Will Apple introduce new iMac with reasonably priced SSD options?

tubeexperience

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2016
3,192
3,881
Apple will likely update the iMac line on October 27.

Right now (2016), Apple charged as much for its SSD options as it did in 2013 even though the price of SSD has come down dramatically in the last three years.

Will Apple be introducing reasonable priced SSD options with the updated iMac?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Head-to-head comparison:

~250 GB SSD

Market price: ~$50

Apple's price: +$200

~500 GB SSD

Market price: ~$100

Apple's price: +$500

~1 TB SSD

Market price: ~$200

~2 TB SSD

Market price: ~$500
 

aristobrat

macrumors G5
Oct 14, 2005
12,244
1,312
If you're asking "will Apple sell PCI-e based SSD drives for the same price as the SATA-based SSD drives that I just quoted, even though I've made this comparison in about a dozen other threads on MacRumors and have gotten feedback about how even though they're both called SSD, they're different technology and that affects the price?", then I think you already know the answer.
 

tubeexperience

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2016
3,192
3,881
If you're asking "will Apple sell PCI-e based SSD drives for the same price as the SATA-based SSD drives that I just quoted, even though I've made this comparison in about a dozen other threads on MacRumors and have gotten feedback about how even though they're both called SSD, they're different technology and that affects the price?", then I think you already know the answer.
A majority of iMac users likely won't benefit much from having a PCI-e SSD instead of a SATA SSD.
 

Krevnik

macrumors 68040
Sep 8, 2003
3,211
623
A majority of iMac users likely won't benefit much from having a PCI-e SSD instead of a SATA SSD.
So your question really is: Will Apple sell SATA SSDs? And I think the answer there is no. It seems clear they favor PCIe SSDs in their hardware, and have migrated their lines to them.

And I think Apple is attempting to target the crowd you speak of with the Fusion Drive, rather than SATA SSDs. You get more space for cheaper than the SATA SSD BTO option would likely be, and the SSD for the Fusion Drive will be PCIe rather than SATA, so you get better perf out of your hot files.

But considering the prices on the new Samsung PCIe SSDs, Apple's prices are still relatively high at this point, and should probably come down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aristobrat

tubeexperience

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2016
3,192
3,881
So your question really is: Will Apple sell SATA SSDs? And I think the answer there is no. It seems clear they favor PCIe SSDs in their hardware, and have migrated their lines to them.

And I think Apple is attempting to target the crowd you speak of with the Fusion Drive, rather than SATA SSDs. You get more space for cheaper than the SATA SSD BTO option would likely be, and the SSD for the Fusion Drive will be PCIe rather than SATA, so you get better perf out of your hot files.

But considering the prices on the new Samsung PCIe SSDs, Apple's prices are still relatively high at this point, and should probably come down.
Fusion Drive is a really poor substitute for an SSD.

Sure, it's fast until you filled up the 24 GB SSD, then you are back to reading and writing on a hard drive.
 

Taz Mangus

macrumors 68040
Mar 10, 2011
3,285
375
Apples and Oranges comparison on SATA SSD vs m.2 pcie SSD again. And for the record again, Apple is charging $200 upgrade for the 500GB SSD on the high end iMac. Don't like the prices that Apple is charging then go find another computer to buy your computers from.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001

Krevnik

macrumors 68040
Sep 8, 2003
3,211
623
Fusion Drive is a really poor substitute for an SSD.

Sure, it's fast until you filled up the 24 GB SSD, then you are back to reading and writing on a hard drive.
Except it will load balance what is on the SSD to maximize the benefit, and if you care about space, you will be buying more than 1TB of storage and get the 128GB SSD which further helps. But here's the thing, if you can argue that people won't see the benefit of PCIe SSDs, I can further argue that a mainstream user doesn't need the SSD for everything they store.

If we want to really discuss details, I'm gonna need a more specific definition of what you think the use case is. Because otherwise we are just hand waving.
 

Taz Mangus

macrumors 68040
Mar 10, 2011
3,285
375
Except it will load balance what is on the SSD to maximize the benefit, and if you care about space, you will be buying more than 1TB of storage and get the 128GB SSD which further helps. But here's the thing, if you can argue that people won't see the benefit of PCIe SSDs, I can further argue that a mainstream user doesn't need the SSD for everything they store.

If we want to really discuss details, I'm gonna need a more specific definition of what you think the use case is. Because otherwise we are just hand waving.
That poster was hand waving in their other thread about the very same subject on SSD prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aristobrat

tubeexperience

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2016
3,192
3,881
Except it will load balance what is on the SSD to maximize the benefit, and if you care about space, you will be buying more than 1TB of storage and get the 128GB SSD which further helps. But here's the thing, if you can argue that people won't see the benefit of PCIe SSDs, I can further argue that a mainstream user doesn't need the SSD for everything they store.

If we want to really discuss details, I'm gonna need a more specific definition of what you think the use case is. Because otherwise we are just hand waving.
Looking at Apple' system requirement, macOS 10 Sierra takes about 8.8GB.

Obviously, you would want the operating system on the SSD portion. I assume that you lose a GB due to partitioning and such.

So now you have ~ 14GB of SSD for applications and such. This is not even taking into account updates to the OS.

Instead of that, you can get ~500GB SSD.
 

tubeexperience

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2016
3,192
3,881
That poster was hand waving in their other thread about the very same subject on SSD prices.
Even looking at PCI-e SSD only, Apple's prices are still way out of line.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

~250 GB PCI-e SSD

Market price: ~$100

Apple's price: +$200

~500 GB PCI-e SSD

Market price: ~$200

Apple's price: +$500

~1 TB PCI-e SSD

Market price: ~$500
 

Taz Mangus

macrumors 68040
Mar 10, 2011
3,285
375
Even looking at PCI-e SSD only, Apple's prices are still way out of line.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

~250 GB PCI-e SSD

Market price: ~$100

Apple's price: +$200

~500 GB PCI-e SSD

Market price: ~$200

Apple's price: +$500

~1 TB PCI-e SSD

Market price: ~$500
Again Apple charges $0 for the 256 GB SSD and $200 for the 512GB SSD on the high end iMac. Not out of line on pricing. We have gone through all this before in your other thread. I know it is tough for you to accept. Don't like what Apple is charging, go find another manufacturer to buy your computer from. Life is full of disappointments.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Samuelsan2001

macrumors 604
Oct 24, 2013
7,682
2,103
As far as I can tell there are no rumours of an iMac update for the 27th, it's possible but unlikely if you ask me.
 

Phil A.

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 2, 2006
5,499
2,280
Shropshire, UK
Fusion Drive is a really poor substitute for an SSD.

Sure, it's fast until you filled up the 24 GB SSD, then you are back to reading and writing on a hard drive.
The fusion drive is actually surprisingly effective - I was sceptical before getting my iMac (2TB Fusion drive) but I wanted the disk space and figured if it was too slow I could always put a Thunderbolt SSD externally. However, in real-life use it's not noticeably slower than my SSD equipped machines and it produces really good results on disk benchmarks (partly due to the insanely fast PCI-e SSD it uses). My machine has over 500GB of storage used at the moment

Screen Shot 2016-10-21 at 11.01.53.png


As a comparison, this is a speed test for a Samsung 256GB SSD connected via USB3 to the same machine

Screen Shot 2016-10-21 at 11.10.58.png

The way it works is it always keeps a minimum of 4GB free for writes and it intelligently moves frequently accessed stuff (at block, not file, level) onto the SSD for read access. I'd go as far as to say that if you don't need the speed of the PCI-e SSDs then the fusion drive is absolutely fine for the majority of people (and if it isn't, you still have the option of a USB-3 or Thunderbolt SSD externally and as it's a desktop machine it wouldn't be too inconvenient.)

Of course, the 2TB and 3TB fusion drives come with 120GB of SSD, not 24GB so I don't know how well the 1TB one would work
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,841
30,360
Boston
As far as I can tell there are no rumours of an iMac update for the 27th, it's possible but unlikely if you ask me.
I think we'll see an iMac update, even the name of the even (to me) speaks of a new mac. I think for the 5k iMac as very little room for improvement, component wise, but there are other areas that can be tweaked. The 21" iMac has much more room to grow and I hope to see a better product from apple in 2016 then what they offered for this current model
 

Traverse

macrumors 604
Mar 11, 2013
6,727
2,925
Here
I sincerely hope so. I'd love a 1.5TB option at $700.

Really though, I'd be content if they just took a few hundred off the 1TB SSD option. a $700 upgrade to go from a 1/2TB Fusion Drive to 1TB SSD is insane - event for Apple.
[doublepost=1477056562][/doublepost]
And I think Apple is attempting to target the crowd you speak of with the Fusion Drive, rather than SATA SSDs. You get more space for cheaper than the SATA SSD BTO option would likely be, and the SSD for the Fusion Drive will be PCIe rather than SATA, so you get better perf out of your hot files.
I've been spoiled by my SSD rMBP. The Fusion Drive in theory is perfect for me because About 500GB of my current 700GB of data is iTunes or media files which don't necessarily need SSD speed. My only reservation is reliability.

If I purchased an iMac, it'd be a long-haul purchase and if the HDD portion fails outside of warranty it's a PITA to fix it.
 

tubeexperience

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2016
3,192
3,881
Again Apple charges $0 for the 256 GB SSD and $200 for the 512GB SSD on the high end iMac. Not out of line on pricing. We have gone through all this before in your other thread. I know it is tough for you to accept. Don't like what Apple is charging, go find another manufacturer to buy your computer from. Life is full of disappointments.
Well, of cause. You have already paid for the SSD upgrade (or at least part of it) as part of the price of the higher model.

It wasn't like Apple gave you a free upgrade.

________________________________________________________________________________

I remember a few years ago when I was middle school (currently in college), the Toyota Camry LE (the cheapest model) came with a manual transmission.

The Toyota Camry XLE (the most expensive model) came with an automatic transmission.

So according to your logic of reasoning, Toyota gave a "free" upgrade to an automatic transmission.

________________________________________________________________________________

I can your logic even further.

Hey look! The store give me a "free" birthday card (even though my friend paid for it)!
 
Last edited:

zen

macrumors 68000
Jun 26, 2003
1,713
461
Nope, any new Macs will have 5200RPM HDDs as default. SSD will cost the usual Apple premium.
 

Sirmausalot

macrumors 6502a
Sep 1, 2007
994
229
Look, it's a waste of time comparing what apple might and should do compared to cherry picking component prices off the internet. You pick the best price/performance for your needs based on the reality of what they offer rather than what you wish Apple would do. And any external USB 3 SSD or TB SSD is a cheaper way to go if you want.

Apple will likely update the iMac line on October 27.

Right now (2016), Apple charged as much for its SSD options as it did in 2013 even though the price of SSD has come down dramatically in the last three years.

Will Apple be introducing reasonable priced SSD options with the updated iMac?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Head-to-head comparison:

~250 GB SSD

Market price: ~$50

Apple's price: +$200

~500 GB SSD

Market price: ~$100

Apple's price: +$500

~1 TB SSD

Market price: ~$200

~2 TB SSD

Market price: ~$500
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taz Mangus

Taz Mangus

macrumors 68040
Mar 10, 2011
3,285
375
Well, of cause. You have already paid for the SSD upgrade (or at least part of it) as part of the price of the higher model.

It wasn't like Apple gave you a free upgrade.

________________________________________________________________________________

I remember a few years ago when I was middle school (currently in college), the Toyota Camry LE (the cheapest model) came with a manual transmission.

The Toyota Camry XLE (the most expensive model) came with an automatic transmission.

So according to your logic of reasoning, Toyota gave a "free" upgrade to an automatic transmission.

________________________________________________________________________________

I can your logic even further.

Hey look! The store give me a "free" birthday card (even though my friend paid for it)!
And by your logic Apple should stick with SATA because according to you SATA is fast enough.