You can continue to be insulting if you want, but it is absolutely preposterous to say there is no difference between the two.
It is completely ludicrous.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is there a technical/logical reason for $800 1TB SSD?
- Thread starter ambientdaw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is completely ludicrous.
The flaw in that argument is that someone who drops that kind of cash on a SSD upgrade without wincing will have a very, very different idea to yours of what counts as a fancy restaurant (not that I eat in one every couple of weeks, but I've had the experience a few times - someone else was paying)
But yeah, with a 1TB SSD Mac you're paying 2 premiums: latest PCIe tech + 1TB on a single blade.
...and, yes, if you're comparing it with a HD then you're arguing over the merits of Ferrari vs. Bugatti while riding a horse.
With an iMac, the other alternative is to go for a more affordable 256GB internal SSD as your system/working drive - which is where you'll benefit most from the speed in general use - and use external drives for bulk storage. I can't say whether its for you, but its worth thinking exactly why you need your music and movie collections on a fixed drive sealed inside an iMac that you can't open without a pizza cutter and replacement sticky tapes.
...for laptops, that's not such a great solution because you want to pick-up-and-go (currently have 500GB of SSD and 750GB of spinning rust inside my 2011 MBP)
You missed the argument.
The argument is between SATA SSD and PCIe SSD not HDD.
[doublepost=1467143503][/doublepost]
Do you even know what is the difference between random access time and sequential access time ?
Also, I never said that there is no difference between a SATA SSD and a PCIe SSD: it's another one of your straw man argument.
A a discerning person who appreciates the difference in keyboard response between SATA and PCIe can I also suggest that you invest in one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Discontinued-Manufacturer/product-reviews/B000I1X6PM
I know that its actually intended for audio purposes, but is compatible with Cat5 ethernet cables and if you read the Amazon reviews you'll see it has a pervasive effect of reversing entropy in the neighbouring environment that transcends its ostensible function.
Seriously though - unlike the magic cable - faster is faster and if you're really pushing your computer with (e.g.) 4k+ video editing or pro audio things probably will run smoother - but for lesser uses the data rate will rarely get near those top speeds - the bottleneck will be seek time and any SSD will give you a night & day improvement over HD, while the difference between SATA and PCIe will need a stopwatch.
Anyway - nobody is arguing that PCIe SSDs shouldn't be available to those who will benefit, people just want a way to get high-capacity SSD without paying through the nose for the absolute fastest technology.
Of course, though, Apple aren't a charity and, unlike HP or Dell, need to make enough money to cover the cost of developing their own software platform without jeopardising their Scrooge McDuck gold-filled swimming pool.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Wow, this PCIe SSD must be a magical thing!
Just by having a PCIe SSD, your keyboard is suddenly responding faster.
You are, I can tell you don't like the technology.
Whatever you do, avoid them at all costs.
Faster? Of course faster is bad. That makes so much sense.
another straw man argument. I am not surprise.
varian55zx probably spent $900 to get the 1TB PCIe SSD and now he has to come here and say how much better it is than a regular 1TB SATA SSD to make himself feels better.
I feels just fine.
You can insult me all you want, and by all means do.
I simply hope that by speaking the truth, and not lying, I've helped if not one potential buyer, to go for the PCIe, and not the junky alternative.
Numbers and facts don't lie, remember that.
The numbers don't lie, but that doesn't mean you know how to interpret them.
Also, you don't get to have your own "truth".
If I may offer an opinion... I completely agree a new PCIe drive is faster that a SATA SSD, but there are use cases for many of us where the perceptible difference is very small. I have used both and for my usage I honestly can only tell the difference in certain scenarios, and the difference is not great. I have 9GB Photos library and I can tell that launches a little quicker on the faster flash drive, but for everything else like launching and using Safari, Mail, Pages and Numbers documents, I really cannot tell the difference. I could easily see someone like myself who almost never does any work with very large files deciding to just go with a third party SATA SSD and pocket the savings.
I think you might be getting so much push back on your comments because you used words like "junky" and you are trying to make this very black and white, when IMO it really is not.
I really think depending on usage, it is a bit of a grey area for some where the somewhat slower and cheaper option can make sense.
Some very valid points by @Weaselboy and @varian55zx
In my initial search for an iMac (bought in May), I learned a lot from them. Now, remember this, you're the one paying for the unit, and think about the longevity you'd like out of it, too.
For my needs, I went with the middle unit, with 2TB Fusion Drive, 16GB memory (installed after the fact), and a 2TB Seagate external drive for Time Machine backups...
In my initial search for an iMac (bought in May), I learned a lot from them. Now, remember this, you're the one paying for the unit, and think about the longevity you'd like out of it, too.
For my needs, I went with the middle unit, with 2TB Fusion Drive, 16GB memory (installed after the fact), and a 2TB Seagate external drive for Time Machine backups...
Exactly. For many users (possibly the great majority), the performance gained from having PCIe SSD instead of SATA SSD is marginal and not worth the very steep price Apple is asking for.
I'll bite.
So are you insinuating that those certain scenarios just "don't matter"? Would that, perhaps, be bacause they clearly and undeniably demonstrate the benefit of a technology that you do not like?
Only you know the answer to that.
But what I can tell you is I appreciate any speed gains that are available to me.
And when I'm saving amounts of time ranging from fractions of seconds to seconds, on every task done, yeah I'm happy about it.
Sue me.
They don't matter enough to justify paying the very steep price that Apple is asking for.
another straw man argument
You are not saving fractions of a second on "every task" since many of those tasks doesn't utilize the maximum sequential access rate or anywhere near it.
How old are you, again?
Like 5?
To elaborate a little more on this post, first off you will have to understand that aspects of this discussion are based on opinion and subject to different user experiences.
You mentioned you saw speed gains in only a few instances, whereas some users may see them in many, and I have already highlighted that changes are subtle, and some people aren't seeing what is going on in front of them.
You have to understand that for someone like me, those small time saves here and there are a huge deal.
You have already said that you do not care too much about them.
As for my word choice, I don't know where you live Weasel but this is a free country so I am happy to describe things as I wish.
You're right, for some people they don't notice or in their usage it simply does not matter. That doesn't mean that there aren't differences, and they aren't apparent.
Last edited:
Didn't you said a few posts back that what you say is the "truth"?
Now you are saying that it's your opinion?
Well, which one is it?
I don't know at all what you mean by "technology I don't like"??
If the speed gains were free... heck yeah... bring it on. But there is cost involved here, and I think it is reasonable for users to evaluate the cost/benefit here.
Comments like this make me think you don't want to have a polite debate about the subject. I was just offering my perspective on the issue. I did not mean to offend.
I do understand your position, but what I don't understand is your refusal to accept that there may be other usage scenarios where the raw speed of the flash storage device is just not going to make much of a difference at all in the user experience, particularly given the costs.
I never said you do not have the right to use whatever terms you choose to express your thoughts here, I was just making the observation that maybe using terms like "junky" does not lead to a productive discussion of the issues.
I completely agree with everything you just said here. For some users it will not be noticeable, so why spend all that money for something you won't notice? That is my point.
I also agree that in some usage cases the difference is apparent and maybe even worth the extra money. But not in all cases.
Asking for a SATA SSD option would be tough for Apple to pull off.
For your average user it would be slower than the fusion drive which is 7200 HDD + PCIe SSD.
So where would a SATA SSD fall into their lineup and pricing?
Above the HHD, below the PCIe SSD. But above the fusion? It's slower for common task, has less overall storage. So would it be cheaper? Make the fusion more expensive?
It would flip flop between storage capacities when it comes to price.
I'm glad Apple even offers a PCIe SSD. I can always get an external SSD if I want to compromise between speed and cost. The Mac I'm on now (in my sig) doesn't have a PCIe SSD, looking forward to the 2016 model.
For your average user it would be slower than the fusion drive which is 7200 HDD + PCIe SSD.
So where would a SATA SSD fall into their lineup and pricing?
Above the HHD, below the PCIe SSD. But above the fusion? It's slower for common task, has less overall storage. So would it be cheaper? Make the fusion more expensive?
It would flip flop between storage capacities when it comes to price.
I'm glad Apple even offers a PCIe SSD. I can always get an external SSD if I want to compromise between speed and cost. The Mac I'm on now (in my sig) doesn't have a PCIe SSD, looking forward to the 2016 model.
I'm sorry, I've been being hit from all sides today, I think I may have thought this was an attack at first.
No, not at all.
In respect to the purchasing of one's computer, usage scenario is a critical factor.
It is one of the most critical factors, naturally.
One should always tailor their purchase around their usage scenario, as long as money is a factor. Obviously if money is not a factor, there would be no reason to buy anything other than the most expansive BTO options.
But because money is a factor, you buy a machine tailored to your usage scenario, and ideally, you buy the computer that will be able to handle anything you throw at it.
This same idea, absolutely, applies to what storage option you choose for your Mac.
And for some, the 256 is best. For some, they need that 1tb and they can afford it and it goes down as a work expense anyway. I get that.
I respect all those decisions. However, what I am more arguing for is that different SSDs are faster than others, and PCIe is faster than SATA, and not only that, it is noticeable.
This holds true not because of any one user's specific use for the machine, but because some parts perform better than others.
Yes. For any users who don't notice or don't care about these speed differences, which are small, no they do not need the fastest SSDs available.
They can buy a slower one, have the same experience, and save some money.
But that doesn't mean those two SSDs are equal. They're not. That is why Apple has just come out with faster and faster SSDs every year. It is because they are faster, whether or not all their customers will notice.
I want to summarize by saying that for certain users, the speed difference is not important. But as I said earlier in the thread, I don't like the idea of downplaying the speed advantage of PCIe SSDs.
To me that promotes lack of attention to detail, something I don't like, and in addition to that, I think PCIe is just a wonderful and highly beneficial technology.
Last edited:
@varian55zx, I would have understood better, had you opted for the 1TB PCIe SSD yourself based on your preference as depicted in this thread, but you haven't. You have a 128GB PCIe SSD + 2TB HDD from Apple. Therefore, you did not opt for the "best possible experience", as you put it. So you yourself did make a compromise. In the same vein, why are you so against the suggestions from the users here who are merely suggesting options that account for speed and pragmatism relative to their usage/budget?
No one disputes that the 1TB internal SSD won't be the best performant. From what I can tell, people are simply suggesting other options "relative" to usage/budget.
No one disputes that the 1TB internal SSD won't be the best performant. From what I can tell, people are simply suggesting other options "relative" to usage/budget.
Last edited:
Why don't you mind your own business?
Everything I said is true.
I didn't buy it because I don't need it and I don't want it
When you don't do anything intensive on your Mac at all, it's hard to justify spending north of 3k on a machine.
I check email, web browse; watch TV. That's it. I'm not kidding when I say I don't do anything else. Why would I spend thousands and thousands of dollars to do that?
I'll assume only you can explain that to me.
I could spend less than 500 and do that with a gross Windows PC.
Now you're acting like I have to get a 1tb SSD now? Why. You tell me why. I'd just be so interested to know.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I don't appreciate your aggressive, arrogant tone and unnecessary attack at all.
Have a good day.
It must be one of those aggressive fanboy behavior.
Mind your attitude! Seriously, no one want to talk to you if that's your attitude.
Why don't you get a Mac Mini then?
It seems a waste to have an iMac.
Last edited:
Nonsense, I love the technology. If I bought a new iMac (strong possibility if the next update is good) I'd quite likely max it out with the best CPU, best GPU and the 1TB PCIe SSD because "future-proofing". However, I'm currently fortunate enough to be able to afford that without breaking a sweat - but not quite fortunate enough to take that fact for granted. If, when I was younger, I'd rushed out with my credit card and bought the very best of everything in computers every year, I'd probably not still enjoy that option today.
Plenty of other people have to justify every penny they spend on a computer (that's been me in the past, and it could easily be me in the future) and the answer to them is the difference between SATA and PCIe is not going to be a big deal for most applications.
Nobody here has been saying that PCIe isn't faster than SATA (it is) - just that the difference may be marginal for many applications (which you seem to accept, but only when the words come out of your own mouth) and hence not worth the money if you're on a limited budget,
A fault of the 27" iMac is the lack of a door to potentially upgrade the SSD - at a time when they're gradually becoming larger, faster and more affordable (& we'll probably have XPoint drives coming soon, which might actually show flash SSDs a clean pair of heels, especially on write speed & the whole TRIM/Garbage collection thing).
Also, its worth noting that Apple did lead the way with PCIe SSDs, there are now plenty of PC motherboards with M.2 slots supporting both PCIe and SATA. Even the new Intel NUC has two of them. The price of 1TB NVMe PCIe3 x4 M.2 SSDs for them is still high c.f. "good enough" SATA though.
This is all true and that is just the thing... I never debated this fact.
Debating the above was never my intention for any posts I have made in this thread, if my points have been construed as such, that is a misconception.
My concern was more that people were saying there wasn't any difference at all. Again, the devil is in the details.
I maintain the difference may be small, but I attest that that small time save is significant, and would need to be noted.
These are my feelings on the matter.