The Week In Storage: Is There An SSD In That Shiny New Desktop PC? No, There Is Not

[InvalidError]

HDDs shouldn't even exist in the mobile world. Their only advantage is capacity for dollar, but that's just for now. SSDs are faster, MUCH more reliable, shock-resistant (something HDDs can't mate with) and improve battery life.

Most people don't carry their laptops around much while the HDD is spinning and even then, most won't unceremoniously dump them on tables. Mobile HDDs are also more shock-resistant than people give them credit for thanks to having acceleration sensors to preemptively park heads before possible impacts or when operational G limits are exceeded. Impacts hard enough to crash mobile HDDs are usually hard enough to crack the display and cause structural damage to the laptop itself. Many people won't care much that the SSD can survive more Gs than the display, their $300 laptop is beyond economical repair anyway.

 

[3ogdy]

HDDs shouldn't even exist in the mobile world. Their only advantage is capacity for dollar, but that's just for now. SSDs are faster, MUCH more reliable, shock-resistant (something HDDs can't mate with) and improve battery life.

Most people don't carry their laptops around much while the HDD is spinning and even then, most won't unceremoniously dump them on tables. Mobile HDDs are also more shock-resistant than people give them credit for thanks to having acceleration sensors to preemptively park heads before possible impacts or when operational G limits are exceeded. Impacts hard enough to crash mobile HDDs are usually hard enough to crack the display and cause structural damage to the laptop itself. Many people won't care much that the SSD can survive more Gs than the display, their $300 laptop is beyond economical repair anyway.

It's been quite a popular repair scenario I've found myself in:
I've had to tell people : the netbook / laptop screen costs this much. - your alternatives (new laptop / external screen / VGA cable if they already had external screens and all that) cost this much.
Most ended up repairing the system because it was about 25% the price of that same system new. Sometimes the laptop wouldn't be available on the market anymore - and for more than the price of the screen they would end up getting something slower than what they had - Atoms, Celerons, E1s, A4s etc.

What you're talking about though is something I have noticed in phone repair scenarios. Buying a screen+touch panel & half frame is just not worth it in many cases, in which the price comes too close to a brand new phone (same model).

 

[dthx]

The industry (especially for consumer products) knows exactly what the lambda buyers look for when buying a computer. In most of the cases, they just pick the PC with the bigger numbers. For those persons, an whatever 2.5Gghz CPU (dual core) is certainly faster than having a 2.4Ghz (quad core). And 2 Tb of storage certainly beats a 240Gb SSD. I think that if you paint them a red line on top of the keyboard and put a X in the model name, it will even feel faster to them. The same buyers will go for the SLR with the biggest quantity of pixels.
And, yes, it creates terribly unbalanced configurations: i7 CPU, 16Gb of ram and an HD that renders this PC slower to boot than a 5 years old laptop where you've just fit an SSD. But the OEM's sell what the people want.
Even in the pro range, the option for having an SSD instead of an HD is sometimes so insanely expensive that we acquired 2x larger SSD's for half the price and took out the HDD of the PC's to replace them with an SSD ourselves on day one !

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Several facts lead to this:

1. No one wants to provide support to non astute users calling up Tech Support saying their SSD is full.

2. Proponents love to quote benchmark results but people don't use computers to run benchmarks.

3. People see the world change when they go from an old, slow 5400 rpm HD to a new SSD. To their eyes, the SSD is responsible for 100% of the change, not the outdated hardware, not the slow rpm, not the cluttered 4 year old OS install filled with bloatware. On my kids boxes, I wiped the drive and reinstalled the OS every Xmas vacation. Now that they are all educated users, that problem no longer exists. But educated consumers don't but PCs off the selves at BestBuy or Walmart

4. Testers tend to take the user out of the equation .... their "aha moments" tend to become irrelevant when the user is part of the "time to finish" measurement. A test might involve a script of 27 CAD functions and the test times it and says "aha, see the SSD finished in 45 seconds, the other thing took...". With a user involved, after an engineer takes a two red pencil marked up drawing to two CAD Operators:

a) CAD 1 guy clicks on the file to open up the Drawing ... it takes 0.5 seconds
b) CAD 1 guy clicks on the file to open up the Drawing ... it takes 1.0 seconds
c) Both guys are reviewing the markups to make sure they understand everything .. it takes 22 seconds before they look at the screen again and are ready to work. One was "twice as fast", but both will finish the same task in the same time.
d) As they complete each edit, there is no "productivity increase" to be obatined as the user is the slowest link in the chain.

5. Here's our boot testing on a single box equipped with two Samsung Pro 256 GB SSDs, two 2 TB SSHDs and one 7200 rpm HD

HD - 21.2 seconds
SSHD - 16.5 seconds
SSD - 15.6 seconds

Now when we told users tho try and identify which device they were booting from. most could recognize the HD as "noticeably slower", no one could tell the difference between the SSD and SSHD.

And boot time really doesn't matter when peeps come to work, sit at their desk, boot their machine and then walk away to get a cuppa java ... or, like today... discuss Game of Thrones for 20 minutes.

We also switched boot order in the BIOS without telling anyone day to day ... with a copy of the OS on all three storage devices. So when folks booted from HD, SSDS, SSHD, no one said ... "Gee my computer was slow today". Also tried testing how long it took for me to be able to move my toon in an MMO ... 44.5 seconds with each device, the handshaking and downloading info from the server was obviously the limiting factor here.

6. I use the "test box" on a daily basis and "normal boot" is from the SSD with OS and programs. Its a water cooled SLI box and the inclusion of an SSD for this purpose was not a "budget" consideration nor was a 2nd SSD for "fav games". After not playing Witcher 3 for a while, latest B&W DLC was released and while waiting for loads I was telling myself ... "I really should move this to the SSD". Went I went to do so, it already was on the SSD.

7. We also had two laptops built (Clevo) to our specifications for use in the field (CAD workstations) on job sites, which of course peeps loaded and played games on on their own time. They were set up for use by several folks basically identical except for one thing ... one had an SSD + 7200 rpm HD and the other had and SSHD. No one had any comment about any difference in performance between the two lappies.

So while it is inarguable that SSDs are faster than SSHDs and both are substantially faster then HDs, the simple fact is that, for most users, the people buying "shiny new PCs" form Walmart or BestBuy will not be impacted in any significant way, certainly not going from an SSHD to a SSD. That's a long way from the individual getting a new CAD Station, Video Editing Workstation or even "killer gaming rig".

For both laptops and desktops, anyone who will let the customer choose options, even the lowest cost ($889 in example below) offering provides choice here:

https://lpc-digital.com/product/sager-np5652-clevo-w650rc/

With a 1 TB HGST 7200 RPM SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive as the "base offering", options are:

SanDisk X400 256GB SSD SATA (6Gb/s) +$55.00
1TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid 8GB SATA 6.0Gb/s Hard Drive +$50.00
250GB Samsung® 850 EVO Series SATA 6Gbps SSD +$70.00
2TB 5400 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive +$70.00
256GB Samsung® 850 Pro Series SATA 6Gbps SSD +$105.00
SanDisk X400 512GB SSD SATA (6Gb/s) +$120.00
500GB Samsung® 850 EVO Series SATA 6Gbps SSD +$150.00
SanDisk X400 1TB SSD SATA (6Gb/s) +$245.00
SAMSUNG® 850 EVO™ 1TB SATA III 3-D Vertical SSD +$335.00
SAMSUNG® 850 PRO™ 1TB SATA III 3-D Vertical SSD +$440.00
SAMSUNG® 850 EVO™ 2TB SATA III 3-D Vertical SSD +$695.00
SAMSUNG® 850 PRO™ 2TB SATA III 3-D Vertical SSD +$920.00

8. The stores that sell these "shiny new PCs" are competing on price. Including a SSD raises price and costs sales.

As a result, most of the folks shopping for "shiny new PCs" don't even know what an SSD is ...

... these are the folks who are asking salesman of the computer has enough "memory" to store all the grandkids photos.

... these are the folks who are not going to have a clue about saving a file to a HD or SSD.

They don't include them because they know it doesn't help move units...and it has a downside when these folks start calling TS cause they can't figure out how to manage storing files in different locations.

 

[InvalidError]

And boot time really doesn't matter when peeps come to work, sit at their desk, boot their machine and then walk away to get a cuppa java ... or, like today... discuss Game of Thrones for 20 minutes.

Boot time matters even less when you use sleep (or hybrid-sleep if you don't want to worry about power outages) instead of shutting down the PC.

 

[didgetmaster]

The problem is mainly software. Most of the hardware improvements have been in multiple cores per CPU, expanded instruction sets, SSDs, tons of RAM, and GPUs.

Few applications written today exploit those hardware improvements. Users typically don't see any difference between an older PC and a newer one unless they are trying to run a dozen applications at the same time. Just surfing the web doesn't expose any strain on a system that is 5 years old.

I am developing a data management system that takes full advantage of the newest CPUs. If you run it on a 6 core (12 threads) CPU, your queries will run much, much faster than if you run the same thing on a lower-budget quad core system. The more memory you have, the bigger the data set I can manage at top speed. It's not just that it will process lots of different queries from multiple connections at the same time; but it will also split a single query into multiple pieces that will run in parallel.

But my software is the exception rather than the norm.

 

[3ogdy]

The problem is mainly software. Most of the hardware improvements have been in multiple cores per CPU, expanded instruction sets, SSDs, tons of RAM, and GPUs.

Few applications written today exploit those hardware improvements. Users typically don't see any difference between an older PC and a newer one unless they are trying to run a dozen applications at the same time. Just surfing the web doesn't expose any strain on a system that is 5 years old.

I am developing a data management system that takes full advantage of the newest CPUs. If you run it on a 6 core (12 threads) CPU, your queries will run much, much faster than if you run the same thing on a lower-budget quad core system. The more memory you have, the bigger the data set I can manage at top speed. It's not just that it will process lots of different queries from multiple connections at the same time; but it will also split a single query into multiple pieces that will run in parallel.

But my software is the exception rather than the norm.

I'm not an expert at it - I'm actually far from one, but one thing I know for sure - Adobe's multimedia suite knows how to squeeze every single bit of performance out of CPUs, RAM & storage.

Of course your'e not gonnasee a huge improvement in terms of PC performance if all you do on a computer is read and send emails, stay on Facebook, watch YouTube (as soon as 4K 60p is supported by Intel's iGPUs, dGPUs won't be so popular among basic / mainstream (?) users), listen to music and play solitaire...a C2D might just cut it. Going all out with an i7 won't make the world go round for that sort of user.

We need apps to know how to use quad-core+ CPUs more efficiently (not to require them, but to know how to improve their performance should one be present in a system), that's one thing that could make buying quad core CPUs the more sensible choice. ("people still buy dual cores in 2016, for real?"-> well, they do - because Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office and Hotmail don't need a quad core)

 

[skit75]

HDD manufacturers must have really greased the rails for builders. I can only assume, based on this article, that the margins that builders get from a HDD are exponentially better than what they would get from SSDs.

 

[InvalidError]

HDD manufacturers must have really greased the rails for builders. I can only assume, based on this article, that the margins that builders get from a HDD are exponentially better than what they would get from SSDs.

Most HDD manufacturers have either gone bankrupt or merged, there are hardly any margins left to be had on consumer HDDs under 2TB. System builders get better margins from selling PCs with HDDs simply because putting a 1TB HDD in a PC is cheaper than putting in a 240GB SSD and the builder pockets the $20-30 difference.

 

[skit75]

What is preventing the builders\integrators from installing 500GB+ SSDs in laptops? Seems like finding 17"+ laptop screen with an SSD over 256GB under $1000 USD is akin to discovering a unicorn.

 

[jwl3]

I consider myself a power user, as most of you guys on THG are. I've rocked my q6600 for 10 years!!! The longest I've ever gone between upgrades (In line with what Intel guy said about refresh cycles)

Why? Because the only reason I need a more powerful desktop is for games. And there haven't been any AAA title games that have caught my attention in years. call of Duty s*cks. GTA V pissed me off too much with their delays for the PC to the point I refuse to buy it. Other than that, everything else is garbage. Fallout 4 runs fine on my q6600.

I finally bit the bullet and upgraded this month, but my Skylake 6700k with 1070gtx does not feel revolutionary. In the past, every time I upgraded my computer (every 5 years) the speed difference was incredible and revolutionary.

 

[3ogdy]

I consider myself a power user, as most of you guys on THG are. I've rocked my q6600 for 10 years!!! The longest I've ever gone between upgrades (In line with what Intel guy said about refresh cycles)

Why? Because the only reason I need a more powerful desktop is for games. And there haven't been any AAA title games that have caught my attention in years. call of Duty s*cks. GTA V pissed me off too much with their delays for the PC to the point I refuse to buy it. Other than that, everything else is garbage. Fallout 4 runs fine on my q6600.

I finally bit the bullet and upgraded this month, but my Skylake 6700k with 1070gtx does not feel revolutionary. In the past, every time I upgraded my computer (every 5 years) the speed difference was incredible and revolutionary.

You're right about it. Performance just hasn't improved that much lately thanks in part to an utter lack of competition - everybody goes mobile and smartphones, tablets, hybrids and the likes don't necessarily require huge CPU performance.
The problem I have with the 10 series GPUs from nVidia is that it just doesn't seem real - they changed so much stuff, they improved so many things, plus the smaller process node and all that and there's no "substantial improvement" - where's that jump in performance everybody was expecting? There's no jaw-dropping power consumption reduction either. It's not there. Mind you we're talking about HALVING the process node, from 28nm to 14nm. What the hell?
I guess nVidia took a page from AMD with Pascal and had their products way overhyped ...then when it was time to perform, they underdelivered. There's also a possibility these GPUs are artificially held back by nVidia so that the 1080Ti can do damage to Fury early next year.

On one hand it's great not to be forced to upgrade your PC every 2-3 years, but still - tech just isn't making the progress it was making a few years back. I guess it's becoming harder and harder for tech companies to squeeze performance out of those transistors.
Years ago I would tell myself..well..the jump to Conroe is just the exception. OK, OK...but man...now there's such a stagnation that I'm not even sure how some of these companies are still in the business, for real.

 

[InvalidError]

You're right about it. Performance just hasn't improved that much lately thanks in part to an utter lack of competition

CPU performance is not improving much because most software still is heavily dependent on single-threaded performance and single-threaded performance is getting close to practical limits, which is why AMD is struggling so much to catch up with Intel's.

The lack of efficient and heavily threaded code in mainstream software is the main reason performance has been stagnant: there is no point in making massively parallel mainstream CPUs available when there is next to no software capable of making meaningful use of it. All it would do is cost many future sales in-between by massively increasing the number of people stretching their PCs to five years and beyond.