- Status
The essence of an honest, fair, and impartial compare is to define what application the two candidates (SSD and HDD) are trying to satisfy.
If the goal is cheap storage per $, no doubt HDDs will win. That has been true since the first Winchester 30-30 hard drive.
If the goal is other factors, such as IOPS per $, which is critical for ultra high performance applications like databses, etc., the SSD, even inexpensive ones, win hands down.
Likewise, in terms of form factor, the SSD is inherently more compact, have better shock resistance, and higher MTBF compared to HDDs.
To suggest that SSDs are limited by the write cycle of particular memory blocks without reference to the wear leveling, error correction, and things like hidden spare blocks shows that the write is ignorant of the fundamentals of SSD design and architecture.
Sadly, this article shows that Tom's Hardware is rapidly losing credibility with their readership. A not unexpected follow-on to the widely discredited and retracted article on SSDs vs. HDD power consumption.
Disappointing. Technically unsound. Conclusions not supported by the facts cited in the article.
If the goal is cheap storage per $, no doubt HDDs will win. That has been true since the first Winchester 30-30 hard drive.
If the goal is other factors, such as IOPS per $, which is critical for ultra high performance applications like databses, etc., the SSD, even inexpensive ones, win hands down.
Likewise, in terms of form factor, the SSD is inherently more compact, have better shock resistance, and higher MTBF compared to HDDs.
To suggest that SSDs are limited by the write cycle of particular memory blocks without reference to the wear leveling, error correction, and things like hidden spare blocks shows that the write is ignorant of the fundamentals of SSD design and architecture.
Sadly, this article shows that Tom's Hardware is rapidly losing credibility with their readership. A not unexpected follow-on to the widely discredited and retracted article on SSDs vs. HDD power consumption.
Disappointing. Technically unsound. Conclusions not supported by the facts cited in the article.
If you're looking at SSD performance as a boot drive and consider how many creative and video guys need the speed I think SSDs are gonna be in the near future, at least for those people. Here's a video that shows performance between hard disk drives and ssd's next to each other and SSDs clearly win http://kroycom.com/blog/2008/solid-state-disks-vs-hard-disk-drives/
JeanLuc
Distinguished
- Oct 21, 2002
- 979
- 0
- 18,990
Well the idea of SDD replacing hard drives has been around since 2006 it hasn't really been until this year with the release of Intel's SDD we have truly seen the benefits of SDD technology and there is already products on the way that will better the Intel lines in both speed and capacity I truly believe 2009 will be the year when SDD will be a standard fixture in any enthusiasts build.
The way to see SSD is within the context of having more than one system. You have the central server/NAS/whatever you want to call it then client devices which do not need TBs of storage capacity. Through stacking and die shrinks there will soon be SSDs that are 1TB in size and prices will drop quite a lot on the smaller ones.
Think of it this way - Even a low end mechanical drive tends to cost $40 or more. Throw a controller and a half dozen flash chips on a PCB, stuffed into a 50 cent plastic enclosure and you could have enough storage capacity to run an OS for $20.
Therein lies the great advantage of SSD in the future, the ability to provide enough capacity to run a system (not be the storage for your entire HD movie collection) while simultaneously improving reliability and lowering cost to produce a working system. The main problem with this happening is our limited options for reasonably featured operating systems that have a small drive footprint. Let's be frank, most people didn't need much more capability than Win98 offered, they just needed it more stable and changes that would make only a few dozen MB of footprint increase like the USB and more memory, multi-core CPU support, etc. We're back to square one again when we choose an alternate email client, browser, etc. Linux will step in to fill these roles if MS doesn't feel like accomodating our mobile solid-state future.
In the beginning mechanical mice were cheaper too.
Think of it this way - Even a low end mechanical drive tends to cost $40 or more. Throw a controller and a half dozen flash chips on a PCB, stuffed into a 50 cent plastic enclosure and you could have enough storage capacity to run an OS for $20.
Therein lies the great advantage of SSD in the future, the ability to provide enough capacity to run a system (not be the storage for your entire HD movie collection) while simultaneously improving reliability and lowering cost to produce a working system. The main problem with this happening is our limited options for reasonably featured operating systems that have a small drive footprint. Let's be frank, most people didn't need much more capability than Win98 offered, they just needed it more stable and changes that would make only a few dozen MB of footprint increase like the USB and more memory, multi-core CPU support, etc. We're back to square one again when we choose an alternate email client, browser, etc. Linux will step in to fill these roles if MS doesn't feel like accomodating our mobile solid-state future.
In the beginning mechanical mice were cheaper too.
TheGreatGrapeApe
Champion
- Feb 18, 2003
- 20,043
- 0
- 50,960
[citation][nom]123urpked[/nom]Is it possible to put SSD's in RAID 0?[/citation]
Yes.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/review/137/1050137/raiding-the-ssd-intel-s-32gb-slc-ssd
How about 9 SSDs ?
http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/battleship/
Yes.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/review/137/1050137/raiding-the-ssd-intel-s-32gb-slc-ssd
How about 9 SSDs ?
http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/battleship/
I'd like to see the O/S optimize the distribution of data
on the HDD/SSD subsystem, optionally asking me questions about
which applications or datasets I consider most important.
on the HDD/SSD subsystem, optionally asking me questions about
which applications or datasets I consider most important.
TheGreatGrapeApe
Champion
- Feb 18, 2003
- 20,043
- 0
- 50,960
I don't think that would matter much for SSDs especially since their placement is not linear it's parralel but purposely scattered by the controller for wear leveling, and unlike an HDD doesn't suffer from performance loss from scattered data which is either outside/inside rotational speed and head proximity biased. Defragging will be a thing of the past since placement benefits wouldn't improve I/O speed enough to matter.
Making the OS do the job of optimizing the placement by the controller would add alot of overhead, especially if it has to consider a RAID structure too.
Making the OS do the job of optimizing the placement by the controller would add alot of overhead, especially if it has to consider a RAID structure too.
Sorry, I meant that the O/S might determine what data
goes on the SSD and what data goes on the HDD so as
to optimize system performance.
goes on the SSD and what data goes on the HDD so as
to optimize system performance.
Currently, OS's and hardware interfaces are designed to accomodate the slow Hard drive.
Until such a time that interfaces are redesigned ( a new Bus), and this is followed by OS's being designed to take advantage of the SSD's, the SSD's will not reach their full potential in near future and hence uptake will be slow.
It must be said that for the SSD to perform so well on an inferior bus which is designed for inferior equipment is great news and I am sure that very clever people are sitting around a table somewhere to create a bus which will be Native to SSD only and only then will we see the potential of this drive being maximised. Followed closely by a massive take over of the market.
Let's hope that HD Manufacturers do not sit on the board of standards.
Until such a time that interfaces are redesigned ( a new Bus), and this is followed by OS's being designed to take advantage of the SSD's, the SSD's will not reach their full potential in near future and hence uptake will be slow.
It must be said that for the SSD to perform so well on an inferior bus which is designed for inferior equipment is great news and I am sure that very clever people are sitting around a table somewhere to create a bus which will be Native to SSD only and only then will we see the potential of this drive being maximised. Followed closely by a massive take over of the market.
Let's hope that HD Manufacturers do not sit on the board of standards.
giovanni86
Distinguished
- May 10, 2007
- 466
- 0
- 18,790
Well 2009 is about to start, will find out in the coming months if SSD's take over. In general though sure there taking the market by storm with netbooks and such, but if that price does not match or beat a HDD then i rather go HDD then SSD. My problem is i have yet to have a Failure in a HDD i buy, all my drives are seagate and have yet to have one fail on me. Been running a 120gb for the past 6 years 24 hours a day and HAS YET TO FAIL ME! So i see no need for SSD's even for there performance, if the price doesn't suite me, the hell with SSD's, HDD's will be around for a long time, well for me they will anyways. My two cents.
snotling
Distinguished
- Oct 10, 2002
- 532
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Really? So you think SSDs will kill the HDDs in 2009 huh?I'd love to see that too. But that's not going to be happening.The point of my article is to refute some of the claims made online on various other publications that state that SSDs are putting the final nail on the HDD's coffin.It may do that, but it isn't going to be anytime soon. HDDs will continue to be vastly more affordable and larger than SSDs for a long time to come. The point is, if you want the best of both, use an SSD for boot and HDD for storage. That's what I said. But that just proves the point that HDDs are not being replaced.How is this concept other world-like?[/citation]
The concept other world is one where the both identical machines are limited to one undersized SSD and optical disk swapping (ridiculous, the $/GB of HDs is crazy low, you said it yourself...) or a big and slow drive with a happy ending, you did the same with your mac article comparing two verry different machine to justify your price point. My point is you just can't seem to be able to make a believable comparison.
In the real world SSD buyers of 2009 will also have a HD for storage. It is not about who kills who, but about what to use and when. but if you must know what I think about it, the HD is due for retirement and SSD will gain important market this year and by the end of 2010 most new midrange (and high end) laptops or desktops will have a SSD, alone or combined with a HD for storage.
I do not know who you are writing for but certainly not for the readers of this site.
The concept other world is one where the both identical machines are limited to one undersized SSD and optical disk swapping (ridiculous, the $/GB of HDs is crazy low, you said it yourself...) or a big and slow drive with a happy ending, you did the same with your mac article comparing two verry different machine to justify your price point. My point is you just can't seem to be able to make a believable comparison.
In the real world SSD buyers of 2009 will also have a HD for storage. It is not about who kills who, but about what to use and when. but if you must know what I think about it, the HD is due for retirement and SSD will gain important market this year and by the end of 2010 most new midrange (and high end) laptops or desktops will have a SSD, alone or combined with a HD for storage.
I do not know who you are writing for but certainly not for the readers of this site.
snotling
Distinguished
- Oct 10, 2002
- 532
- 0
- 18,980
Tuan, Here is an example of how fast prices drop in high tech.
http://dealnews.com/features/Price-trends-on-24-LCD-monitors/191172.html
Now, in one year a desirable product that is both sold in volumes and subjected to competition can drop to 50% or less of it's original price within one year... it happened on 19in, 22in and now 24in LCDs, happens all the time with RAM as well... so it's a safe bet that Storage is no exception, in fact just have a look how much a TB drive cost in Dec2007 VS Dec2008. exactly, half price!
Laptop hard drives will be the first to go because they tipicaly have one third of the 3.5in drive capacity and cost slightly more that 3 times the price per GB. Dell is already offering 128GB SSDs on it's XPS laptops, usualy this means the following year they become available in the midrange. By the end of 2009, MLC SSDs should cost around 1$/GB to 1.50$/GB. (it's 3$ now down from 45$ 3 years ago)
Toshiba said, in November, that it sees SSDs growing to approximately 25 percent of the notebook market by 2012. Toshiba probably expect the notebook Market to be 75% crappy, just like their own product line. The flash memory market is the fastest growing thing on this planet, it grows faster than bamboo! So Toshiba... revise your projections to 2010!
And Tuan, stick to it and maybe you'll understand how this industry works... in the mean time try applying at Toshiba.
http://dealnews.com/features/Price-trends-on-24-LCD-monitors/191172.html
Now, in one year a desirable product that is both sold in volumes and subjected to competition can drop to 50% or less of it's original price within one year... it happened on 19in, 22in and now 24in LCDs, happens all the time with RAM as well... so it's a safe bet that Storage is no exception, in fact just have a look how much a TB drive cost in Dec2007 VS Dec2008. exactly, half price!
Laptop hard drives will be the first to go because they tipicaly have one third of the 3.5in drive capacity and cost slightly more that 3 times the price per GB. Dell is already offering 128GB SSDs on it's XPS laptops, usualy this means the following year they become available in the midrange. By the end of 2009, MLC SSDs should cost around 1$/GB to 1.50$/GB. (it's 3$ now down from 45$ 3 years ago)
Toshiba said, in November, that it sees SSDs growing to approximately 25 percent of the notebook market by 2012. Toshiba probably expect the notebook Market to be 75% crappy, just like their own product line. The flash memory market is the fastest growing thing on this planet, it grows faster than bamboo! So Toshiba... revise your projections to 2010!
And Tuan, stick to it and maybe you'll understand how this industry works... in the mean time try applying at Toshiba.
I disagree.
Magnetic storage mediums have greatly increased their capacity over recent years to the point that you can buy 1.5 TB desktop drives, but this increased storage space is not very useful when the average business desktop could still get by on an 80 GB drive with plenty of room to spare. It would be much more useful to have increased transfer speed from the magnetic media, but unfortunately the transfer speed has not increased at rate commensurate to the capacity. Decades of development have been spent on this architecture already and there are no easy ways left for the engineers to increase the transfer speed more than incrementally with aerial density.
On the other hand, solid state drives can increase transfer speed by employing more channels of flash memory, by using faster flash memory (easily attainable with every die shrink from the flash manufacturers) and other methods. While it is a younger technology with more room for growth, its speed is already surpassing conventional hard drives.
The better performance will drive the mainstream adoption of SSDs in every market segment in 12-18 months. I will be very surprised if any significant number of HDDs are still being sold in 24-30 months.
Magnetic storage mediums have greatly increased their capacity over recent years to the point that you can buy 1.5 TB desktop drives, but this increased storage space is not very useful when the average business desktop could still get by on an 80 GB drive with plenty of room to spare. It would be much more useful to have increased transfer speed from the magnetic media, but unfortunately the transfer speed has not increased at rate commensurate to the capacity. Decades of development have been spent on this architecture already and there are no easy ways left for the engineers to increase the transfer speed more than incrementally with aerial density.
On the other hand, solid state drives can increase transfer speed by employing more channels of flash memory, by using faster flash memory (easily attainable with every die shrink from the flash manufacturers) and other methods. While it is a younger technology with more room for growth, its speed is already surpassing conventional hard drives.
The better performance will drive the mainstream adoption of SSDs in every market segment in 12-18 months. I will be very surprised if any significant number of HDDs are still being sold in 24-30 months.
TheGreatGrapeApe
Champion
- Feb 18, 2003
- 20,043
- 0
- 50,960
Speaking of Toshiba, with their launch of the first 512GB laptop SSD (servers were already there) which is expected to sample Q1 and ship in Q2 '09;
http://www.toshiba.com/taec/Catalog/Family.do?familyid=7&subfamilyid=900314
and alluded to by jcknouse, the gap for the laptop space is already closing where 500GB drives are currently rare themeselves and limited to 5KRPM, and 750GB 2.5" drives won't arrive until about the same time. The refresh after that will likely be the tipping point where SSDs are more likely to reach 1GB and beyond laptop drives first before manetic drives reach that density or platter count (and likely in the '09-'10 timeframe of the article), at which point the drawback is no poor capacities as the article title states, but PRICE. Which really is still the biggest sticking point for most consumers, not the lack of 8 TB of space.
http://www.toshiba.com/taec/Catalog/Family.do?familyid=7&subfamilyid=900314
and alluded to by jcknouse, the gap for the laptop space is already closing where 500GB drives are currently rare themeselves and limited to 5KRPM, and 750GB 2.5" drives won't arrive until about the same time. The refresh after that will likely be the tipping point where SSDs are more likely to reach 1GB and beyond laptop drives first before manetic drives reach that density or platter count (and likely in the '09-'10 timeframe of the article), at which point the drawback is no poor capacities as the article title states, but PRICE. Which really is still the biggest sticking point for most consumers, not the lack of 8 TB of space.
19 July 2007 IBM puts SSD drives in new blades (Full article here: www.itnews.com.au/News/56649,ibm-puts-ssd-drives-in-new-blades.aspx)
The Intel X25-E increases server, workstation and storage system performance by 100 times* over hard disk drives as measured in Input/Output Per Second (IOPS), today's key storage performance metric. A storage model which includes SSDs can also lower energy costs by up to five times, an added benefit for businesses focused on electricity savings (full article at: http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-shipped-out-high-performance-ssd-drives/6109.html?doc=6109)
This sounds like a proven technology, being implemented in IBM servers for nearly 18months, and Intel now providing server versions.
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6060817.html
defines an "intermediate" type of hybrid Magnetic/SSD:
ReadyDrive is the new kid on the block, so to speak, since it really hasn't been talked about much because it relies on a hard disk technology that is still emerging called a hybrid hard drive. Such a drive is literally the combination of traditional hard disk and flash memory. Since flash memory has faster read/write access times that a mechanically operating hard disk, the two can work together with the flash memory working on the frontline intercepting data and then dispatching it to the hard disk.
As you can imagine, this opens up all kinds of performance boosting potential for both desktop and laptop systems. For example, a desktop system will be able to resume from hibernation mode so much faster if the data is being retrieved from flash memory. In a laptop, flash memory will be able to handle the majority of the hard disk related tasks and the hard disk can actually sit idle until needed, which will greatly decrease battery consumption, thus providing more computing time per charge.
Now if 16GBs could prefetch 10% of a drive, it may be possible to preload entire movies (2gb/8gb) and superfetch operating files.. even partially store 4gb swapfile simultaneously... and with superindexing, files can remain closed, while a 1gb index is read off the flash memory..
Notebooks and servers are going to be the early adopters of this technology, as 8gb sd cards and usb keys are commonly found on sale for 10 bucks canadian 19 Bucks regular price.. and 500 GB external drives sell for $69 dollars canadian.. LOL.. I can even store my files online at microsofts "SKYDRIVE"..
But for a cheap performance upgrade for a notebook, SSD can't be beat (behind ram, of course) for instance a 32gb patriot can be had for 79.99 Candian at N**X on special for another week til Jan 5th and provides 175MB/s read and 100 MB/s write speed, and saves power.. (check it if you don't believe me: http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=31806&vpn=PE32GS25SSDR&manufacture=Patriot)
Even with wear leveling, I'll eventually lose performance, but this drive is TWICE as fast as some of my older drives in my computer.. Eventually I'll put this drive in the next tower I built, store my internet cache, thumbnail caches, swap file, spool folders...
or else run it as my OS drive, keep my data in a data drive, as usual, and run a pure swap drive as I always do to optimize os performace, startup and shut down, and reduce wear and tear on the drive that stores my data..
Cheap computers will hold onto magnetic drives as long as possible, before going into hybrid "Readydrives".. if roughly every 16-18 months performace/capacity doubles, SSD's would be a very reasonable, affordable alternative to power hungry, low performance drives in notebooks and servers by 2010 or sometime in 2011..
In the meantime if you can live with 32gb, or 79 bucks out of your pocket, an amazing preview can be had for your notebook in the form of a SSD.. later becoming a dedicated "boost" drive for your home computer, or a self powered bootable USB 2.0 drive..
(typed but not checked.. for the audience of toms hardware.. people dedicated to dedicated to running things faster, and investing in the right technology for what they want to spend)
Conclusion??
SSDS are amazing pieces of technology.. debating on size and price is not going to change that, neither is the talk about reliability.. as "WRITING" to the drive has the 1/100,000 chance chance of wearing out that sector.. yet important information such as important documents can be saved by the word processor with a "backup revision" and things like movies are only read..
$79 dollars is affordable, 32gbs is enough for a business/power user, most of whom own a network or portable storage. and in 16,18 months or 32 months, when 128gbs or 250gbs drops down to $79, my laptop is going to get it's hard drive cloned, and the 32GB drive is going to my tower to use to store randomly accessed files, be it my operating system, my swap file.. I use superspeed Ramdrive to store IE 8 beta 2 temporary files, my startbar, and the Thumbnail cache for ACDSEE PRO
The Intel X25-E increases server, workstation and storage system performance by 100 times* over hard disk drives as measured in Input/Output Per Second (IOPS), today's key storage performance metric. A storage model which includes SSDs can also lower energy costs by up to five times, an added benefit for businesses focused on electricity savings (full article at: http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-shipped-out-high-performance-ssd-drives/6109.html?doc=6109)
This sounds like a proven technology, being implemented in IBM servers for nearly 18months, and Intel now providing server versions.
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6060817.html
defines an "intermediate" type of hybrid Magnetic/SSD:
ReadyDrive is the new kid on the block, so to speak, since it really hasn't been talked about much because it relies on a hard disk technology that is still emerging called a hybrid hard drive. Such a drive is literally the combination of traditional hard disk and flash memory. Since flash memory has faster read/write access times that a mechanically operating hard disk, the two can work together with the flash memory working on the frontline intercepting data and then dispatching it to the hard disk.
As you can imagine, this opens up all kinds of performance boosting potential for both desktop and laptop systems. For example, a desktop system will be able to resume from hibernation mode so much faster if the data is being retrieved from flash memory. In a laptop, flash memory will be able to handle the majority of the hard disk related tasks and the hard disk can actually sit idle until needed, which will greatly decrease battery consumption, thus providing more computing time per charge.
Now if 16GBs could prefetch 10% of a drive, it may be possible to preload entire movies (2gb/8gb) and superfetch operating files.. even partially store 4gb swapfile simultaneously... and with superindexing, files can remain closed, while a 1gb index is read off the flash memory..
Notebooks and servers are going to be the early adopters of this technology, as 8gb sd cards and usb keys are commonly found on sale for 10 bucks canadian 19 Bucks regular price.. and 500 GB external drives sell for $69 dollars canadian.. LOL.. I can even store my files online at microsofts "SKYDRIVE"..
But for a cheap performance upgrade for a notebook, SSD can't be beat (behind ram, of course) for instance a 32gb patriot can be had for 79.99 Candian at N**X on special for another week til Jan 5th and provides 175MB/s read and 100 MB/s write speed, and saves power.. (check it if you don't believe me: http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=31806&vpn=PE32GS25SSDR&manufacture=Patriot)
Even with wear leveling, I'll eventually lose performance, but this drive is TWICE as fast as some of my older drives in my computer.. Eventually I'll put this drive in the next tower I built, store my internet cache, thumbnail caches, swap file, spool folders...
or else run it as my OS drive, keep my data in a data drive, as usual, and run a pure swap drive as I always do to optimize os performace, startup and shut down, and reduce wear and tear on the drive that stores my data..
Cheap computers will hold onto magnetic drives as long as possible, before going into hybrid "Readydrives".. if roughly every 16-18 months performace/capacity doubles, SSD's would be a very reasonable, affordable alternative to power hungry, low performance drives in notebooks and servers by 2010 or sometime in 2011..
In the meantime if you can live with 32gb, or 79 bucks out of your pocket, an amazing preview can be had for your notebook in the form of a SSD.. later becoming a dedicated "boost" drive for your home computer, or a self powered bootable USB 2.0 drive..
(typed but not checked.. for the audience of toms hardware.. people dedicated to dedicated to running things faster, and investing in the right technology for what they want to spend)
Conclusion??
SSDS are amazing pieces of technology.. debating on size and price is not going to change that, neither is the talk about reliability.. as "WRITING" to the drive has the 1/100,000 chance chance of wearing out that sector.. yet important information such as important documents can be saved by the word processor with a "backup revision" and things like movies are only read..
$79 dollars is affordable, 32gbs is enough for a business/power user, most of whom own a network or portable storage. and in 16,18 months or 32 months, when 128gbs or 250gbs drops down to $79, my laptop is going to get it's hard drive cloned, and the 32GB drive is going to my tower to use to store randomly accessed files, be it my operating system, my swap file..
I use superspeed Ramdrive to store IE 8 beta 2 temporary files, my startbar, and the Thumbnail cache for ACDSEE PROTuan Nguyen is clueless. SDD drives as OS drive beats any HDD today already in a test. Tuan Nguyen do some test before babling like and idiot.
I came here to read a good, new, article about ssd's and come to this article... What a waste of a read. Honestly, why did you chose to talk about a 16gb ssd when there are 60-64gb ssd's selling under 150$?
But seriously I agree that SSD's will not "take over" the hdd market in terms of cost to gb. If you really need all that space just get a back up xx tb hdd or external hdd.
As you say the year for SSD's won't be til after 09-10 makes it seem like you want us to just throw up a white flag and give up on the technology, very very upsetting in my opinion. Since when does cost, in this market keep anyone from buying the best, fastest, newest technology! Come on now, get real.
Like I said, I came here to read about more testing on ssd's because I plan on replacing my raptor raid 0 with a raid 0 ssd. The reason for this is my 60gb ocz (135$), in my laptop, beats out my raptor raid in HDTUNE avg mb/s. So, I want to see what 2 ssd's in raid 0 will accomplish.
But seriously I agree that SSD's will not "take over" the hdd market in terms of cost to gb. If you really need all that space just get a back up xx tb hdd or external hdd.
As you say the year for SSD's won't be til after 09-10 makes it seem like you want us to just throw up a white flag and give up on the technology, very very upsetting in my opinion. Since when does cost, in this market keep anyone from buying the best, fastest, newest technology! Come on now, get real.
Like I said, I came here to read about more testing on ssd's because I plan on replacing my raptor raid 0 with a raid 0 ssd. The reason for this is my 60gb ocz (135$), in my laptop, beats out my raptor raid in HDTUNE avg mb/s. So, I want to see what 2 ssd's in raid 0 will accomplish.
He is talking about when will SSD take over the HDD market, like LCD has taken over the monitor market, or DVD has taken over VCR, etc. You are not going to put a LCD monitor next to a CRT monitor for sure (I tried, and you would not wanted to do so.), and I bet you will not store a CRT just in case.
So, the question is how much storage space does an average computer user use, and the definition of an average computer user. I have seen enough people with more than 5gb of music as a computer tech. I see 160gb and 250gb are the mainstream hdd now a days.
Sure, I do not mind to have a faster hdd, but how fast you want your computer to be and how much more you are willing to pay? I am not asking people those use computer more than 5hours a day, owning a computer costs more than 1,000USD, or owning more than 1 computer. I am asking those who spending 500 to 700USD on a computer, using it for email, reading news, and working purpose (school work, wording processing, and something like spreadsheet and powerpoint) only. They are the majority of the computer users, and they will never need anything with that much performance.
And when SDD's price comes down, so will the normal hdd. We see 80gb hdd with the price of about 40USD, and the cheapest 64gb SDD costs 130~. So the 90USD difference and less space makes more sense because of its performance?
Most of the responses saying "I disagree" are people that spend more than 1000 dollars on 1 computer. "Oh, I would put a SDD in my computer because I have external hdds" You guys are not average computer users. Average computer users do not ever know what SAS is. They will not have/plan to have another computer at their house as a server.
I am done trying to reasoning. The question from the author to the rest: When will SDD truly replace the normal hdd we are using today. NOT putting SDD as system drive and normal HDDs as storage, But putting SDD as system drive and storage drives, too.
So, the question is how much storage space does an average computer user use, and the definition of an average computer user. I have seen enough people with more than 5gb of music as a computer tech. I see 160gb and 250gb are the mainstream hdd now a days.
Sure, I do not mind to have a faster hdd, but how fast you want your computer to be and how much more you are willing to pay? I am not asking people those use computer more than 5hours a day, owning a computer costs more than 1,000USD, or owning more than 1 computer. I am asking those who spending 500 to 700USD on a computer, using it for email, reading news, and working purpose (school work, wording processing, and something like spreadsheet and powerpoint) only. They are the majority of the computer users, and they will never need anything with that much performance.
And when SDD's price comes down, so will the normal hdd. We see 80gb hdd with the price of about 40USD, and the cheapest 64gb SDD costs 130~. So the 90USD difference and less space makes more sense because of its performance?
Most of the responses saying "I disagree" are people that spend more than 1000 dollars on 1 computer. "Oh, I would put a SDD in my computer because I have external hdds" You guys are not average computer users. Average computer users do not ever know what SAS is. They will not have/plan to have another computer at their house as a server.
I am done trying to reasoning. The question from the author to the rest: When will SDD truly replace the normal hdd we are using today. NOT putting SDD as system drive and normal HDDs as storage, But putting SDD as system drive and storage drives, too.
[citation][nom]Magnus101[/nom]Oops, made a typo. When I said "Heck my 150 GB wansn't cheap", I meant my 150 GB Raptor.[/citation]
yeah. my 150GB velociraptor wasn't cheap. $189? For that, I could have got what...64GB SSD?
if they get about a size grade cheaper, they'll be in-line with rotational drive pricing.
yeah. my 150GB velociraptor wasn't cheap. $189? For that, I could have got what...64GB SSD?
if they get about a size grade cheaper, they'll be in-line with rotational drive pricing.
[citation][nom]aaaeeeee[/nom]Tuan Nguyen is clueless. SDD drives as OS drive beats any HDD today already in a test. Tuan Nguyen do some test before babling like and idiot.[/citation]
Your response is harsh...but, spot on.
Plus it seems that Patriot is putting out some good speed drives.
I bet in 6-12 months (once 512GB have been in the market for a quarter or two), you will see the 64GB and 128GB pricing drop to a reasonable level.
At that point, you have a reasonable size drive for booting at a good price. So long as they're dependable, I don't see why an organization wouldn't use them. Especially if its speed running the OS for the system is more efficient and has more read/write speed.
Needless to say, I don't think it will take 3 years so long as the industry keeps progressing the technology. It is now within industrial use pricing. Once enough companies start to buy enough units, price goes down. When the price drops enough, consumers will get into the loop and prices will come down further.
Hopefully, that will be by next fall. I'd like to put a 128GB or 256GB drive in my next machine
Your response is harsh...but, spot on.
Plus it seems that Patriot is putting out some good speed drives.
I bet in 6-12 months (once 512GB have been in the market for a quarter or two), you will see the 64GB and 128GB pricing drop to a reasonable level.
At that point, you have a reasonable size drive for booting at a good price. So long as they're dependable, I don't see why an organization wouldn't use them. Especially if its speed running the OS for the system is more efficient and has more read/write speed.
Needless to say, I don't think it will take 3 years so long as the industry keeps progressing the technology. It is now within industrial use pricing. Once enough companies start to buy enough units, price goes down. When the price drops enough, consumers will get into the loop and prices will come down further.
Hopefully, that will be by next fall. I'd like to put a 128GB or 256GB drive in my next machine
zodiacfml
Distinguished
- Oct 2, 2008
- 1,228
- 26
- 19,310
i agree with most of the posts here.
it is quite obvious to all, that SSD's will not replace the HDD.
it is childish to think of SSD beating the HDD or vice versa, it is not necessary, it doesn't need to.
what makes sense now is how users could benefit from these media.
the article would have been more useful if it stated the possibilities of each media and combination of it.
the problem with 1TB HDD's is too much capacity for the common joe, much like too many processing power. it is reason for increased sales in laptops and netbooks over desktops. the performance rarely mattered to the mainstream even if it costs more than a desktop. its quite amazing users will sacrifice comfort in a laptop to get a netbook.
SSD's will become more popular on the mainstream since it will not require performance and data space but simplicity, small physical size, and silent operation. its not the user will buy them but the manufacturers, marketing/hyping the SSD drive on their products.
savvy users like us will combine SSD and HDD.
SSD is best for system drive,quiet operation, low power, and low capacity. i have a 250GB and 160GB old drives and performance is still acceptable except the noise they make and i will buy a TB HDD soon.
it is quite obvious to all, that SSD's will not replace the HDD.
it is childish to think of SSD beating the HDD or vice versa, it is not necessary, it doesn't need to.
what makes sense now is how users could benefit from these media.
the article would have been more useful if it stated the possibilities of each media and combination of it.
the problem with 1TB HDD's is too much capacity for the common joe, much like too many processing power. it is reason for increased sales in laptops and netbooks over desktops. the performance rarely mattered to the mainstream even if it costs more than a desktop. its quite amazing users will sacrifice comfort in a laptop to get a netbook.
SSD's will become more popular on the mainstream since it will not require performance and data space but simplicity, small physical size, and silent operation. its not the user will buy them but the manufacturers, marketing/hyping the SSD drive on their products.
savvy users like us will combine SSD and HDD.
SSD is best for system drive,quiet operation, low power, and low capacity. i have a 250GB and 160GB old drives and performance is still acceptable except the noise they make and i will buy a TB HDD soon.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Microsoft Defender found Trojans on my PC- Started by Tommy Sawyer
- Replies: 4
-
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 7
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram