SSDs Are Cheaper Than Ever, Hit the Magic 10 Cents Per Gigabyte Threshold

[R0H1T]

Stop saying the same thing over & over again, you have no evidence nor data to support that assertion!

 

[bug]

Nobody is saying that, people are saying that QLC SSDs are less reliable than HDDs (or at least have much lower life expectancy). This is the problem with lowering cost per GB by reducing quality, it results in a reduction of quality lol.

Again, wrong.
QLC is not less reliable (how do you define reliable?), it just has fewer p/e cycles than TLC (for reference, SLC also has fewer p/e cycles than HDD). There's no reduction in quality. If anything, the quality of each cell must be better is instead of 8 it now has to hold 16 different voltage levels. It's just physics at work.

 

[Ubersonic]

Stop saying the same thing over & over again, you have no evidence nor data to support that assertion!

Are you addressing me there? Because in that case you may want to Google how SSDs work.

QLC is literally a reduction in longevity to reduce costs. That's the entire point of it, hence why most (sane) power users wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. Saving 25% but getting a product that lasts 50% as long isn't very savvy lol.

 

[R0H1T]

Are you addressing me there? Because in that case you may want to Google how SSDs work.

QLC is literally a reduction in longevity to reduce costs. That's the entire point of it, hence why most (sane) power users wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. Saving 25% but getting a product that lasts 50% as long isn't very savvy lol.

Do you want me to present research papers detailing how NAND, controller & firmware work inside an SSD?

Yeah anyone sane can see the irony in that statement! What, you're not making sense anymore

 

[Ubersonic]

What, you're not making sense anymore

It's not a difficult concept, saving 25% on the purchase price but getting something that lasts half as long (I.E 4 years instead of 8) is not a good buying decision.

 

[R0H1T]

It's not a difficult concept, saving 25% on the purchase price but getting something that lasts half as long (I.E 4 years instead of 8) is not a good buying decision.

The 860 QVO 4TB is rated for ~1.4PB writes, that's the warrantied limit. Previous "endurance" tests have shown that MLC & TLC exceed that by a large margin. IIRC the Samsung planar SSD's survived more than a PB worth of writes, their TBW rating was a fraction of that, 3D NAND lasts much longer. Even if we assume QLC won't allow that luxury, there's no evidence to say that they're less reliable than most consumer HDDs.

Now let's see how you spin the other part, oft repeated by you, that the (QLC) SSD lasts less than HDD?

 

[bug]

It's not a difficult concept, saving 25% on the purchase price but getting something that lasts half as long (I.E 4 years instead of 8) is not a good buying decision.

It might be, if you only need a drive for 3 years.

 

[Ubersonic]

It might be, if you only need a drive for 3 years.

Generally speaking, people who throw their computer parts in the bin after 3 years aren't the type of people who buy a worse product to save a few bucks.

Even if we assume QLC won't allow that luxury, there's no evidence to say that they're less reliable than most consumer HDDs.

If my main drive was QLC it would be around 20-25% health by now, it's only 3 years old. Most HDDs last 4 years of more.

Here's the thing, most people don't just keep an SSD for a few years then bin it, so having it fail sooner to save a few bucks is counter productive. I.E the 6 year old 500GB SATA-III SSD I use for games used to be my boot drive before I got the aforementioned NVMe one, and the near 9 year old 480GB SATA-II SSD I use for downloads and older games was my boot drive before that. Many people keep their drives long term so having them last longer is worth more to us than saving a nominal amount because the quality is lower.

 

[ddmeltzer8]

'Bout.. Friggin.... Time.......

Die spinners, die

Does anyone have a chart that shows how fast the capacity of SSD's has grown in the past few years ?

Check out BACKBLKAZE.If anyone has it,they prob will.

 

[Andika]

SSDs are very fragile to logical errors and power jumps so with one unexpected power outagge you can get all ssds running in your computer killed, just like that. SMART will not help you with that and in fact SMART is useless in analyzing real condition of SSD. SSDs are way more fragile than HDDs.

I had a Samsung HDD almost dead it was unable to hold spinning and I had to shake it up with my hand at start up.
then I did a raw copy of the content with a cmd command to a healty HDD and could save important files such as Firefox bookmarks (hundreds)
I really doubt this would even be possible with an SSD.... not to mention that you can swap out the HDD pcb in case it totally fails.
I don't agree with the clown who said you are wrong, it's highly probable that less than 1% of home users make constants backups of the Windows SSD

 

[95Viper]

Stop calling other members derogatory terms in your posts... you can think/mumble/say it all you want, but don't post it
Stop the retaliatory comments.
If you have a problem or see a forum guideline's violation, report it.

Stay on topic.

Again, Thank You, Have a nice day.

 

[rtwjunkie]

@95Viper read comment #32 and you will understand it. I hate fanboys who do not accept different viewpoints.

So, I have post #32, and I don’t see what you think is so “offensive” or fanboy-like. Neither of those, if they exist, is an excuse to violate the rules and attack people or use derogatory terms, so @95Viper is correct.

Here is #32:

It’s even way lower now. I just bought a Crucial MX500 in 500GB size for $63. It dropped $35 in just about 3 months from when I put it on my Amazon wishlist.

@neatfeatguy Im right there with you. Many terabytes of media and of data on server. Red HDD are still way more cost effective for me than any SSD with needing over 20TB of storage. One day we’ll get there, but it’s not now and won’t be next year. After? We’ll see.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I still have my doubts that NAND flash will ever catch magnetic storage at high density. Mechanical drives cost a relatively fixed amount to manufacture based on the number of platters. How much data can be packed in to a square inch of platter space is mostly a matter of technique. Magnetic fields are much, much smaller than transistors. SSDs on the other hand need more transistors manufactured in order to reach higher densities. There's also that growing issue of smaller processes costing more and taking longer.

The hard drive I want to get is $0.037/GB (12 TB).

 

[Andika]

@rtwjunkie I'm new to this community I though my comment had been posted elsewhere....
here it is.

 

[rtwjunkie]

@rtwjunkie I'm new to this community I though my comment had been posted elsewhere....
here it is.

View attachment 111564

That is weird it has the same number.

Welcome to TPU!

 

[bug]

I still have my doubts that NAND flash will ever catch magnetic storage at high density. Mechanical drives cost a relatively fixed amount to manufacture based on the number of platters. How much data can be packed in to a square inch of platter space is mostly a matter of technique. Magnetic fields are much, much smaller than transistors. SSDs on the other hand need more transistors manufactured in order to reach higher densities. There's also that growing issue of smaller processes costing more and taking longer.

The hard drive I want to get is $0.037/GB (12 TB).

Yeah, well, in turn HDDs didn't need to catch up in all aspects to tape drives, so Idk why you think SDDs need to. Tapes have carved a niche on their own where they survive to this day, HDDs will probably so the same.

 

[neatfeatguy]

That is weird it has the same number.

Welcome to TPU!

The issue stems from browsing the comments on the Home page where News stories are posted. The story there isn't counted as a post number. However, when you come into the actual forums to read the story, the initial entry by the writer is considered post #1

When you see the story from the home page, the first comment there (after the story) is considered post# 1

That's where the confusion is coming from when @Andika made reference to post #32. @Andika is referencing the comments from the home page under the story and @rtwjunkie is looking back through the forums posting.

I'm not sure if there is a way that @W1zzard could fix this so there isn't future confusion or issues?

 

[W1zzard]

The issue stems from browsing the comments on the Home page where News stories are posted. The story there isn't counted as a post number. However, when you come into the actual forums to read the story, the initial entry by the writer is considered post #1

View attachment 111575

When you see the story from the home page, the first comment there (after the story) is considered post# 1

View attachment 111576

That's where the confusion is coming from when @Andika made reference to post #32. @Andika is referencing the comments from the home page under the story and @rtwjunkie is looking back through the forums posting.

I'm not sure if there is a way that @W1zzard could fix this so there isn't future confusion or issues?

Good question, how would you change it?

 

[R0H1T]

Was this ever an issue in the past, I've always observed this behavior after reading the news & considered it normal?

 

[Tatty_Two]

@rtwjunkie I'm new to this community I though my comment had been posted elsewhere....
here it is.

View attachment 111564

That post was low qualitied, was 33, maybe it for some strange reason took the numbering berserk.

 

[neatfeatguy]

Good question, how would you change it?

I don't know.....

Not sure if there's a way for you to allow the news entries on the home page to be considered post #1 so any comments after it start off as post #2? That way it would match up with what you see if you're on the forums.