When will large SSDs be cheap?

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by TSE, May 21, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. npaladin2000

    npaladin2000 LOAD "*",8,1

    Reputations:
    351
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Yes but THAT is basically putting HDD manufacturers in competition with flash manufacturers...who also happen to supply flash to SSD manufacturers. And the upward scaling of flash manufacturing to meet that demand is helping to lower SSD prices.

    We're seeing "affordable" 120 GB SSDs now, you can get them around $1 a gig. Same with the 250 GB ones. The 500+ GB ones are still a little prohibitive, but I bit the bullet and bought one (found it on sale at least) and it's the best purchase I've ever made. What might actually be holding those up in price is the higher demand for lower capacities: people use them in combination with HDDs and/or cloud storage, reducing or even eliminating the need for large SSDs.
     
  2. JRS

    JRS Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    2
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    I think SSDs have been cheap for awhile... I once ordered a desktop with the biggest hard drive available, 425-ishMB (yes, that is an "M" as in Mega), and it was the only hard drive available at the time that had a cost lower than 1MB per $1... thats right, I paid $400 for it, and it was a deal. That makes the $200 I paid for my first 160GB 2nd gen Intel x25m last year look pretty good. :)

    Here's the other reason I consider SSDs "cheap"... imho, for most users and their computers (desktop or laptop) an SSD is probably the single most effective way to get a nice bump in performance (actual and perceived) without going to an entirely new system. When I got that x25m mentioned above last year, I was working in a group of developers most of whom ran gen I quad-core laptops and I was running a 2.5 yr old 2.0 GHz dual core laptop. Once I put in that SSD, my laptop appeared to be as fast as theirs in many tasks, and faster in a number of tasks. Another way to put it, I could have upgraded to a quad-core laptop for $1500 just to "tie" the other developers in performance, or add a $200 SSD and beat them in most of the tasks we did on a daily basis.
     
  3. HTWingNut

    HTWingNut Potato

    Reputations:
    21,578
    Messages:
    35,409
    Likes Received:
    9,867
    Trophy Points:
    931
    $200 for 256GB is still expensive, and you can only get that price on a fire sale not regularly. Spindle drives even with the price hike, are less than half that cost. So I guess from a system and performance perspective they're relatively cheap but compared to the alternative of a spindle drive and per GB storage, it's quite expensive.
     
  4. npaladin2000

    npaladin2000 LOAD "*",8,1

    Reputations:
    351
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Less than half the cost...and less than half the performance too. You have to keep that in mind. It's not an apples to apples comparison. That's like saying a Cruze is cheaper than a Corvette, so until the Corvette is the price of a Cruze, obviously the Cruze is a better performer. Doesn't quite work that way.

    SSDs, because of their speed advantage, will ALWAYS be priced at a premium versus HDDs. That's just the market. That premium is the smallest it's ever been right now though.
     
  5. __-_-_-__

    __-_-_-__ God

    Reputations:
    326
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    56
    1TB SSD will cost 150$ in about 4.5 years.
     
  6. MidnightSun

    MidnightSun Emodicon

    Reputations:
    6,668
    Messages:
    8,233
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Although I don't have actual data, I'd be willing to bet that SSD usage in laptops is still relatively negligible in the grand scheme of things (remember, NBR's average user technical expertise is much higher than that of most consumers). So, I'm sure SSDs have contributed to stealing the market for super-fast HDDs, but for most people who have over 100+ GB of data they need to carry around, HDDs are still a more popular solution. The HDD price wars (which were more intense before the Thailand floods) were the main factor that drove prices down.

    I agree that SSDs are far more affordable than they were a few years back. But $200 for a 256GB drive is still astronomically expensive compared to, say, a 250GB HDD (even post-flood). Unless you're a computer enthusiast (like most of us), you're probably not going to dump $200 into upgrading a computer that probably only cost $400-600.

    For me, $200 was the very upper limit for how much I'd spend on a computer upgrade, and I'm far more willing to spend money on tech than most consumers. So "affordable," yes. But actually affordable, not yet ;)
     
  7. __-_-_-__

    __-_-_-__ God

    Reputations:
    326
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    56
  8. HTWingNut

    HTWingNut Potato

    Reputations:
    21,578
    Messages:
    35,409
    Likes Received:
    9,867
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Interesting. Thanks for the link +1.

    However I don't like how they say speeds won't increase much. However, by then they should be able to put 64GB SSD's on there cheaply as a fast read/write cache. Read cache like on the Momentus XT is ok, but a larger buffer would allow for read/write caching to speed up everything. I mean how often will you need to write 64GB of continuous data?
     
  9. yuio

    yuio NBR Assistive Tec. Tec.

    Reputations:
    634
    Messages:
    3,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    I'll bet 4-5 years... it will take a couple for the 512GB to replace the 256's at the 150-200$ price point and another 2 or 3 for a 1TB.

    I saw a 240GB for 160$ today
     
  10. Qing Dao

    Qing Dao Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    1,593
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    101
    For read and write caching they use DDR memory, right? Right now its I think at most 64MB per drive. A single drive with 64GB of flash memory would I think be the perfect single hard drive for a laptop! Even 32GB would be really good. Also what about a drive that was both SSD and mechanical, but completely separate? I could deal with a fast SATA 3 64GB SSD and a one platter 500GB 5400rpm hard drive in a single physical package. They would share the SATA port, but it shouldn't slow things too much. When transferring anything between the drives, it will be bottlenecked at the speed of the mechanical drive and not the shared SATA port.

    One great thing about the advancement of hard drive sizes since Windows XP was released is that the files and programs we put on them have grown at a slower rate than the hard drives. It's just that we put so much more on them. Six years ago I had the most amount of hard drives I have ever had and had only around 2TB worth. Today all of that fits with room to spare on my largest hard drive. I look at the files I had from that time and they are pretty much the same as the ones of today.

    The only thing I don't like about hard drives anymore is that there are no different kinds. Back in the day we had like a dozen manufacturers to choose from. That has slowly dwindled to what, 2 companies competing now for consumer hard drives? Our choices are becoming more and more limited all the time. With SSD's it really isn't much better at all though.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page