Thursday, May 9th 2019

Trendforce: SSD Price-per-GB Could Drop as Low as $0.1 by Year's End

A report from technology market analyst Trendforce places SSD's pricing in sharp decline, with price per GB being projected to hit as low as $0.1 by year's end. Citing oversupply in the NADN flash market and an impending price war to allow manufacturers to sell out accumulating inventory, this is one of those clear cases of a win for consumers - which, after the shenanigans in the DRAM market, is about time. Trendforce further states that the price reductions should render 128 GB SSDs obsolete, as they mostly are by now, with 512 GB capacities becoming the mainstream choice for system integrators and DIY.

Pricing evolution in the market also places premium NVMe solutions at an only 6% premium over SATA offerings, showcasing the increased cost savings that manufacturers have achieved with the reduction in price for NVMe controllers, and the lower amount of physical materials needed to put an NVMe SSD together compared to a SATA-based alternative. Furthermore, Trendforce says that value PCIe-based solutions have a 0% price difference compared to SATA-based ones, so the option for the older form factor should only fall upon how many NVMe/PCIe sockets users' motherboards have available to populate.
Source: Trendforce
Add your own comment

22 Comments on Trendforce: SSD Price-per-GB Could Drop as Low as $0.1 by Year's End

#1
R0H1T
It's already here $0.1/GB was hit a while back o_O
Posted on Reply
#3
silentbogo
$0.1/GB is already here with TLC.
Not even all QLC manufacturers are on board yet (still waiting for Toshiba/WD and their next iteration of BiCS), but it might get much lower than $100/TB even this year.
Kinda eyeing NVME RAID0 of 2x1TB Intel 660p on my next upgrade, if no decent GPUs from AMD coming this year.
Posted on Reply
#5
Valantar
If we read this as $0.1 becoming normal at normal capacities rather than a best-case scenario at the highest capacities, I'm all for it.

Still, I have to admit I first misread this as $0.01, which had me ever so slightly skeptical. I don't think $10 1TB SSDs are coming any time soon :p
Posted on Reply
#6
TesterAnon
So, when its the next "Flooding" going to happen so prices magically increase out nowhere?
Posted on Reply
#7
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
Valantar said:

If we read this as $0.1 becoming normal at normal capacities rather than a best-case scenario at the highest capacities, I'm all for it.

Still, I have to admit I first misread this as $0.01, which had me ever so slightly skeptical. I don't think $10 1TB SSDs are coming any time soon :p
even at 0.1 the math is still wrong lol
Posted on Reply
#9
silentbogo
Valantar said:

If we read this as $0.1 becoming normal at normal capacities rather than a best-case scenario at the highest capacities, I'm all for it.
It's across the board, and not just in US.
My to-go SSDs from Patriot and Goodram are at 11-12c per GB even at low-capacity models like 120-240GB (and that's in Ukraine, with double taxing).
Also look at PCPartsPicker and sort by price/GB. There are models in this category of any size, from 480 to 2000GB
Posted on Reply
#10
Valantar
silentbogo said:

It's across the board, and not just in US.
My to-go SSDs from Patriot and Goodram are at 11-12c per GB even at low-capacity models like 120-240GB (and that's in Ukraine, with double taxing).
Also look at PCPartsPicker and sort by price/GB. There are models in this category of any size, from 480 to 2000GB
Hm. I might just not be paying attention to the dollar exchange rate. Anyhow, lower SSD prices is great for everyone, so I'd obviously welcome further drops. We have 25% VAT here in Norway, so that does drive our prices up, but I guess there are some drives even here around that price/GB.

OneMoar said:

even at 0.1 the math is still wrong lol
0,01 x 1000 = 10. That's not very difficult.
Posted on Reply
#11
moproblems99
Time for the 2TB NVME is coming.

Valantar said:

0,01 x 1000 = 10. That's not very difficult.
Must be that the , to . conversion isn't exactly 1:1.
Posted on Reply
#12
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
0.01 != 0.1
Posted on Reply
#13
AzraeiHalim
In my country cheapest can get was $0.5 per GB. 500GB SSD SATA prices can get 2TB of HDD here. So only 240GB SSD 'normal' here. Other then that simply better add HDD for extra space
Posted on Reply
#14
silentbogo
AzraeiHalim said:

In my country cheapest can get was $0.5 per GB.
I find it hard to believe. Literally the first link in google search "SSD prices in Malaysia" gets me 1TB Samsung QVO for 675RM (~$160-165), a bunch of sub-100RM small 120GB drives from various manufacturers. The cheapest ones were old 120GB Sandisks on sale for 68RM($16-17).
Intel 660p prices are exactly the same as what I would get in my country.
Yes, overall it's more expensive than most places, but it's the first random storefront I found and its wa-a-a-a-a-a-y far off the claimed 50c/GB.
Posted on Reply
#15
Valantar
OneMoar said:

0.01 != 0.1
This is what started the whole debacle:
Valantar said:

If we read this as $0.1 becoming normal at normal capacities rather than a best-case scenario at the highest capacities, I'm all for it.

Still, I have to admit I first misread this as $0.01, which had me ever so slightly skeptical. I don't think $10 1TB SSDs are coming any time soon :p
moproblems99 said:
that the , to . conversion isn't exactly 1:1.
In Norwegian, the decimal marker is ",", not ".". Apparently more countries/languages use a comma than a point.
Posted on Reply
#16
AzraeiHalim
silentbogo said:

I find it hard to believe. Literally the first link in google search "SSD prices in Malaysia" gets me 1TB Samsung QVO for 675RM (~$160-165), a bunch of sub-100RM small 120GB drives from various manufacturers. The cheapest ones were old 120GB Sandisks on sale for 68RM($16-17).
Sorry mistake calculation. Yes $0.1 / GB. but this month we have special month make everything much cheaper for sell. So usually $0.15~$0.2 / GB but 2TB HDD still can get $49 here (around $40 during promo season). That's was $0.025 / GB. Where better value per GB. Even so, in here most popular is combination an 120GB NVMe SSD or 240GB SATA SSD with HDD. Having apps/software to open up below 5seconds and still can have HDD as media storage already consider 'above' average person can have in term of storage due to 'average person' / 'most people' here not even have SSD in their laptop/PC at first place. Average person salary here no even above $270 per month except they make own business or take additional job. Only government worker here salary above $490 most of it.
Posted on Reply
#17
Prima.Vera
Still the NVMe drives are ridiculously overpriced compared to the SATA ones.
Posted on Reply
#18
Valantar
Prima.Vera said:

Still the NVMe drives are ridiculously overpriced compared to the SATA ones.
Things are evening out, though. The delta isn't 2x any more, and I'm guessing we'll see (close to) parity within a year, at least for low-end drives (heck, we already have QLC NVMe drives matching TLC SATA ones). Paying a bit more for more performance is fine, but I agree that it still needs to come down.
Posted on Reply
#19
silentbogo
Prima.Vera said:

Still the NVMe drives are ridiculously overpriced compared to the SATA ones.
And DDR4-4000 is way overpriced comparing to DDR4-2133, so are faster CPUs against slower CPUs, sports cars against family cars etc. What's so surprising about it? You pay more money - you get 3-5 times the bandwidth.
Posted on Reply
#20
Th3pwn3r
silentbogo said:

And DDR4-4000 is way overpriced comparing to DDR4-2133, so are faster CPUs against slower CPUs, sports cars against family cars etc. What's so surprising about it? You pay more money - you get 3-5 times the bandwidth.
For me it was less cable clutter and footprint.
Posted on Reply
#21
Valantar
silentbogo said:

And DDR4-4000 is way overpriced comparing to DDR4-2133, so are faster CPUs against slower CPUs, sports cars against family cars etc. What's so surprising about it? You pay more money - you get 3-5 times the bandwidth.
... and a barely-perceptible increase in real-world performance. Still arguably worth it, though, as the worst-case performance is usually WAY better.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment