Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Hardware

SSD Prices Fall Dramatically In 2012 But Increase In Q4 77

Posted by Soulskill
from the more-cheaper-please dept.
crookedvulture writes "Solid-state drives became much more affordable in 2012. The median price for 240-256GB models fell by about 44% over the course of the year and now sits around 83 cents per gigabyte. Lower-capacity drives also got cheaper, albeit by smaller margins that kept median prices from dipping below the $1/GB threshold. Surprisingly, most drives actually got more expensive over the fourth quarter, despite Black Friday and other holiday sales. This upswing was driven largely by OCZ's decision to back off its strategy of aggressively discounting drives to gain market share, allowing its rivals to raise prices, as well. Although some new models arrived with next-generation 19- and 20-nm NAND that should be cheaper to produce, those drives didn't debut at lower prices. We may have to wait a while before SSD makers pass the savings along to consumers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SSD Prices Fall Dramatically In 2012 But Increase In Q4

Comments Filter:
  • yea they fell by 44% (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Osgeld (1900440) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @02:25AM (#42600533)

    they also started using 3 bit per cell storage, effectively making their lives 1/3 as long while decreasing speed, while still being expensive as jewel encrusted shit

    give me a modern SLC quarter gig drive for 150 bucks then I might start looking, otherwise I am not looking to replace my expensive drive every 2-7 years while counting every write, I have 3.5inch drives as early as 1986 damit, I expect more for the investment.

  • Prediction (Score:4, Interesting)

    by backslashdot (95548) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @02:33AM (#42600579)

    Here's whats gonna happen .. A scandal will break about price fixing. The govt will get involved a lawsuit will be filed. A fine will be paid. Prices will then stagnate instead of drop.

    That's the normal pattern.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @02:39AM (#42600603)

    At 40GB written-read /day, the current estimation for a TLC drive is a life expectancy is 7 years. Aka, much more than the current median of my past hard drives.
    Also, I can expect in 5 years that an equivalent of a 256GB SSD will cost next to nothing, so replacing it wouldn't be *that* hard...

  • Re:Selection Bias? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GeekWithAKnife (2717871) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @05:08AM (#42601153)

    Why is this a surprise?
    This is how things roll on Slashdot. It's up to us to pick the article apart, dissect the argument, question the premise and finally formulate a succinct rebuttal.

    \o/
  • by Christian Smith (3497) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @09:27AM (#42602121) Homepage

    I have one dedicated to the OS, one for programs, and I'm storing my data on standard SATA III hard-drives. As I understand it, this is the current recommended setup for SSD drives

    Urgh, no, if you have 2 SSD, at least RAID them. Or put OS+APPs on one, data on the other, and use the HDD is a live backup for both.

    Are you really spending that much time seeking in applications and OS files? That stuff typically gets loaded once on boot and then stays in RAM. It's the data where the fast random read/write times are a big win, and that's the stuff that you're storing on the spinning disks.

    OS binaries and libraries are often read in a random IO pattern, as the process jumps from one section of code to another. This is where a low latency drive on OS/application startup helps.

    User data, on the other hand, is usually read/written in a sequential IO pattern, from start to finish.

    Loading that word doc? Word will read and parse the file in one fell sweep. Saving the updated document? Why not just write it out in one go, rather than update the document in place (not sure if this is how Word works, BTW).

    Viewing pictures or listening to music or watch videos? All sequential reads, what HDD are good at.

    The only data being written to the drives are OS generated files and Temporary Internet Files, which I now plan to move off to one of my data drives

    So, having identified something where an SSD is a speedup (lots of small random reads and writes), you're now going to stop using it for that? At which point, why do you even bother with an SSD?

    Personally, I'd have gone for a single bigger SSD, put all my OS/Apps on that one, and use the HDD as backup for the SSD as well as for bulk files (media files etc.)

    In fact, I'd have stuck with the small single 128GB SSD for OS/apps + small data, and bought two HDD instead, a fast 7200 rpm one for live big data and backup of SSD, and the other as a backup HDD (which can be a low speed, low power 5400 rpm drive in an external enclosure.)

  • by Luckyo (1726890) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:30AM (#42603753)

    A less-then-year life expectancy for home user internal PC storage medium is okay with you?

    Are you also okay with couple of years life expectancy of a car? Five year life expectancy of a house?

    Because that is just an absurd reduction in life expectancy.

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...