are paying 200$ for a 47$ 1TB HDD and 23$ 24GB SSD).

    However, if we were comparing purely based on $ value, then the 1TB is quite obviously the worst.
    1TB HDD: 53$ premium
    1TB FD: 130$
    2TB FD: 212$
    3TB FD: 291$
    256GB SSD: 102$
    512GB SSD: 255$
    1TB SSD: 410$
     
  2. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #2
    The Fusion software is built into OSX, so the 3TB can't be even be justified that way.

    Good breakdown.
     
  3. Designer Dale, Dec 2, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2015

    Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #3
  4. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    FYI, the 5k iMac M390 iMac model as the 2TB upgrade for 200 dollars not 300. Other storage upgrades are less then the other iMac models as well
     
  5. benjai macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    #5
    This doesn't seem right...

    The $100 that apple charge is extra, ie should only be compared with the cost of the SSD, not the 1TB drive (since that's already built into apple's base cost).
     
  6. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #6
    True, as should all other Fusion configurations.
     
  7. benjai macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    #7
    ie the premium is huge! Surprise surprise.
     
  8. twilexia, Dec 2, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2015

    twilexia thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2015
    #8
    That's because the m390 starts at 1999 with the 1tb fusion as a default.

    If you assume m380->m390 is about a 100$ difference, that means from 1899 to 1999 is factoring in the storage from 1TB HDD to 1TB FD.


    No I disagree and actually thought about this. Just because the base model has 0 for the 1 TB HDD does not mean the 1TB is free. I just didn't assign a value to it. However the cost should still be considered when calculating the costs of the fusion drive and SSD.

    I never claimed these were compatible, only comparable.
     
  9. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #9
    The hard drive is not "free", but it is accounted for in the base price of an iMac. Anything Apple charges above that should be reflected as cost for the SSD portion 100%. Fusion software is accounted for in the purchase of any Mac, as it is built into OSX.
     
  10. twilexia thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2015
    #10
    You're right. I'm actually going to edit the original post and add on a second comparison where I start the base price point at 1699 instead of 1799 (assuming the 1TB HDD markup price is 100$)
     

Share This Page