Friday, June 22nd 2012

SSD Prices in Free-Fall: The Next DRAM?

Hard drive prices refuse to budge after last year's floods that struck manufacturing facilities in Thailand, even as manufacturers turn record profit. The solid-state drive market, on the other hand, is finally rolling with competition, high volume production, and advancements in NAND flash technologies. With memory majors such as Hynix adding new NAND flash manufacturing facilities to their infrastructure, SSD is expected to finally get its big break in the mainstream market.

SSD prices, according to price aggregators, are on a free-fall. Models which once held relative pricing as high as $2 per gigabyte, and going deep within the $1 mark. For example, Crucial's widely-praised M4 256 GB SSD has a price per GB of 'just' $0.82, and a market price around $200, something unheard of, for a 256 GB SSD with transfer rates of over 500 MB/s. With SSD major OCZ Technology releasing new generations of drives under the Vertex 4 and Agility 4 series that use Indilinx processors, older Vertex 3 and Agility 3 models are being phased out, some of these are seeing sub $1/GB prices. Intel is also responding to market trends, with prices of its SSD 520 series dropping sharply. Find a boat-load of stats at the source.

Source: The TechReport
Add your own comment

120 Comments on SSD Prices in Free-Fall: The Next DRAM?

#1
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: kid41212003
You must have a lot of time on your hands because most everyone here probably doesn't have 5 games+ installed at the same time. What are you going to do after you completed a game? Leave there and look at it?
No, I tend to play games with replay value. I also don't have a lot of time to play games, being an adult with a life and a job and a family to support. So I tend to play an hour at most a day, and I don't play the same game constantly, I get board with the same game. So I tend to have 10+ games installs and be in the middle of playing each. I don't play one game until the game is done and then move to the next.

by: kid41212003
I have RAID 0 with 3 and 5 drives even with superfetch it's no where near SSD.
Even without Superfetch, everything on my system loads in under a second, even games. I double click the game icon, and I'm at the opening credits in under a second. Everything on my system is virtually instant, even things that I havn't opened in months, this didn't improve in any noticeable way with an SSD. Literally the only improvement I saw with an SSD inside of Windows was when I first clicked on the folder I keep on the desktop with all my game and program shortcuts in it after a reboot. Because all the icons have to be pulled from each program, it would take about 10 seconds for it to fully load and allow me to click on the icons, with the SSD it took about 2 seconds. However, this was only the very first time I open the folder after a reboot, after that the icon cache was in place and it opens instantly. There was no way that one improvement was worth the $200 I paid for my SSD.

by: kid41212003
My friend's GTX460 can play ALL of the games you listed with high or medium setting. You're exaggerating. Turn off the AA and every game gains 20% FPS.
No, I'm not exaggerating at all. If a GTX570 can't play those games smoothly at 60FPS a GTX460 can't. You are just trying to change your statement because you know it was wrong. You said every game out there at max settings, you were the one exaggerating. Now you want to change it to medium settings with no AA? Sorry, but no. I could play most games on low with an 8800GT, but I don't want to. I'm not even opposed to lowering a few settings, but to have to go down to medium settings with no AA to be playable isn't what I want to do. And sacrificing that for mostly unnoticeable performance improvements in other areas outside of games is dumb.

by: kid41212003
You completely missed my points too. People don't spend all of their time playing game. An SSD will give a more overall performance boosts for the system while a vga card will only help games.
No, you missed mine, it isn't even about games, it is about the fact that in everything other than games there is no real noticeable performance improvement with an SSD(again except faster Windows boot times). And SSD improves load times, Windows boots faster and games load faster, beyond that there isn't a whole lot that an SSD improves. Every other function of Windows 7 is instant. Programs load instantly when launched, menus come up instantly, everything is pretty much instant, an SSD just doesn't improve performance nearly as much as you claim.

But I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You can believe what you want.
Posted on Reply
#2
Mussels
Moderprator
newtekie: i agree with your arguments, and that its not valid for your setup.


however, SSD's are certainly viable for HTPC's (no noise), and laptops (less fragile, faster can equal more power savings since the drive idles more).

I certainly noticed speed increases when i had my SSD, its just that it was never that big a deal. i use S3 sleep, so i had no long load times, no caches to rebuild, etc.

SSD's are getting better value, so now more people want them. its that simple.
Posted on Reply
#3
cedrac18
by: newtekie1

No, you missed mine, it isn't even about games, it is about the fact that in everything other than games there is no real noticeable performance improvement with an SSD(again except faster Windows boot times). And SSD improves load times, Windows boots faster and games load faster, beyond that there isn't a whole lot that an SSD improves. Every other function of Windows 7 is instant. Programs load instantly when launched, menus come up instantly, everything is pretty much instant, an SSD just doesn't improve performance nearly as much as you claim.

But I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You can believe what you want.
And this is the problem everyone is having with your argument there IS a noticeable improvement in overall system response and speed not just windows boot and game load times times, also we are talking about a single HDD versus a single SSD no raid involved. That's also something that i don't know? at least 90% if not all hardware review sites agree with?
Posted on Reply
#4
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Mussels
newtekie: i agree with your arguments, and that its not valid for your setup.


however, SSD's are certainly viable for HTPC's (no noise), and laptops (less fragile, faster can equal more power savings since the drive idles more).

I certainly noticed speed increases when i had my SSD, its just that it was never that big a deal. i use S3 sleep, so i had no long load times, no caches to rebuild, etc.

SSD's are getting better value, so now more people want them. its that simple.
I can certainly agree with some of that, especially with laptops. SSDs do use less power, produce less heat, and are less fragile, but they aren't really giving that much of a performance boost there. But Kid was talking just about the performance an SSD gives.

I don't think an SSD is worth the price in a HTPC. My HTPC uses a completely silent 5400RPM laptop drive, or at least it is silent from my couch, and since I'm using sleep load times aren't anything to worry about.

I never said there weren't other benefits to SSDs, I just said they weren't worth the prices they currently go for, the benefits don't justify the cost in most cases and the money can usually be spent better elsewhere. A laptop is a different story, since there usually isn't a whole lot of other places to put the money. But even still, if I had to pick between two laptops, one with a SSD and the other with a higher resolution screen, I'm taking the higher resolution screen(and yes, I just had to make this decision).
Posted on Reply
#5
araditus
I can concur with newtekie1 I almost bought an SSD with my last system, but then I bought 4 640bg WD Blacks for the same price (at the time) as a 256gb SSD, I have 12x the space, more proven reliability, and I agree with him that once windows is loaded (bare mine still only takes 13.6 seconds) that every game, program I open I can count to no more than 3 mississippi.
Posted on Reply
#6
dom99
I'm going to get a second Samsung 830 256gb for £140 and raid them
Posted on Reply
#7
remixedcat
I'm getting the Samsung 830 128GB SSD.... I've decided. would get the 256 but it would make me have to wait 1 or even 2 more months... this windows install is getting slow and i'd rather just start fresh on a new drive....
Posted on Reply
#8
Xzibit
Wake me up when you can get a +500gb SSD for around $100.

In the meantime i'm perfectly fine pushing the start button on my computer and then reaching for a nice cold beverage to take a zip from, Ahh, Windows is done loading.:toast:
Posted on Reply
#9
Gsa700
Do you guys all really boot up this often? My machines all run 24/7, what is the point of shutting it off every time you are done using it? Just curious.
Posted on Reply
#10
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: kid41212003
You must have a lot of time on your hands because most everyone here probably doesn't have 5 games+ installed at the same time. What are you going to do after you completed a game? Leave there and look at it?

I have RAID 0 with 3 and 5 drives even with superfetch it's no where near SSD.

My friend's GTX460 can play ALL of the games you listed with high or medium setting. You're exaggerating. Turn off the AA and every game gains 20% FPS.

You completely missed my points too. People don't spend all of their time playing game. An SSD will give a more overall performance boosts for the system while a vga card will only help games.
Really? because im pretty sure I have close to 20 games installed all at the same time, right now
Posted on Reply
#11
theonedub
habe fidem
by: newtekie1


No, you missed mine, it isn't even about games, it is about the fact that in everything other than games there is no real noticeable performance improvement with an SSD(again except faster Windows boot times). And SSD improves load times, Windows boots faster and games load faster, beyond that there isn't a whole lot that an SSD improves. Every other function of Windows 7 is instant. Programs load instantly when launched, menus come up instantly, everything is pretty much instant, an SSD just doesn't improve performance nearly as much as you claim.

But I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You can believe what you want.
You've got some points, but I also think you have to take a look at the variety of programs people are running. A prime example is GIMP/Photoshop. These programs will not load instantly on an HDD, but are darn near instant on with a SSD. Antivirus scans that used to take a few minutes now finish in less than 1min. Even simple productivity apps like Office (one of my most used software suites) opens so fast I don't even see the splash screen. Windows Updates get a huge boost, and thats something everyone has to go through. I don't know why its so slow on a mech drive, but on with the SSD the updates finish very quickly.

While some of the improvements indeed only shave seconds or fractions of seconds, I don't think that even the perceived performance boost is something we should dismiss.
Posted on Reply
#12
dr emulator (madmax)
by: Hustler
Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it...until then, no thanks.

And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.
hm reminds me of the other day with my Samsung 256gb ssd, i tried to boot up 3 times and then when i did my log on account had gone along-side my google chrome, and all my links :mad:
it would only log me into a temp account :banghead: so it's been formatted since and had a firmware update

not put win 7 back on it yet:twitch:


as for the price i paid £300 for it or 467.65 US dollars, now a few months after buying it it's gone down to £209.99 or 327.34 US dollars :cry::(
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: theonedub
You've got some points, but I also think you have to take a look at the variety of programs people are running. A prime example is GIMP/Photoshop. These programs will not load instantly on an HDD, but are darn near instant on with a SSD.
Photoshop and Premiere load in under a second after I launch them, though I haven't tried GIMP(I have Photoshop so no need for GIMP). So yes, on an HDD they do load darn near instantly. Don't believe me? See Here. Seriously, it doesn't get much faster, with my SSD I noticed no difference when launching these programs.

by: theonedub
Antivirus scans that used to take a few minutes now finish in less than 1min.
Your virus scans should be running when you aren't using the computer, and if you are using a good AV it doesn't matter if it runs when you are using the computer, because it shouldn't be noticeable.

by: theonedub
Even simple productivity apps like Office (one of my most used software suites) opens so fast I don't even see the splash screen.
I see the splash screen with Office apps, I do admit, but they open fast enough that the splash screen doesn't even get to load fully before the app opens, so I think I can save the $150 and deal with seeing the splash screen for a fraction of a second...

by: theonedub
Windows Updates get a huge boost, and thats something everyone has to go through. I don't know why its so slow on a mech drive, but on with the SSD the updates finish very quickly.
We it actually makes since, because Windows Updates are usually accessing a large number of different small files, where an SSD shines. But Windows Updates don't bother me with a mechanical hard drive, they are set to install automatically while I'm at work. I honestly can't tell you the last time an update was applied when I was on the computer. So I'll save the $150 and just install the updates when I'm not on the computer.

by: theonedub
While some of the improvements indeed only shave seconds or fractions of seconds, I don't think that even the perceivedperformance boost is something we should dismiss.
I do.
Posted on Reply
#14
Mussels
Moderprator
by: Gsa700
Do you guys all really boot up this often? My machines all run 24/7, what is the point of shutting it off every time you are done using it? Just curious.
noise, power, heat.

i use S3 sleep rather than shutting it off, however.
Posted on Reply
#15
theonedub
habe fidem
Looks like it comes down to whether or not users think its a worthwhile upgrade for them. Its definitely worth it to me, so I guess I'll just enjoy the luxury. Thanks for throwing that video together, that is remarkably fast- my F1 drive never came close to opening PS with that speed and its not a slow drive by any means.
Posted on Reply
#16
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: theonedub
Looks like it comes down to whether or not users think its a worthwhile upgrade for them. Its definitely worth it to me, so I guess I'll just enjoy the luxury. Thanks for throwing that video together, that is remarkably fast- my F1 drive never came close to opening PS with that speed and its not a slow drive by any means.
I found an older video I did the includes InDesign and Word and Excel, Word and Excel open instantly, the video barely even catchs the splash screen.

Youtube: MPtj6xwTv2g

by: Gsa700
Do you guys all really boot up this often? My machines all run 24/7, what is the point of shutting it off every time you are done using it? Just curious.
I actually do turn mine off every day. Generally I turn it on when I get home from work, and turn it off when I go to sleep, and on my days off I turn it on in the morning and off at night. I don't turn it off every time I'm not using it though.
Posted on Reply
#17
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
i like that the price is coming down rapidly now. i dont plan on making any big upgrades in the near future since my rig can easily play any game without any issue and the vga is the most expensive component in my machine. however, it seems like for $150 i will see vast improvements for everything else running a SSD since i currently just have a single 500 gb drive.
Posted on Reply
#18
kid41212003
by: newtekie1


No, I'm not exaggerating at all. If a GTX570 can't play those games smoothly at 60FPS a GTX460 can't. You are just trying to change your statement because you know it was wrong. You said every game out there at max settings, you were the one exaggerating. Now you want to change it to medium settings with no AA? Sorry, but no. I could play most games on low with an 8800GT, but I don't want to. I'm not even opposed to lowering a few settings, but to have to go down to medium settings with no AA to be playable isn't what I want to do. And sacrificing that for mostly unnoticeable performance improvements in other areas outside of games is dumb.

No, you missed mine, it isn't even about games, it is about the fact that in everything other than games there is no real noticeable performance improvement with an SSD(again except faster Windows boot times). And SSD improves load times, Windows boots faster and games load faster, beyond that there isn't a whole lot that an SSD improves. Every other function of Windows 7 is instant. Programs load instantly when launched, menus come up instantly, everything is pretty much instant, an SSD just doesn't improve performance nearly as much as you claim.

But I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You can believe what you want.
All your statements are based on your own experiences on your own machine.

And the fact that you're running RAID0 don't really demonstrate what others non-SSD users are experiencing on a SPINNING HDD either. Still, the more HDDs in raid the more delay you will have (access time). Games don't need massive bandwidth to load quickly. They need low access time, but SSD has both anyway.

Maybe you don't really play many multiplayer games with a lot of loading between matches, so a few seconds don't really bother you, but you're now the minority. Everything new that's coming out have mutliplayer component. Every match requires loading.

Without Windows nothing can run. Windows runs faster = programs itself run faster. I don't even need to mention the faster access time and higher bandwidth of the ssd.

I'm not exactly stupid to spend $250 (now it's just $150 and even faster) for an SSD that provides little performance. I did my homework. My SSD gives me more than what I expected, and I also had 5 HDDs in RAID0 before (now I have 3). I moved from that and I'm still impressed.

You're the only one who came back to spinning HDD after trying SSD as far as I know, and probably the only one in existence.

I only disagree with you and in your 1st post you called me delusional.

I had respects for you. Now it's lost. Your opinions are so strong you can't take anything else in.

Gotta empty your cup old man.
Posted on Reply
#19
Mussels
Moderprator
by: kid41212003

You're the only one who came back to spinning HDD after trying SSD as far as I know, and probably the only one in existence.

I only disagree with you and in your 1st post you called me delusional.

I had respects for you. Now it's lost. Your opinions are so strong you can't take anything else in.

Gotta empty your cup old man.
nope, i went back to spinners. my SSD gave me lots of performance issues before it died, and i'm not willing to go through that again.
Posted on Reply
#20
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: kid41212003
All your statements are based on your own experiences on your own machineS.
FTFY

by: kid41212003
And the fact that you're running RAID0 don't really demonstrate what others non-SSD users are experiencing on a SPINNING HDD either. Still, the more HDDs in raid the more delay you will have (access time). Games don't need massive bandwidth to load quickly. They need low access time, but SSD has both anyway.
Try reading the system specs and sig again, the RAID0 is a data drive. That rig has a single HDD that has the OS and all the programs installed on it. And that isn't even my main rig, my main rig is running RAID5 with a single OS drive, it is even labeled that way. Not hard to figure out.

And about games, Deus Ex is one of the worst games with load times, and it literally takes 16 seconds to load from the main menu to playing the game. I can wait.

by: kid41212003
Maybe you don't really play many multiplayer games with a lot of loading between matches, so a few seconds don't really bother you, but you're now the minority. Everything new that's coming out have mutliplayer component. Every match requires loading.
I play plenty of multiplayer, the load times aren't bad, most of the time is syncing with the server anyway. But beyond that, if it is just going from match to match on the same server, it is either reloading the same map so the data is cached and loading is super fast, or I'm loaded in waiting for the next match to start or for other people to finish loading into the match.

Switching between different servers can cause a longer load time, but generally it is still under 10 seconds, so I can wait.

by: kid41212003
Without Windows nothing can run. Windows runs faster = programs itself run faster. I don't even need to mention the faster access time and higher bandwidth of the ssd.
Now your just grasping. Windows isn't helping apps run faster just because the OS is on an SSD, it doesn't work that way. The app is still on a mechanical hard drive, the data needed to run that app has to be loaded from the mechanical hard drive, so the app still loads just as slow with the SSD as without.

by: kid41212003
I'm not exactly stupid to spend $250 (now it's just $150 and even faster) for an SSD that provides little performance. I did my homework. My SSD gives me more than what I expected, and I also had 5 HDDs in RAID0 before (now I have 3). I moved from that and I'm still impressed.
Yes, yes you are that stupid. And now your are defending that purchase tooth and nail because there is no way anyone is going to tell you it wasn't a wise purchase. I personally would have upgrading the GTX480 instead but eh what would I know...

by: kid41212003
You're the only one who came back to spinning HDD after trying SSD as far as I know, and probably the only one in existence.
Obviously I'm not.

by: kid41212003
I only disagree with you and in your 1st post you called me delusional.

I had respects for you. Now it's lost. Your opinions are so strong you can't take anything else in.

Gotta empty your cup old man.
Actually, that would have been my second post, and you are delusional. But you can keep lying to yourself, if that's what makes you feel better about wasting money on an overprices SSD.
Posted on Reply
#21
Prima.Vera
by: Gsa700
Do you guys all really boot up this often? My machines all run 24/7, what is the point of shutting it off every time you are done using it? Just curious.
I am also using sleep mode function, so an SSD is irrelevant since Windows starts up again in less than 2 sec....;)
Posted on Reply
#22
Totally
by: Mussels
nope, i went back to spinners. my SSD gave me lots of performance issues before it died, and i'm not willing to go through that again.
Same here, mine died on me too. Less than a month of use and without warning went kaput. It's replacement, M4 256, working coaster duty since i got it.
Posted on Reply
#23
Completely Bonkers
by: Hustler
Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it...until then, no thanks.

And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.
Simple: SSD for OS, apps, temps and pagefile. HDD for data.

Better: Backup your important data on a regular basis.

Rock solid: RAID your backup.
Posted on Reply
#24
Ahhzz
by: Grings
Never mind 256gb drives, i wanna see 512gb+ ones get affordable :)
No doubt, I'm running a 2Tb hard drive, and downgrading to that small a drive is not really appetizing....
Posted on Reply
#25
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
by: Ahhzz
No doubt, I'm running a 2Tb hard drive, and downgrading to that small a drive is not really appetizing....
You have 2TB of data that needs to be accessible that fast? It's not SSD or HD, you can have both.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment