TR Forums

Krogoth wrote:

It is unlikely SSD will ever catch-up with HDDs in terms of GB/$$$ ratio and density.

They don't have to catch up -- they only have to get inexpensive enough and dense enough that they meet the storage needs of a significant number of people without breaking the bank. At that point, the speed and power-use advantages will become compelling enough to convince people SSDs are a better overall choice. Then, as more users choose SSDs over HDDs, the HDD makers are left with a smaller pool of customers, which starves them of R&D budget.

This will be similar to what happened with tape drives. For a long time HDDs were too small to hold all of the data all the time, and too unreliable to trust everything to them, so tape was a necessity. Over time, of course, that changed. HDDs didn't actually pass tape in terms of GB/$$$ ratio and density until after they had basically driven tape to large scale backup niches.

And of course, tape has not disappeared completely--neither will HDDs. I just don't think HDDs will be mainstream for much longer though (18 months is my SWAG).

They don't have to catch up -- they only have to get inexpensive enough and dense enough that they meet the storage needs of a significant number of people without breaking the bank. At that point, the speed and power-use advantages will become compelling enough to convince people SSDs are a better overall choice. Then, as more users choose SSDs over HDDs, the HDD makers are left with a smaller pool of customers, which starves them of R&D budget.

They are already dense enough for replacing HDDs for a lot of people, and prices are dropping.

I just looked, and it's amazing how the HP 840, Dell 7020, and Dell 9020 ALL don't have ANY SSD options. Very mainstream business desktop machines. A shame, since even a 120GB SSD would probably be enough for a work machine on the domain with network storage. And 250GB is downright spacious for a lot of users I've seen. Laptops seem a bit better, but they still have it in the higher tier.

So the question remains: how long will it take for manufacturers to start putting the darn drives in anything other than pricey ultrabooks? It doesn't exactly cost that much more, and I don't see any reasons why they can't do it as it is.

So the question remains: how long will it take for manufacturers to start putting the darn drives in anything other than pricey ultrabooks? It doesn't exactly cost that much more, and I don't see any reasons why they can't do it as it is.

I subspect that most people that aren't geeks are not aware of what SSDs are and why they would want one. Half the time I have to explain the diffrencte between memory and HDDs to folks. In fact some people I know keep calling computers the harddrive and the display the computer.

localhostrulez wrote:

I just looked, and it's amazing how the HP 840, Dell 7020, and Dell 9020 ALL don't have ANY SSD options. Very mainstream business desktop machines. A shame, since even a 120GB SSD would probably be enough for a work machine on the domain with network storage

I'm checking my configurators from Dell and HP, and I definitely see 128GB and 256GB SSD options listed from both companies, for the HP Elitedesk 800 G1 and Dell Optiplex 9020 respectively. The public consumer pages do confirm SSD availability but don't have them in the configuration options themselves. :rolleyes:

That said my Dell and HP portal pages may be different than what you're seeing, and definitely are different than the consumer pages...

continuum wrote:

I'm checking my configurators from Dell and HP, and I definitely see 128GB and 256GB SSD options listed from both companies, for the HP Elitedesk 800 G1 and Dell Optiplex 9020 respectively. The public consumer pages do confirm SSD availability but don't have them in the configuration options themselves. :rolleyes:

That said my Dell and HP portal pages may be different than what you're seeing, and definitely are different than the consumer pages...

Huh, strange. I talked to an HP rep, and they couldn't find any configurations of an 800 g1 with an SSD. Although they did point me to a $1900 HP Envy workstation for some reason (why would anyone stick that in an enterprise or compare it to biz equipment?) for an SSD equipped desktop. And with the Dell 9020, I checked all the options they had listed, and none include SSDs. Even though I could've sworn I've heard of people buying mini 9020's and having SSDs included. Either way, they're not making it too easy, and it seems like when they do include them they charge a ton more for the most part.

whm1974 wrote:

I subspect that most people that aren't geeks are not aware of what SSDs are and why they would want one. Half the time I have to explain the diffrencte between memory and HDDs to folks. In fact some people I know keep calling computers the harddrive and the display the computer.

True, but OEMs are basically making noticeably (even to the average user) worse products that aren't a whole lot cheaper. And when they do include SSDs, they do it only in the expensive models. Same thing with screens (with some HP Elitebook models, I need to spend twice as much for a config with the 1080p 14" screen)... Never mind if it's a cheap part to include that greatly helps the user experience, and it's not a bargain bin laptop. Let's go for the low end part anyway, and then slap an i7 in there. Drives me nuts. I also have to wonder how easily I can swap screens in a lot of laptops - after all, if it's a standard eDP or 30-pin LVDS connector...

True, but OEMs are basically making noticeably (even to the average user) worse products that aren't a whole lot cheaper. And when they do include SSDs, they do it only in the expensive models. Same thing with screens (with some HP Elitebook models, I need to spend twice as much for a config with the 1080p 14" screen)...

I consider 1080p to be the minumim resulotion for use by both desktops and laptops. And I'm thinking that since you can get a 256 SSD for a little over $100 they should become standard for this who don't need 1 TB+ of storage.

Let's go for the low end part anyway, and then slap an i7 in there.

If you think that's bad, I've seen i7-5820K based gaming desktops on Newegg with lowend video cards and sometimes with only 8 GB of memory.

whm1974 wrote:

They don't have to catch up -- they only have to get inexpensive enough and dense enough that they meet the storage needs of a significant number of people without breaking the bank. At that point, the speed and power-use advantages will become compelling enough to convince people SSDs are a better overall choice. Then, as more users choose SSDs over HDDs, the HDD makers are left with a smaller pool of customers, which starves them of R&D budget.

They are already dense enough for replacing HDDs for a lot of people, and prices are dropping.

...and this is why I said they'd replace HDDs in consumer applications soon. But they won't displace HDDs in the datacenter for a while yet, since when you're storing massive amounts of data, cost/GB is king.

just brew it! wrote:

UnfriendlyFire wrote:

Also, I've seen two college students decide to buy an i7 laptop with a 1 TB HDD and 15.6" 768p display. No GPU.

I partly blame the OEM who was willing to configure a laptop that way. WTF?

Asus paired an i7 Sandybridge 2.2 GHz quad core CPU with a GT 610M for their A53SD-TS71 laptop: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6834231836

Talk about GPU bottleneck...

They also had an 17" laptop with a 1.1 GHz Temash APU a while back. I can't seem to find it.

localhostrulez wrote:

UnfriendlyFire wrote:

Also, I've seen two college students decide to buy an i7 laptop with a 1 TB HDD and 15.6" 768p display. No GPU.

What? It has an i7. Must be good. Toss in some sort of nvidia or AMD GPU (who cares how low end it is), and you've got a machine that screams POWERRRRR. Right?

Fits perfectly with OEMs refusing to put high res screens on anything but machines pushing toward $1000+. Never mind the actual cost of the panel.

Holy crap. That's almost what they said. One of them said, "Dude, i7s are the s***".

Me? I thought I bought a good laptop. Until I learned why some people don't like Acer's repair service when the laptop has some problems during its warranty period.


Oh, as for the low-quality panels on expensive laptops, Notebookcheck penalized HP's newest Elitebook 8xx G2s for using poor quality 1600x900 TN panels (with blue tint and bad color accuracy and contrast) on a $1700 business laptop. http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-EliteBo ... 398.0.html

K-L-Waster wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

It is unlikely SSD will ever catch-up with HDDs in terms of GB/$$$ ratio and density.

They don't have to catch up -- they only have to get inexpensive enough and dense enough that they meet the storage needs of a significant number of people without breaking the bank. At that point, the speed and power-use advantages will become compelling enough to convince people SSDs are a better overall choice. Then, as more users choose SSDs over HDDs, the HDD makers are left with a smaller pool of customers, which starves them of R&D budget.

This will be similar to what happened with tape drives. For a long time HDDs were too small to hold all of the data all the time, and too unreliable to trust everything to them, so tape was a necessity. Over time, of course, that changed. HDDs didn't actually pass tape in terms of GB/$$$ ratio and density until after they had basically driven tape to large scale backup niches.

And of course, tape has not disappeared completely--neither will HDDs. I just don't think HDDs will be mainstream for much longer though (18 months is my SWAG).

It is more like that you will see a combo of SSD/HDD being employed in the field. SSD for primary storage and HDD as back-up storage medium.

Krogoth wrote:

It is more like that you will see a combo of SSD/HDD being employed in the field. SSD for primary storage and HDD as back-up storage medium.

Yes, high capacity external media will remain mechanical for cost reasons. But with so much moving into "the cloud" I expect that fewer people will own it personally; those "external" drives will be located halfway across the country in a data center!

It is isn't just for cost and it is also for reliablity reasons.

SSD may be immune to mechanical issues, but the flash cells do eventually leak out or burn-in and it the problem gets worse the smaller cells get.

It remains to be seen whether SSDs or HDDs degrade more rapidly in a typical home environment, when used for archival storage. Although the platters in a HDD are indeed quite stable over time, other mechanical aspects of the drive will slowly degrade -- lubricants dry out; metal parts in traditional vented drives will corrode if the drive is exposed to humidity; and the newer sealed ultra-high capacity models will slowly lose their helium gas, rendering them inoperative.

It is worth noting that HDDs typically have a 5 year "design life". Will most retain data and continue working past the 5 year mark? Sure, provided they're not abused. But there are no guarantees.

just brew it! wrote:

It is worth noting that HDDs typically have a 5 year "design life". Will most retain data and continue working past the 5 year mark? Sure, provided they're not abused. But there are no guarantees.

I usually tell people to count reliably on at three under normal conditions, and expect 5. And from there on, it's bonus time.

just brew it! wrote:

It remains to be seen whether SSDs or HDDs degrade more rapidly in a typical home environment, when used for archival storage.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that statement. I still have the original drives from my first high school computer, and more 3.5' 1-3GB drives from 486 and pentium pro systems that still work if I cared to install them. Odds are hard drives will last an exceedingly long time if left sitting around unpowered in a temperature controlled environment.

There are exceptions as you point out, the Deathstar series was due to too much lubricant being released and making the drive unreadable. But I think the evidence is conclusive, most people seem to have old or literally ancient computers in a back closet and the drives still work fine in them.

morphine wrote:

I usually tell people to count reliably on at three under normal conditions, and expect 5. And from there on, it's bonus time.

That's also generally my rule of thumb.

Kougar wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

It remains to be seen whether SSDs or HDDs degrade more rapidly in a typical home environment, when used for archival storage.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that statement.

Given that consumer SSDs have only been around for a few years, I don't see how we can say anything else at this point.

Given that consumer SSDs have only been around for a few years, I don't see how we can say anything else at this point.

Yeah we need more data on this.

Definitely a valid point--TR's endurance study is about the only information that anyone's generated on SSDs other than performance benchmarks, and even that leaves a lot of open questions about what sorts of data are more dangerous than others (i.e. a million 1KB writes vs. a single 1GB). I stand by my assertion that SSD prevalence will be mostly a factor of cost, though.

NovusBogus wrote:

Definitely a valid point--TR's endurance study is about the only information that anyone's generated on SSDs other than performance benchmarks, and even that leaves a lot of open questions about what sorts of data are more dangerous than others (i.e. a million 1KB writes vs. a single 1GB). I stand by my assertion that SSD prevalence will be mostly a factor of cost, though.

The endurance study answers a *different* question than the one which was asked a few posts back. While wear of the flash cells will certainly affect long-term stability of archival data, we still don't know how long a drive that has *not* been abused will retain its data error-free.

whm1974 wrote:

They are already dense enough for replacing HDDs for a lot of people, and prices are dropping.

Are they? Prices of Crucial/Samsung 120 / 250 gb devices have been almost flat for the past year. Higher flash chip densities are probably harder to achieve than for normal chips (CPUs/GPUs) so prices are unlikely to fall significantly.

120 gb is also quite limited especially when one also wants to store photos and videos.

Are they? Prices of Crucial/Samsung 120 / 250 gb devices have been almost flat for the past year. Higher flash chip densities are probably harder to achieve than for normal chips (CPUs/GPUs) so prices are unlikely to fall significantly.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820148696

I payed about $650 each for my two M500 960 GBs almost two years ago. Now the same drive can now be had for ~$300. Now mSATA sticks for some reason cost more...

whm1974 wrote:

Are they? Prices of Crucial/Samsung 120 / 250 gb devices have been almost flat for the past year. Higher flash chip densities are probably harder to achieve than for normal chips (CPUs/GPUs) so prices are unlikely to fall significantly.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820148696

I payed about $650 each for my two M500 960 GBs almost two years ago. Now the same drive can now be had for ~$300. Now mSATA sticks for some reason cost more...

Because producing and packaging less material is expensive

auxy wrote:

I SURE HOPE SO! (≧◇≦)

SSDs should already have replaced HDDs in all low-end and midrange laptops. Regular user has no need for 500GB of storage, and 128GB SSD is cheaper than that anyway. It's stupid!

Every day I have to talk to customers who broke their laptop's HDD by jostling it, and deal with slow PCs because of old 4200RPM laptop HDD. I hate it so much! RRRAAAHHH!

Just thinking about it is making me furious! I hate my job! (; ･`д･´)

Yeah, well when SSDs stop randomly failing with no warning and no recovery software available, I'll trust them with non-replaceable data.

It's obvious that as SSDs come down in price and go up in capacity lots of people will start using them as the default. They are better... until something, anything goes wrong.

I'm sure data recovery companies are seeing dollar signs already.

Vhalidictes wrote:

Yeah, well when SSDs stop randomly failing with no warning and no recovery software available, I'll trust them with non-replaceable data.

Sounds like a recipe for future data loss to me. You shouldn't trust *any* storage technology with non-replaceable data. Non-replaceable data needs to be backed up.

just brew it! wrote:

Non-replaceable data needs to be backed up.

Preferably to more than one location.

UnfriendlyFire wrote:

Also, I've seen two college students decide to buy an i7 laptop with a 1 TB HDD and 15.6" 768p display. No GPU.

If you don't intend to use anything that needs a GPU, then what's wrong with that? Especially when a laptop i7 is not nearly as powerful as a desktop i7. I certainly have had times where such a build would be useful (assuming 8gb RAM) except the 1tb HDD - a 240gb SSD would have been better. Still... I also want to be able to play games on it so I wouldn't get something like that. I still use a 768p monitor for my desktop and its much larger than any laptop screen.

Hopefully they'll be common in laptops soon - they can benefit the battery life and there there are enough people who buy laptops who don't need much storage based on the existence of chromebooks. There would still mostly HDD laptops, but SSD-only laptops at most of the price ranges in stores like Best Buy and Fry's will hopefully happen within 2 years. Same for desktops hopefully within 3 years. With HDD's focusing on the higher capacity drives, I wouldn't be surprised if 120gb SSDs became on par with 120gb HDDs in cost within a couple years and if 240gb HDDs get nearly as high in cost per gb as 120gb HDDs are, then 240gb SSDs should pass up 240gb HDDs as well.

NovusBogus wrote:

I'd expect to see budget systems start shipping SSDs if/when a 240GB SSD can be had for $50 retail (i.e. price comparable to a basic mechanical). At that point 1TB will be a lot more palatable as well.

There have been sales good enough that you could get a 240gb SSD under $50 after MIR.... you just have to get mcafee your credit card info for 10 months.

meerkt wrote:

SSDs aren't suitable for long-term storage.

This ignorance is why we are still seeing 500GB HDDs in the cheapest budget laptops, because they think (perhaps correctly) that ordinary people will be put off by the "small numbers".

Modern Windows needs tens of GBs. A handful of modern games might take 100GB (excluding Star Citizen). Add a few hi-res movies, and you're easily above 250GB.

Things are getting more exquisite, and so bigger. Computer users are also getting knowing more and more about what they're using.
I guess he'll finally decide to sell laptops with SSDs in the near future.

with how fast the price of ssd's have been falling and the size of them rising and how hdd's have stagnated in price and size how could you not think that ssd's will eventually overtake hdd's?

within 5 years? maybe not
within 10 years? i think so

you can get 1tb ssd's now for around $300
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226596

with how fast prices have been falling and sizes rising for ssd's imo 2tb ssd's will be $300 within 18months to 2 years

f0d wrote:

with how fast the price of ssd's have been falling and the size of them rising and how hdd's have stagnated in price and size how could you not think that ssd's will eventually overtake hdd's?

with how fast prices have been falling and sizes rising for ssd's imo 2tb ssd's will be $300 within 18months to 2 years

Yeah, but 10TB drives already exist and are being sold today. In two years we will have exceeded that, at least 14-16TB per drive. For several years now the best sales have the cost of a HDD sitting exactly on 0.02 cents per GB or $20 per TB. Until you can buy a 1TB SSD for $50 HDDs have nothing to fear. And until you can buy a 1TB SSD for $20 HDDs are going to have plenty of markets left for mass storage needs.

I'm pretty sure a new disruptive tech will come along and replace silicon NAND long before we see $20 1TB SSDs happening. And it will be a very big question if that tech can compete with the cost/density of HDDs when it happens.