Retina vs. Standard iMac: 2 different prices for same upgrade?

[Talarspeed]

Why are there 2 different prices for the same upgrade between the standard 27" iMac and the Retina iMac?

Ordering the standard iMac, a 3TB fusion upgrade is $350 whereas in the Retina, it is only $150.


Ordering the standard iMac, a 1TB SSD is $1000 whereas in the Retina, it is $800.

A recent tear-down showed that the layout of each iMac is very similar.

 

[repentix]

Apple has got higher profit margins on the retina model, so they can lower the prices on the upgrades.

 

[Nismo73]

I think it's because the 5K comes standard w/ the fusion vs not w/ the standard. So with the retina, if you're upgrading to the 3tb fusion, the SSD is already factored into the price.

 

[RyanJWilliams]

It looks to me like the regular iMac line hasn't been updated at all for some time, therefore the upgrade prices still reflect what they were quite some time ago. There's no way those CPUs should cost as much as they do.

The market value of computer components is going down all the time, so I expect that the Retina iMac reflects the current market value of those components. It probably didn't even seem worth bothering to include cheap-as-chips SATA drives as an option.

The regular iMacs really should be updated because right now they represent very poor value for money. When I did some comparisons of mostly comparable hardware it turned out that you're only paying a few hundred more for the retina screen.

 

[leenak]

It looks to me like the regular iMac line hasn't been updated at all for some time, therefore the upgrade prices still reflect what they were quite some time ago. There's no way those CPUs should cost as much as they do.

The market value of computer components is going down all the time, so I expect that the Retina iMac reflects the current market value of those components. It probably didn't even seem worth bothering to include cheap-as-chips SATA drives as an option.

The regular iMacs really should be updated because right now they represent very poor value for money. When I did some comparisons it turned out that you're only paying a few hundred more for the retina screen.

Yup, the difference was $300 for me and $700 if I went for a refurbished '13 iMac. And that was for a not as good gpu/cpu in the regular iMac.

 

[Nismo73]

It looks to me like the regular iMac line hasn't been updated at all for some time, therefore the upgrade prices still reflect what they were quite some time ago. There's no way those CPUs should cost as much as they do.

The market value of computer components is going down all the time, so I expect that the Retina iMac reflects the current market value of those components. It probably didn't even seem worth bothering to include cheap-as-chips SATA drives as an option.

The regular iMacs really should be updated because right now they represent very poor value for money. When I did some comparisons of mostly comparable hardware it turned out that you're only paying a few hundred more for the retina screen.

Yup...Looks like on Amazon the 3.5 i7 and the 4.0 i7 are just about the same price now.

 

[jterp7]

yeah i posted this earlier, comparing new to new, matched base specs (1tb fusion on non-retina) its only 300 for the ridiculous 5k screen.

Of course if you upgrade any parts, the apple tax starts to come in but even then the difference is between 350-450. There is also the amd vs nvidia argument, which I understand may be an issue for some prosumer users, but not for the general consumer like myself.