SSD Prices Falling Faster Than HDD Prices

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]I'd love to see $1.00/GB -- from what I see it's $1.25~$1.75+/GB. I expect the HDD prices to drop like a rock very soon back to $0.05~$0.09/GB since the flooding is over in Thailand and the factories are back to full production. $0.16/GB for a HDD is nuts today!You'd think factories won't be in a Flood zone or Earthquake zone --- ??!![/citation]

If the price per man-power is low enough i'tll even go to hell. Lot's of souls need saving this day, including HD companies CEOs...
 
I have a degree in economy and I can tell you that this chart is junk math. Inflation and technology make any ratio comparisons incomplete. You can only use such charts to compare extremely similar items, in similar situations, at the same time.

Another way of putting it; you couldn't use this chart in any academic level.
 
[citation][nom]nappas[/nom]I have a degree in economy and I can tell you that this chart is junk math. Inflation and technology make any ratio comparisons incomplete. You can only use such charts to compare extremely similar items, in similar situations, at the same time.Another way of putting it; you couldn't use this chart in any academic level.[/citation]

I agree that this is not an academic quality comparison... Certainly inflation and other factors, like the presence of alternative storage mediums, are not factored into this graph...

However, that does not mean that there is no value to this graph what so ever... It just means that it should be taken with a grain of salt and a spoon full of sugar...
 
I think that chart might be a little more meaningful as a semi-log plot. The price difference between SSD and HDD is basically 2 orders of magnitude but those initial start points mask that.
 
Don't forget the amount of write cycles allowed for SSDs keeps going down with shrinks, so unless that changes, they won't be able to shrink much more and remain useful. Or they'll have to address it in some other way, which will have a negative impact.
 
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]Reconsider the value of buying a PC? You can buy a complete system at freaking walmart for $350 that comes with a monitor, printer, operating system, 500GB hard drive, 4GB of memory, current generation dual-core CPU. Tell the average person that they can make it load windows and some of their applications much faster for an extra $80 and they will say no. You would want at least 120GB for it to be worthwhile, imo, and now you are talking $160. That is almost half the cost of the entire computer.[/citation]
The $350 PC package from Walmart is not average, it's bargain basement crap that only the truely stupid would buy, are you really trying to call everyone stupid or do you hink dragging evenyone down is the only way to make yourself look better
...
This article is just a peek into the future, a way to fill column inches due to being a slow news day, saying that prices have dropped dramatically for SSDs, maybe not as low as HDDs but the falloff from the point of release has been a lot faster, and you dont need to make the system yourself to own one, a lot of system builders and OEMs are starting to put them in by default
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Don't forget the amount of write cycles allowed for SSDs keeps going down with shrinks, so unless that changes, they won't be able to shrink much more and remain useful. Or they'll have to address it in some other way, which will have a negative impact.[/citation]
They said the same about HDD until PMR and HAMR, they will always find a way, someone in a lab at IBM is probably working on it as we speak
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]The $350 PC package from Walmart is not average, it's bargain basement crap that only the truely stupid would buy, are you really trying to call everyone stupid or do you hink dragging evenyone down is the only way to make yourself look better...This article is just a peek into the future, a way to fill column inches due to being a slow news day, saying that prices have dropped dramatically for SSDs, maybe not as low as HDDs but the falloff from the point of release has been a lot faster, and you dont need to make the system yourself to own one, a lot of system builders and OEMs are starting to put them in by default[/citation]

Once again, I have not argued at all that the price of SSDs have not dropped, nor that they aren't faster and desirable. I have not called you, nor anyone else here stupid. Yes, the $350 computer is nothing anyone who reads this page would want. However, it is more than enough PC for most people. Really anyone who doesn't play games, or do any other tasks requiring much more muscle. It is adequate for web browsing, watching videos, doing office/school work, and any number of other tasks. It isn't like it has an Atom processor or anything. A current pentium dual-core is sufficient for 95% of home users, I would say. A Core 2 Duo from 5 years ago is still sufficient.

Who am I trying to drag down and how am I trying to do so? Why are you taking my points as a personal attack against you? SSDs are not down to a mainstream price point yet, I am so very very sorry that hurts your feelings in some way. SSDs are still for the enthusiast or enterprise customer AT THIS TIME.
 
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]What amazes me is just how quickly they chew through the bandwidth standards. When they first came out remember they were no faster (and often slower) than a HDD. The idea was that they were going to be for low power devices that required very little space. Within months they saturated the SATA standard, and within 2 years they saturated SATA2. When SATA3 came out it just took 2-3 months to saturate that as well, and we know that is where the bottleneck is because there are already drives that max (or close to max) out the PCIe2 x4 standard!When I first started video editing 'way back' in 98 RAID was required to sustain the ~40MB/s required for 2 video streams, and you needed those 2 drives in at least RAID0 to have enough space. ~2002 you could do the same thing on a single drive, and have one large enough to store a project on a single drive. Things progressed rapidly until 1TB drives came out, which could sustain a good 60-80MB/s. But the build has been rather slow after that, and now most HDDs can only push a sustained 120-140MB/s, compared to the 550MB/s of an SSD. Seek times on HDDs have always hovered around 8ms, and have never really improved, while the SSDs are 0ms. It really is mind blowing to look back at.[/citation]

seek times in my experience have been closet to double that.
and with the pcie2 saturation, i am wondering how thats done, is it the chips themselves that make it that fast, ot is each chip on their acting as its own hdd and raiding throughout the whole thing

[citation][nom]house70[/nom]I think they should convert HDD plants to SSD plants. That will make SSD even more widespread and more affordable.[/citation]

there is a base cost that cant be over come with mass production, hell, massproducting is what brought them so low right now...

[citation][nom]jgutz2006[/nom]Its interesting to see the actual numbers, but this should be blatantly obvious to anyone as there are higher prices (and likely margins) to play with in RAM, and the transistor densities and production processes shrinking drastically, the technology has an obvious future whereas with magnetic discs, they need to invent a completely new way or organizing, writing and accessing those blocks of data before there can be huge technological leaps.[/citation]

realize that the huge technical leaps you are talking about are over 6tb per hdd. you are marginalizing everything to where we currently are.

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]True: Hard drives prices will probably not drop further than their 2011 historical lows (pre floods), due to material costs... But that belittles the fact that the density will continue to increase. Hence, a hard drive 3 years from now, will still go for $50-$150, but the price per GB will drom from $0.07/gb to $0.10/tb...[/citation]

to exaggerated, but good point. the mid range is where you get the lowest cost per gb. high end doubles the cost of the mid, and low end is cheaper than mid in price, but in price per gb can be almost as bad as the high end.

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Surely more than 0.8% though...With a good EFI instead of a traditional BIOS, no swap file and lots of RAM, then add an SSD boot drive with approx 500mb read and you can pretty much have a desktop PC with "instant-on", long term bulk storage will always be the reserve of traditional hard drives but for the speed benefits to the whole system you MUST get an SSD[/citation]

i have to say, most people don't care at all about the boot time, because when they look at the price, and are told windows boots twice as fast, they dont care, more space over a 20 second faster boot.

what most people don't realize is how much and often info is pulled from the boot drive. if there was a way to tell people that, they may change their mind.

[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]I don't see many people who do understand the difference in speed to pay that much extra money for it. I don't see many people who are so impatient for their machine to boot that they will pay so much extra. They will still want a secondary HDD for actual storage. At that point, they will see that they are going to pay an extra $200+ to decrease loading times. My machine boots fast enough for me to be happy, without buying an SSD. My games load fast enough, my applications load fast enough. Would I like to have an SSD? Absolutely. Can I justify the expense? No.I would say that SSD's are enthusiast and enterprise customers only at this point, with a few of the masses here and there with extra money to blow getting one in their new Dell or eMachine for a huge price increase.[/citation]

that is why there are 40gb drives for windows alone. find a deal and get one for 50~$
there is a massive bennifit just from having boot away from information.

[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]I'd love to see $1.00/GB -- from what I see it's $1.25~$1.75+/GB. I expect the HDD prices to drop like a rock very soon back to $0.05~$0.09/GB since the flooding is over in Thailand and the factories are back to full production. $0.16/GB for a HDD is nuts today!You'd think factories won't be in a Flood zone or Earthquake zone --- ??!![/citation]

closer to 35 cents a gb

[citation][nom]thatspsychotic[/nom]Why on earth did they use a linear scale? Exponential decay such as this is much better suited for a logarithmic scale.[/citation]

because linear is easier to understand by normal people.

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Very good point, 2 inches of water and production lost for a few days and suddenly a huge bandwagon starts up causing the whole worlds HDD prices to double or treble, making a mountain out of a molehill, even HDD companies that aren't located anywhere near where the floods were have upped their price.It is scandelous, the non-affected companes should have used it as an excuse to increase their own production and corner the market from their less-fortunate competitors.[/citation]

correct me if im wrong but it was a few feet.
and correct me if im wrong, but poor watter in your computer and tell me that the thing still works 100% if at all...

precision equipment is usually ruined in water.

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Surely a 60Gb SSD just to act as a boot drive and the majority of your programs, with games being on a secondary HDD, is not exclusive to the rich and famous.If you can't afford the $80 it takes to have a 500mb read 60Gb SSD then you need to reconsider the value of owning a PC at all, especially when "average" people splurge hundreds and hundreds buying things like iPhones.[/citation]

its not read that makes them fast, its the seak time, and io operations. the read and write is iceing on the cake.

---------------------

all that said, can someone PLEASE find me how big an ssd chip is. i want to do a more accurate cost evaluation, but i cant find the how big the die size is.
 
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]SSDs are still for the enthusiast or enterprise customer AT THIS TIME.[/citation]
No, they really aren't, anyone can buy them and $1.50 per GB is very tempting to a lot of people who have been spoiled rotten by HDDs that have been way too underpriced for years
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]correct me if im wrong but it was a few feet. and correct me if im wrong, but poor watter in your computer and tell me that the thing still works 100% if at all...precision equipment is usually ruined in water[/citation]
Doesn't matter if it was 2 inches or a 200 feet tsunami, not every HDD factory in the world was hit so why have manufacturers on another continent with bone-dry facilities and no loss of production screaming about catastrophe and trebling prices - bandwagoning and blatant profiteering, it is disgusting
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]can someone PLEASE find me how big an ssd chip is. i want to do a more accurate cost evaluation, but i cant find the how big the die size is.[/citation]

OK, not an exact science but should be able to work it out from this picture

img_0367-1600.jpg

 
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Any articles about the "heat assisted recording"? I'm very interested in this and as yet can't find anything.[/citation]
It's abbreviated "HaMR" or HAMR. There is also recording technologies that hard drive companies may use in the future called 'Shingled Magnetic Recording' and 'Bit-patterning'
 
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Any articles about the "heat assisted recording"? I'm very interested in this and as yet can't find anything.[/citation]
It's abbreviated "HaMR" or HAMR. There is also recording technologies that hard drive companies may use in the future called 'Shingled Magnetic Recording' and 'Bit-patterning'
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Doesn't matter if it was 2 inches or a 200 feet tsunami, not every HDD factory in the world was hit so why have manufacturers on another continent with bone-dry facilities and no loss of production screaming about catastrophe and trebling prices - bandwagoning and blatant profiteering, it is disgusting[/citation]

trivialiseing the flood, and tell me where the other ones are located... i would like to know

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]OK, not an exact science but should be able to work it out from this picture[/citation]

thanks but thats not the chip size im looking for, its the die size, the numbers that i came up with, are based on the cost of a chip, not on the size of the chip, where i estimated that about 21tb are made on a silicon wafer

with a cpu, they release how big the die is, but i cant find the same information for ssd die.
 
[citation][nom]cadder[/nom]Their graph appears suspect to me. They do show a very slight decline per year in SSD prices, but they show HDD pricing to be pretty flat over the past 5 years and I don't think that is the case.I bought a new computer for my office almost exactly 3 years ago, and the 1TB drive in it cost $195 at the time. Those drives were down to less than half of that "before the flood", and 3TB drives were available. Just based on the 1TB drives that would have to be about 30% decline per year. So I would say that HDD drives went down in price more than what I have witnessed with SSD's.I have been interested in buying SSD's for some of my own computers so I have been watching the prices very carefully. In the past 12 months I have witnessed only very slight price declines in the good drives, maybe 10% or less, and I have watched prices almost every day. I have seen prices decline recently in some of the junk OCZ drives that have 40+% failure rates but they have had to do that in order to get people to buy them, and those prices aren't fair to include in this comparison.[/citation]
It looks slight because of the scale on the y-axis. But you're right that it makes it look stupid.

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]How about they expand the dates in the opposite direction from the time IBM invented HDDshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_driveHow about at time of invention it was $15,000 per megabyte, (or $15.36 million per GB)How long did it take to be acceptable as storage medium to the public?Certainly not 5 years[/citation]
How about they include SSDs (i.e. Solid State Drives) from when they were invented too? For those that don't know, that was before the above mentioned invention of the HDD.
 
$/gb, very important? Yes. Performance/$. Once again, also important. How about lifespan/$? As in, cost/year with regards to total cost? For instance, using the "Walmart special" as an example (which was done well, imo). Most people don't need a high end gaming system to accommodate their computer needs. They wanna facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. Students usually need offices as well. Majority of the people are able to get by with a CPU that's been out for 5 years. CPU cost, say, 200? lasts, we'll say 8 years. 200/8 makes for 25/year? that's a good deal. I have personally used HDD's for a number of years.

My last desktop I had a 5 year old HDD in it. Horrible boot times too. I mean, I had to wait almost 25 seconds to use my computer when I shut it down? Tsk tsk, I know. $65. Works out to a pretty easy to justify $13/year. Now, with the amazing (yes, sarcasm intended) life-spans of these new drives, and the way, kids especially, download music, movies, stupid games, random programs, etc., how long is that drive gonna last?

Ideally, you use the SSD for Windows and maybe another program or two, most used and highest demand on the speed of the drive. Keep in mind, we live in the real world, not an ideal one. Kids think they know better. So, that being said, how many of these kids in todays world are gonna use that SSD to save the music, movies, and games that dad's gonna have to fix later, and valuable life that just got drained out of his (best case scenario?) $80 new toy that he'll have to replace in a month or two cuz junior watches too much porn?

Extend the life to something that can be justified, and the average person will have more use for it. As for the people that want to spend the money on it, more power to you. But as for those that wanna see themselves as pioneers for this future, who's to say the PCI drives don't come down in prices faster, making them the more viable option? Who's to say by the time SSD's even come CLOSE to the price of HDDs, that something far better isn't already gonna be implemented? This is technology, people. There's no predicting, or foreseeing where things are gonna be in a few years. For the people that want the speed: cool. For the people like me who are just enjoying the way technology is advancing and wanna see people stop bitching about "you need this" or "your system is complete crap if you don't have this", we'll wait for a reasonable solution to our absolutely DREADFUL system hangs, like maybe a better option than BIOS?

Long story short, there's always gonna be something new, or something that people see as a "must have." Never, and repeat NEVER, listen to those that try to say that it's something you can't live without. Odds are, in the end, the only thing you should've done is kept your money in your wallet and away from other people's "needs." A fool and his money are soon parted, but, with the internet, schemers are finding these fools far quicker.

Now, I'm gonna head to bed and see if that back guys cries more about those oh-so-personal attacks against him. And, yes, I actually bought popcorn after I read those posts earlier. THAT'S one thing you can't live without. 😉
 
[citation][nom]AMD_pitbull[/nom]$/gb, very important? Yes. Performance/$. Once again, also important. How about lifespan/$? As in, cost/year with regards to total cost? For instance, using the "Walmart special" as an example (which was done well, imo). Most people don't need a high end gaming system to accommodate their computer needs. They wanna facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. Students usually need offices as well. Majority of the people are able to get by with a CPU that's been out for 5 years. CPU cost, say, 200? lasts, we'll say 8 years. 200/8 makes for 25/year? that's a good deal. I have personally used HDD's for a number of years. My last desktop I had a 5 year old HDD in it. Horrible boot times too. I mean, I had to wait almost 25 seconds to use my computer when I shut it down? Tsk tsk, I know. $65. Works out to a pretty easy to justify $13/year. Now, with the amazing (yes, sarcasm intended) life-spans of these new drives, and the way, kids especially, download music, movies, stupid games, random programs, etc., how long is that drive gonna last? Ideally, you use the SSD for Windows and maybe another program or two, most used and highest demand on the speed of the drive. Keep in mind, we live in the real world, not an ideal one. Kids think they know better. So, that being said, how many of these kids in todays world are gonna use that SSD to save the music, movies, and games that dad's gonna have to fix later, and valuable life that just got drained out of his (best case scenario?) $80 new toy that he'll have to replace in a month or two cuz junior watches too much porn? Extend the life to something that can be justified, and the average person will have more use for it. As for the people that want to spend the money on it, more power to you. But as for those that wanna see themselves as pioneers for this future, who's to say the PCI drives don't come down in prices faster, making them the more viable option? Who's to say by the time SSD's even come CLOSE to the price of HDDs, that something far better isn't already gonna be implemented? This is technology, people. There's no predicting, or foreseeing where things are gonna be in a few years. For the people that want the speed: cool. For the people like me who are just enjoying the way technology is advancing and wanna see people stop bitching about "you need this" or "your system is complete crap if you don't have this", we'll wait for a reasonable solution to our absolutely DREADFUL system hangs, like maybe a better option than BIOS? Long story short, there's always gonna be something new, or something that people see as a "must have." Never, and repeat NEVER, listen to those that try to say that it's something you can't live without. Odds are, in the end, the only thing you should've done is kept your money in your wallet and away from other people's "needs." A fool and his money are soon parted, but, with the internet, schemers are finding these fools far quicker.Now, I'm gonna head to bed and see if that back guys cries more about those oh-so-personal attacks against him. And, yes, I actually bought popcorn after I read those posts earlier. THAT'S one thing you can't live without.[/citation]

you say it like a normal person who is new to tech.

lets address cost of item to time used.

an ssd, a good one, is insured for 5 years. you get at least that much time with it where you would get a more or less free replacement if it fails, and ssds already fail less than hdds, and they also dont have mechanical parts that can ware out randomly.

a good one, even sata2 saturates/comes close to saturation the read speed, maybe not the write.
the main difference between hdd and ssd is the io operations, and seek time, seek probably wont get to much better over the next 5-10 years, io will probably jump to about 2-500000 for consumer grade in the same time.

my point being, a good ssd right now would last most people years, and read speed wise, hdds most likely wont touch it but may be close. and the seek time adds to how smooth your pc experience is.

another point is ssds dont die from reads, they die from writes. unless that kid is downloading over 7tb a day of porn on a 80gb drive, he isnt going to ware it out in a month.

and i have to also say, that if you use something, lets say dialup, and than you get a cable modem, and you are forced to go back to dialup, you have the right to call it crap unless its a cable modem. a friend did this, so it was the example, and i have to believe that going from a hdd to a ssd is similar in end results, where you cant go back to a hdd boot.
 
I'm not buying an SSD until it's about 1.5x the cost of a HDD. It just doesn't make sense to do so. So long as you've got a dual core computer with DDR3 memory and a blank OS without all the garbage on it from Dell or HP or whatever, Photoshop loads up in about 3-4 seconds. Why would I spend a crapload more to turn that into 2-3 seconds? The technology of SSD's is far superior and I'm all for replacing HDD's some day, but not at anywhere near their current cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.