512 GB SSD

bigdogchris

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
19,116
Link

Are we looking at 1.024 TB SSD's by the end of 2009? At the frequency they are increasing the size, they might match magnetic storage within a couple years. While much more expensive, I didn't think it would happen. I figured magnetic storage would always outpace SSD.
 
Call me when price-per-GB for flash SSDs have improved. ;)

Overall capacity may be outpaced by NAND flash storage, but their pricing isn't quite up to par yet, being ultra-high premium products.
 
Syntax Error said:
Call me when price-per-GB for flash SSDs have improved. ;)

Overall capacity may be outpaced by NAND flash storage, but their pricing isn't quite up to par yet, being ultra-high premium products.
Click to expand...

This.

They need to work on getting decent, bug free drives out at reasonable prices before trying to shoot for the stars with capacity.
 
bigdogchris said:
At the frequency they are increasing the size, they might match magnetic storage within a couple years.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but SSDs already matched and exceeded. SSDs have been at 1.6TB+ since February. link. I figure if we're going to start comparing data 'density' then equivalent form factors should be assumed.

AFAIK we don't have 512GB+ 2.5 inch HDDs either.
 
I can't even imagine that things cost. The good news is that mechanical drives are trying to catchup and put a stop to the SSD show by reducing their prices.
 
Joe Average said:
500GB 2.5" drives? Yes... Yes... and Yes... larger than that? Not yet... but coming soon. :)
Click to expand...

Holy crap! I thought the 320GB Was the biggest in notebook drives.. does anyone know which one of these three listed would be the best buy for a netbook? Both the Samsung and Seagate got decent Newegg reviews, but who can trust Newegg reviews.
 
Ockie said:
I can't even imagine that things cost. The good news is that mechanical drives are trying to catchup and put a stop to the SSD show by reducing their prices.
Click to expand...

Didn't Seagate threaten to sue SSD makers if solid state drives "become popular"? Whatever happened to that plan?

Anyway, this sounds pretty sweet. However, for now I'll just enjoy the show since It'll be a while before prices and capacities reach a reasonable level and we have a better idea about reliability and longevity.
 
SockMan! said:
Didn't Seagate threaten to sue SSD makers if solid state drives "become popular"? Whatever happened to that plan?

Anyway, this sounds pretty sweet. However, for now I'll just enjoy the show since It'll be a while before prices and capacities reach a reasonable level and we have a better idea about reliability and longevity.
Click to expand...

Same way car makers and the oil industry tried to sue and keep hybrids and electrics down. They countered it and softened the blow by offering beefy V8's in small cars for cheap prices and lowering the price of gas. Except now it's backfiring on them just like how it's backfiring on the mechanical companies.
 
Kaldskryke said:
Hate to break it to you, but SSDs already matched and exceeded. SSDs have been at 1.6TB+ since February. link. I figure if we're going to start comparing data 'density' then equivalent form factors should be assumed.

AFAIK we don't have 512GB+ 2.5 inch HDDs either.
Click to expand...
.... on the consumer level.
 
Didn't Seagate threaten to sue SSD makers if solid state drives "become popular"? Whatever happened to that plan?
Click to expand...

The same thing that happened to their 5 yr. warrantys on OEM drives....it got dropped. :D
 
HDDs will always own flash and crap until the day they can match the performance of them!

SSDs...
* have shorter lifespans than HDDs
* have significantly lesser write speeds than HDDs
* have lower storage density than HDDs
* require more power than HDDs in both the short and long run
* are prone to damage and other problems if an abrupt power loss occurs

Look, flash and SSDs -suck- compared to HDDs. The advantage of flash and SSDs is for small/low-end/portable applications, like durable MP3 players, cell phones, PDAs, etc.

And, because of SSDs physical makeup, structure, design and properties -- SSD naturally sucks when it comes to lifetime, because everything tends towards breakdown and destruction; having cells be physically used and altered on a daily basis versus just coating a strip of magnetic data on a solid platter will obviously deteriorate MUCH faster than an HDD.

SSDs/flash is good for portable storage, durability and quietness. I would rather exercise at the gym with a flash/SSD-based MP3 player than an HDD-based; but when not exercising and not exposing an MP3 player to great potential risk to critical and lethal damage, HDD will OWN flash/SSD. It'd be cheaper and better to use flash/SSD for objects (cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players, flash drives) that can easily be replaced inexpensively. They shouldn't be used actively as would HDDs in desktop computers and servers.
 
Cerulean said:
* have shorter lifespans than HDDs
Click to expand...
Huh? :confused:

SSDs may have limited write cycles for their cells (10,000 for MLC, 100,000 for SLC), but they have wear-leveling algorithms. For normal usage" in a desktop system, I highly doubt you'd encounter SSD bit corruption before an HDD were to fail of natural causes. Besides, SSDs don't have a tendency of HDDs that if sectors were to become corrupted, the drive itself is compromised. You'll just have less space to work with as SSDs will re-allocate the bad cells (they're still readable) onto a cell that's not broken.

Cerulean said:
* have significantly lesser write speeds than HDDs
Click to expand...
I guess you're looking at JMicron-based MLC SSDs...if you look at Intel's and Samsung's recent lineup, they've been bitch-slapping HDDs in write and read speeds by a large margin.

Cerulean said:
* have lower storage density than HDDs
Click to expand...
512GB in one 2.5" disk seems about on-par with what HDDs have at this current moment in the laptop-sized drive sector.

Cerulean said:
* require more power than HDDs in both the short and long run
Click to expand...
I'd like to know where you got those figures, especially since SSDs have no moving parts. :confused:

Cerulean said:
* are prone to damage and other problems if an abrupt power loss occurs
Click to expand...
As are HDDs.

Here's what I make of the SSD technology - where cheap storage is concerned, HDDs will rule in greater density and cost-per-gigabyte, as 512GB SSDs are obviously very, very expensive and not very economical in large setups. SSDs will also be unsuitable for uses which expect lots of continuous read/write cycles and random access, as that would deteriorate quickly compared to an HDD, which has no such limitation.

I believe SSDs will largely dominate performance-oriented enterprise and consumer drives that are utilized in the form of WD Velociraptors and the like; SSDs will also make a large market in the laptop sector as their low heat, low energy, and zero moving parts will appeal much towards rugged design and rough-and-tumble laptop users. :)

I'm not really fearing the demise of the HDD quite yet; until their prices start to rival HDDs on a cost-per-gigabyte level, us old-timers with our old platter drives needn't worry. :D
 
Cerulean said:
* have shorter lifespans than HDDs
* have significantly lesser write speeds than HDDs
* have lower storage density than HDDs
* require more power than HDDs in both the short and long run
* are prone to damage and other problems if an abrupt power loss occurs
Click to expand...

umm, false, very false, true for now but only barely, false, and finally while true SSDs fare better than HDDs in the same situation.

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11408-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=39451&messageID=725468&start=0
 
Cerulean said:
HDDs will always own flash and crap until the day they can match the performance of them!

SSDs...
* have shorter lifespans than HDDs
* have significantly lesser write speeds than HDDs
* have lower storage density than HDDs
* require more power than HDDs in both the short and long run
* are prone to damage and other problems if an abrupt power loss occurs

Look, flash and SSDs -suck- compared to HDDs. The advantage of flash and SSDs is for small/low-end/portable applications, like durable MP3 players, cell phones, PDAs, etc.

And, because of SSDs physical makeup, structure, design and properties -- SSD naturally sucks when it comes to lifetime, because everything tends towards breakdown and destruction; having cells be physically used and altered on a daily basis versus just coating a strip of magnetic data on a solid platter will obviously deteriorate MUCH faster than an HDD.

SSDs/flash is good for portable storage, durability and quietness. I would rather exercise at the gym with a flash/SSD-based MP3 player than an HDD-based; but when not exercising and not exposing an MP3 player to great potential risk to critical and lethal damage, HDD will OWN flash/SSD. It'd be cheaper and better to use flash/SSD for objects (cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players, flash drives) that can easily be replaced inexpensively. They shouldn't be used actively as would HDDs in desktop computers and servers.
Click to expand...

Is this what people would call talking out of your ass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top