Intel Says SSD Sales Are Not Picking Up Yet

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
You'd think supply and demand would take over at some point even for intel. I mean if you have a warehouse full of SSDs that arent selling you can drop the price and lo and behold everyone starts buying your stuff. But rather than find a way to drop the price intel comes out and whines about how no one is buying their SSDs.

Using Tom's ssd charts I see that the fastest intel under 300 bucks is the Intel X25-M G2 160gb. But it is pretty low on the performance compared to several other brands. Take AS-SSD overall write for instance the ocz vertex 2, corsair force gt and patriot wildfire are all faster than intel's fastest and they are all cheaper than the intel too.

Hell you can get an ocz vertex 2 120gb now for $155.00! True its not the fastest anymore since its sata 3gb instead of 6gb but if you wanna get a good size ssd thats fast (and faster than Intels best offering LOL) and wont break the bank ... maybe take a look.

Linkage to the ocz vertex 2:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227551
 
[citation][nom]shin0bi272[/nom]You'd think supply and demand would take over at some point even for intel. I mean if you have a warehouse full of SSDs that arent selling you can drop the price and lo and behold everyone starts buying your stuff. But rather than find a way to drop the price intel comes out and whines about how no one is buying their SSDs. Using Tom's ssd charts I see that the fastest intel under 300 bucks is the Intel X25-M G2 160gb. But it is pretty low on the performance compared to several other brands. Take AS-SSD overall write for instance the ocz vertex 2, corsair force gt and patriot wildfire are all faster than intel's fastest and they are all cheaper than the intel too. Hell you can get an ocz vertex 2 120gb now for $155.00! True its not the fastest anymore since its sata 3gb instead of 6gb but if you wanna get a good size ssd thats fast (and faster than Intels best offering LOL) and wont break the bank ... maybe take a look.Linkage to the ocz vertex 2:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820227551[/citation]
I would not say that nobody is buying their SSDs. When you consider the pro market that is all about Intel SSDs and buys them in bulk I would bet that Intel is the largest single SSD seller, and thus the reason why they have not dropped their prices. What they are complaining about is that they just have not sold as many as they expected to considering the uptick in HDD costs.
 
Simply speaking: the prices of SSD's are still way too high, which is one of the reasons people aren't picking them up in mass quantities (this is for the non-tech savvy population), and in regards to those who do know a thing about computers and SSD's, they also know that the technology is not 100% reliable just yet.

On top of that, manufacturing costs of SSD's are minimal for companies such as Intel, etc. (they always have been), and yet they are gauging the prices of this storage tech for years now.
The storage ratio vs the price tag is absurd.
HDD's are effectively at 4 TB, and SSD's are barely approaching 1TB (and cost well over what you would buy a regular computer for).

You're gonna tell me that NAND tech is incapable of matching/surpassing HDD's in terms of storage?
Don't make me laugh.

 
There are two ways to boost SSD sales:

A: Information advertising blitz. Lots of people still don't understand the importance of data speed and only look at the price per gigabyte.

B: Drop the SSD prices.
 
[citation][nom]sceen311[/nom]Drop the price and you'll see Sales pick up.[/citation]
Wow, once again common sense rules over over educated hacks making six figures at intel.
 
Increase production, and I mean go all in with it like CPUs. That will drive cost down dramatically so u can lower prices dramatically. Everyone wins, mechanical HDD go away.
 
Gee... if the prices are high, of course people won't buy! Unless SSDs come down to about 50 cents/GB, I won't buy. Besides, I find my PC boots fast enough (windows 7 64-bit, i5, wd caviar black 3.5" 640GB). However, I can see one being handy in a laptop, since that's subject to more abuse and such that can make a mechanical HD fail. Admittedly, I have about 45GB used in total on my laptop, so a 60GB SSD would be fine there and would help battery life. Still, with current prices, it won't be happening.
 
Well being as I'm not a complete cheap-ass loser, I have to say that I love my SSD's. Once you get one, you'll never go back to booting windows off a spinning magnet. I have one in both gaming computers and installed a 80gig one in my laptop. Replacing the 2.5 5400 drive in the laptop made a world of difference.
 
[citation][nom]deksman[/nom]Simply speaking: the prices of SSD's are still way too high, which is one of the reasons people aren't picking them up in mass quantities (this is for the non-tech savvy population), and in regards to those who do know a thing about computers and SSD's, they also know that the technology is not 100% reliable just yet.On top of that, manufacturing costs of SSD's are minimal for companies such as Intel, etc. (they always have been), and yet they are gauging the prices of this storage tech for years now.The storage ratio vs the price tag is absurd.HDD's are effectively at 4 TB, and SSD's are barely approaching 1TB (and cost well over what you would buy a regular computer for).You're gonna tell me that NAND tech is incapable of matching/surpassing HDD's in terms of storage?Don't make me laugh.[/citation]

if you can tell me the size of an single ssd chip silicon, i can do the math and tell you about how much they are screwing us, i cant find the info anywhere, so basing it off an new not priced to sell ssd, they get 21tb per wafer and it costs 50k to make a wafer about.

by my math, 2tb would cost you close to 5000$, i know that number is way off, so anyone, if you tell my the die size, ill get a better figure.

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]There are two ways to boost SSD sales:A: Information advertising blitz. Lots of people still don't understand the importance of data speed and only look at the price per gigabyte.B: Drop the SSD prices.[/citation]

than there are people like me, who dont care about load times, what they would focus on... but my hdd got accessed to the point that it was .7mbps on a 120mbps drive.

i got an ssd (xmass present, so not yet) to off load all of the random crap that loads from os and other programs that slows the crap out of the hdd.

[citation][nom]lradunovic77[/nom]I have this Conspiracy theory that prices for regular HDD will never go down again in order to push SSD sale to people. Just saying...[/citation]

yea, because most of the harddrive makers don't make ssds, at least to my knowledge, or at least don't make them en mass. like they would ever want the ssds to be pushed over spinning disc.

[citation][nom]iLLz[/nom]Increase production, and I mean go all in with it like CPUs. That will drive cost down dramatically so u can lower prices dramatically. Everyone wins, mechanical HDD go away.[/citation]

yea, except 21tb per wafer and 50k per wafer. want the price to go down, decrease the nm, and find a way to reduce wafer base cost. no amount of mass production will reduce the bace cost right now, mass production only brings cpu cost down because r&d is spread out over a crap ton of chips, ssds im assuming don't have much r&d.

[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Gee... if the prices are high, of course people won't buy! Unless SSDs come down to about 50 cents/GB, I won't buy. Besides, I find my PC boots fast enough (windows 7 64-bit, i5, wd caviar black 3.5" 640GB). However, I can see one being handy in a laptop, since that's subject to more abuse and such that can make a mechanical HD fail. Admittedly, I have about 45GB used in total on my laptop, so a 60GB SSD would be fine there and would help battery life. Still, with current prices, it won't be happening.[/citation]

get a small boot if you ever see one on sale and play with it, at worst, you can make it a scratch disc for the hdd, at best, you see why they make small ssds.

i plan to post every ssd topic from now on with my story once the ssd gets put in my computer, for better or worse, because people need to know the difference, and not just boot time difference, computer feel difference.


 


its not about being a cheap ass tard. its about getting the best value for your money. spending close to 200 bucks for a 120GB SSD over 50 bucks for a 120GB HDD is mostly just plain dumb. i can understand why gamers go for them to get that minuscule boost in performance but is really not worth it.
 
It's the enthusiast crowd that buys SSD;s.
The masses won't buy a disc and the do a reinstallation of Windows.
They are more likely just buying cheap external drives or just stick to the normal harddrive that they got with their computer when they bought it.
And even the enthusiasts probably buy only one or two compared to the multiple harddrives that probably is common for this crowd (I have 10 in use right now, 12 if you count the laptop and netbook, but only one SSD).

And still people in here doesn't seem to get that the SSD is a totally different beast compared to the mechanical drive.
Data should be on normal Hd;S, Operating System and programs (As many as you can install) shoudl be on the SSD;S.
The performance benefits should be compared to upgrading a new CPU, graphics card or something, if you do that it doesn't seem so expensive!
 


yea install AS MANY AS YOU CAN because its still worth it to get an SSD drive even when you can't install everything you want on it because the disk space is so low. with games looking for more space these days how do you expect the prive of these to be really woth it yet?

FAIL
 
It isn't picking up yet because if we need one of those high-capacity 2TB hard drives, we're probably looking for storage size and not raw performance. So 128GB SSD vs. 1TB HDD is a no-brainer.
 
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]yea install AS MANY AS YOU CAN because its still worth it to get an SSD drive even when you can't install everything you want on it because the disk space is so low. with games looking for more space these days how do you expect the prive of these to be really woth it yet?FAIL[/citation]

The biggest advantage is for the OS itself and everyday operation, I think.
And, besides games, all other programs can be on the SSD.
I any way you don't have to have so many games installed at the same time.
I have a couple that I finnish first and then uninstall.

Yes, the amount of storage per dollar is the weakness of SSD;s, but no matter how you look at it you still get a lot of performance boost and your games that you can't install on the SSD will still be as fast as before on your regular hd;s (that you still got).

How that can be seen as a fail goes beyond me!
 
[citation][nom]wolfram23[/nom]No kidding Intel. Why don't you ask Corsair and OCZ how they're doing, though? I bet it's a different story. Mainstream people want fast, and Sandforce is fast.[/citation]

Actually, if you focus on 4K read latency, and not MB/sec throughput for large blocks, the Intel 320 beats the SF2200 series soundly. (75 microseconds for 4K on intel320 vs. over 100 microseconds with read map hit in SF and over 200 mics if read map miss.)

I think there is also a strong focus on reliability. Which ALL of the venders seem to struggle with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom