Definitely not. SATA SSDs are significantly slower than Apple's.Considering how expensive the entry model is... would you prefer that the 2018 Mac mini used a slower SATA SSD instead?
why on earth would you do this? SATA SSDs aren't much cheaper to NVMes and they're mostly constrained by SATA not actual NAND.
You'd waste all the saving on the needlessly convoluted setup and ancient tech. as far as 2TB drives go, intel 660p nvme is cheaper than most SATA drives
I wouldn't want sata INSIDE it, TB3 has enough throughput to handle 6 full sata ports on a single port.I wouldn't say the value of the Intel 660p is better than say the Samsung 860 EVO.
When I look at larger format storage needs, ones where you start looking at HDDs again, the cost of NVMe is significantly higher than 4TB SATA SSDs. It's slower for sure but NVMe is impractical when I'm looking at the need of 10TB+… even more so when one wants to implement redundancy.
I've gone with 2.5" SATA SSD for my primary storage which is implemented redundantly in NAS. I'm bottlenecked by gigabit ethernet, for the most part, anyway so it's actually marginally faster than HDD. The reason I went for the expense of SSD is its longevity in comparison. If I want speed I'll move "it" to my internal SSD in either of my Macs.
If you're looking at a single <= 2TB blade like in a Mac mini, then yeah… NVMe all the way. SATA definitely has highly important purpose though. Maximising utility is often a more important metric that straight performance.
Fusion drives are just increasing the chance you suffer a problem. They're way past their prime.
If Apple needs to hit a price in their iMacs, they should have just slapped a cheap 256 or 512GB SATAIII SSD in their Macs and if you want anything faster pay for the PCIe prices. Giving people a noticeably terrible performance as their introduction to a Mac doesn't seem like a great long-term move.