Why aren't SSDs more popular in a 3.5" form factor?

[bookwormsy]

Here is my confusion: Newegg has the OCZ Octane 1TB SSD in a 2.5" form factor. They're selling it for $2,549.99. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227797

Meanwhile, I can buy 2 OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SSDs in a 2.5" form factor for $474.99 on Newegg right now, and they have better performance than the Octane. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227793

You can easily fit 2 regular 2.5" SSDs in a 3.5" form factor. 2 Vertex 4 = $950.

Am I missing something here? Why don't manufacturers offer more SSDs at a 3.5" form factor for cheaper? What I've seen was just that the 2.5" works for laptops and desktops while 3.5" only works for desktops. To that I say this:

You can use less dense memory chips to get the same amount of space in a 3.5" as compared to a 2.5". That would make it cheaper, and make consumers more likely to buy them. As seen above, I can get the same space plus better performance for about a third of the price of the Octane.

Or, why doesn't anybody offer a 3.5" enclosure with a built in RAID card? Have the customer put in 2 SSDs, and have the ability to RAID0 them.

 

[manofchalk]

Because quite simply they don't need to be of that size, you can fit an SSD in a 2.5" form factor quite easily.
If OCZ did make a 3.25" SSD, suddenly they have a product that isn't compatible with laptops while only being slightly more convenient for desktops. They'd lose some their customer base and therefore profits, so in a business sense there is no reason to go larger than 2.5".

Also I dont think the price of that Octane SSD has to do with trying to cram in denser flash memory, would be more developing the controller that would handle that much capacity. Also I suspect they can charge that much just because they can, the only competing SSD of that capacity is the OCZ Revodrive, which is in a league of its own.

There is such an enclosure on the market, but it only works through a Thunderbolt connection. Two SSD's in RAID0 would easily saturate a SATAIII connection, so internally isnt a wise move. The easy way around that is two SATA connections, but then you might as well RAID them traditionally.

 

[bookwormsy]

But wouldn't the price difference of fitting more less-dense flash memory in a 3.25" SSD enable them to sell it cheaper, and so get more customers? For most people, the reason why they don't buy an SSD is because its too expensive per gigabyte. If OCZ released a really cheap 512GB or 1TB that only a few times more expensive than a HDD of the same size, more people would go for it.

Thats my main confusion: Why don't they use cheaper flash modules in a bigger package to lower the cost to entice more buyers?

 

[manofchalk]

Despite what makes sense, it gets cheaper to produce flash (as well as CPU's, GPU's, RAM and even HDD's) the more dense it gets, while also improving speed and power-efficiency. Thats why Intel, AMD (not so much), Nvidia and ATI are in a constant race for the smallest manufacturing process on their chips.

Cheaper flash modules, what do you think the Agility and Octane series are?
Also your looking at premium drives like the Vertex 4, if they used cheaper flash there would be community backlash. Look whats happening with the Samsung 840.

 

[MajinCry]

Manofchalk, AMD == ATI. So....Yeah.

Just thought I should mention that.

 

[manofchalk]

I know, but I though mentioning AMD twice would be a bit confusing due to the fact they do two things now. Its still technically ATI making the Radeon cards though, just under the name of AMD.

 

[bookwormsy]

@manofchalk, I thought the smallest manufacturing process was for efficiency in chip making. More power for less energy.

And I was just using the vertex 4 as an example. Amazon has the OCZ Octane 512GB for 455. Apples to Apples. By bundling two of these together in a 3.25" package and selling it for say, 1000, they'd probably get people buying them. Or sell it for much cheaper to entice buyers.

 

[-carnage-]

I get the hole thing off laptops and so on.
But if you went and putt all that SSD tech in to a 3.5" drive you will get an extra 300%(more or less) storage capacity. Now If I can get an 4TB drive that has 500MB read and 480MB write speeds and is 100% stable (4TB HDD isn't) I will take it. Considering that is will last me a lot longer than any of my HDD's ever did.
This will be a BIG plus in the server side of things.
And lets face it that is where the money is.