Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Report: SSDs Rapidly Dropping in Price

By - Source: Dealnews | B 51 comments
Tags :

When pushed into the mass market in 2009, SSD makers promised that 2010 would be the year of the mainstream SSD.

We have been waiting for a reasonable mainstream affordability since then, but it appears that we are now able to seriously consider solid state storage for computers even for those on a budget.

Dealnews analyzed SSD prices and concluded that high-capacity SSDs are now matching smaller drives in a per-GB price. According to the publication, per GB prices of 256 GB drives plunged from $1.37 in January to currently $0.48, which closely matches the 64 GB SSD per-GB price of $0.47. Of course, that price is still a far cry from HDDs, which currently sell for $0.07 per GB on the street ($65 for a mainstream, 1 TB HDD).

HDD makers still consider the $65 price point as mainstream, but SSDs that sell for as low as $120 are not as much a luxury anymore as they once were. Their benefits especially in specialty hardware, such as ultrabooks, may outweigh their premium for many users. Even if SSDs are still much more expensive than capacity-comparable HDDs, there are drives that may be large and cheap enough for a lot of customers

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 51 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 37 Hide
    ramicio , October 17, 2012 1:32 PM
    L0tusGreat news! But for a few microseconds off my loading times they're still not cheap enough =[


    You obviously have zero experience with SSDs.
  • 31 Hide
    Anonymous , October 17, 2012 1:24 PM
    way more than a few microseconds off loading times. The difference is significant
  • 24 Hide
    waxdart , October 17, 2012 1:34 PM
    Of course the price is dropping. I just bought one!
Other Comments
  • 31 Hide
    Anonymous , October 17, 2012 1:24 PM
    way more than a few microseconds off loading times. The difference is significant
  • -8 Hide
    ramicio , October 17, 2012 1:30 PM
    Where is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.
  • 37 Hide
    ramicio , October 17, 2012 1:32 PM
    L0tusGreat news! But for a few microseconds off my loading times they're still not cheap enough =[


    You obviously have zero experience with SSDs.
  • 10 Hide
    sherlockwing , October 17, 2012 1:34 PM
    L0tusGreat news! But for a few microseconds off my loading times they're still not cheap enough =[


    Actually more like 10-15 seconds, just some reviews on Techreport they compare HDD load time to SSD load time on their SSD reviews.
  • 24 Hide
    waxdart , October 17, 2012 1:34 PM
    Of course the price is dropping. I just bought one!
  • 22 Hide
    Bloob , October 17, 2012 1:46 PM
    waxdartOf course the price is dropping. I just bought one!

    Buy more, so I can get one too. ;) 
  • 20 Hide
    akopp21 , October 17, 2012 1:47 PM
    Quote:
    Where is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.


    How would a 3.5" drive containing the same parts as a 2.5" drive be any less wasteful than a 2.5" drive?
  • 5 Hide
    DRosencraft , October 17, 2012 1:54 PM
    ramicioWhere is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.


    There is no point in a 3.5" form factor. They can fit plenty of chips in the 2.5" size for added capacity. 3.5" on mechanical drives was primarily for accommodating larger platters for larger capacity. That's not an issue for SSDs, so to save manufacturing cost there's no need to make both 2.5" and 3.5" form factors. The server world mainly isn't switching because for them the price to make up the storage space of mechanical drives is huge. They'll have to switch eventually, and when they do they'll upgrade the racks at the same time. I would not consider this to be the biggest issue for them.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , October 17, 2012 2:04 PM
    @ramicio: Uhhhhhhhhh, so you want them to just put the drive into the chassis of a 3.5 form factor just to make it look pretty? I dont understand, what the hell are you getting at? And why do you feel the need to have a 3.5 size? I get the feeling you dont know the first thing about server management.
  • 3 Hide
    halls , October 17, 2012 2:12 PM
    ramicioWhere is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.

    I would guess it's because making a 3.5" SSD would be a waste of materials; if you really wanted to fill a 3.5" SSD with enough components to actually utilize that space, it might become too expensive for most consumers. Take a look at PCIE SSDs for enterprise usage and you can get an idea of how much capacity would actually be needed to utilize more space.
  • 7 Hide
    igot1forya , October 17, 2012 2:16 PM
    ramicioWhere is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.

    3.5" is nearly pointless in the server market - Especially for Solid State Drives. Space and power are reasons for this. If I had the choice, I'd pick 2.5" over 3.5" any day. With Rack-space at a premium, it adds up. The more volume in a server room to cool and house, the more it costs.

    When it comes to SSD, space/surface area is not the issue or the limiting factor - the manufacturers limit capacity on cost, not because the 2.5" form factor is too small to fit more silicon, but because no one consumer would be able to purchase a 3TB SSD. Right now, the enterprise level SAN manufacturers (NetApp, ect) are pushing SSD's in the data center and the price - which used to be astronomical for conventional SAS drives - is frigging ridiculous. If the trend keeps going where it is (and I hope it does), then I think perhaps the demand may drive a need for more capacity beyond the form-factor.

    By the way, 3.5" SSD's do exist. But you are looking into the Enterprise/Industrial space and SAS is probably all you will find.
  • 9 Hide
    Gundam288 , October 17, 2012 2:19 PM
    I hope this will help urge HDD makers to finally start dropping the prices to "pre-flood" levels.
  • 6 Hide
    BIL_ASC , October 17, 2012 2:45 PM
    Getting more excited after read this..
    planning for 250GB SSD :D 
  • 10 Hide
    bavman , October 17, 2012 2:52 PM
    I want a 512gb ssd for $100. $0.20/gb isn't too much to ask in several months is it?
  • 0 Hide
    blazorthon , October 17, 2012 2:55 PM
    bavmanI want a 512gb ssd for $100. $0.20/gb isn't too much to ask in several months is it?


    I think that you'd be lucky to see them far under $300 except for lower end and/or older models in that time frame.
  • -4 Hide
    ramicio , October 17, 2012 2:56 PM
    Because 2.5" in the server world is not very mainstream. Does anyone really think I suggest that only the outside of the case would be bigger, but one would not cram more flash into it? 2.5" in racks only shine over 3.5" in number of disks density, not actual storage density in bytes.
  • -4 Hide
    ramicio , October 17, 2012 2:58 PM
    ramicidiot@ramicio: Uhhhhhhhhh, so you want them to just put the drive into the chassis of a 3.5 form factor just to make it look pretty? I dont understand, what the hell are you getting at? And why do you feel the need to have a 3.5 size? I get the feeling you dont know the first thing about server management.


    I get the feeling that your argument is purely emotional and that you're an idiot. When did I say that one would just slap what exists now in a 3.5" form factor? Anyone would logic would grasp that I meant that they would put more flash chips in there to add to the capacity.
  • 2 Hide
    blazorthon , October 17, 2012 2:58 PM
    ramicioWhere is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.


    2.5" has become very mainstream in servers and as others have pointed out, a 2.5" SSD in a 3.5" chassis in a 3.5" bay would be no less of a waste of space than a 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay and a 3.5" SSD would be incredibly expensive in order to account for the many components that it'd have. Furthermore, 2.5" allows both general desktop and general laptop compatibility, so they don't need to make different form factors for different purposes.
  • 1 Hide
    blazorthon , October 17, 2012 3:01 PM
    ramicioI get the feeling that your argument is purely emotional and that you're an idiot. When did I say that one would just slap what exists now in a 3.5" form factor? Anyone would logic would grasp that I meant that they would put more flash chips in there to add to the capacity.


    Such a drive would cost thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, OCZ has such a drive:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5322/oczs-4tb-35-chiron-ssd
Display more comments