Will Apple introduce new iMac with reasonably priced SSD options?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by tubeexperience, Oct 20, 2016.

  1. tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #1
    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
     
  2. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #2
    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.
     
  3. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #3
    A majority of iMac users likely won't benefit much from having a PCI-e SSD instead of a SATA SSD.
     
  4. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
  5. Krevnik macrumors 68040

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #5
    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.
     
  6. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Taz Mangus, Oct 20, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016

    Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Krevnik macrumors 68040

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #9
    That poster was hand waving in their other thread about the very same subject on SSD prices.
     
  10. BlueTide macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle
    #10
    No.
     
  11. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #11
    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.
     
  12. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #12
    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
     
  13. Taz Mangus, Oct 21, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2016

    Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #13
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #14
    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.
     
  15. 8692574 Suspended

    8692574

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    #15
    With the 2016 Apple....you'd have to define "reasonably".
     
  16. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Shropshire, UK
    #16
    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
     
  17. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #17
    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
     
  18. Traverse macrumors 603

    Traverse

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Location:
    Here
    #18
    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.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 21, 2016 ---
    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.
     
  19. tubeexperience, Oct 21, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2016

    tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #19
    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)!
     
  20. zen macrumors 68000

    zen

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    #20
    Nope, any new Macs will have 5200RPM HDDs as default. SSD will cost the usual Apple premium.
     
  21. theitsage macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    #21
    Wrong question to ask. Apple doesn't compete on price.

    We better hope Apple doesn't solder RAM and SSD onto the logic board.
     
  22. Nismo73 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    #22
    I think they'll introduce a desktop Mac that doesn't even have spinning drive option so the can make the back as flat and thin as possible.
     
  23. Sirmausalot macrumors 6502a

    Sirmausalot

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    #23
    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.

     
  24. Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #24
    And by your logic Apple should stick with SATA because according to you SATA is fast enough.
     
  25. DrMotownMac macrumors 6502

    DrMotownMac

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    #25
    I'm not sure that will be a standard option, but I sure would love it!!
     

Share This Page