Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SSD Prices Fall Dramatically In 2012 But Increase In Q4

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

22 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. yea they fell by 44% by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:yea they fell by 44% by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      They work great. Until they don't.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:yea they fell by 44% by Anpheus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is just uninformed. Not all drives use TLC and most drives released in 2012 do not. Some drives did, like the Samsung 840, but the 840 Pro for example did not, nor did the OCZ Vector, etc.

      Anyway, the case has always been that if you're not sure about the reliability of your disks: don't just use one! Software RAID solves the issue of TRIM support and you shouldn't be using parity on SSD drives anyway (due to garbage collection issues) so throw it in a RAID1 or RAID10 and build an even more reliable disk.

      And if you're on a laptop that can only hold one internal disk and you still feel unsafe with just one disk: why aren't you using some sort of network based or "cloud" backed storage to ensure you have copies of your most valuable data? Why aren't you making backups?

      Seriously, these problems didn't just up and appear with the invention of SSDs. It's not like we had a 30 year golden age in which no hard drive ever failed or there weren't bad runs of drives (*cough*DeskStar*cough*) that caught users by surprise. The solution has been and always will be: use RAID for redundancy, make backups for recovery.

    3. Re:yea they fell by 44% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

    4. Re:yea they fell by 44% by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is just uninformed. Not all drives use TLC and most drives released in 2012 do not. Some drives did, like the Samsung 840, but the 840 Pro for example did not, nor did the OCZ Vector, etc.

      I have to disagree - this is very well informed, because the OP is at least aware that triple-level cell SSD drives have been introduced last year, and he/she is aware that TLC is crap waiting to unleash it's crappiness.

      Besides, just because "not all drives are TLC", the point still remains that manufacturers are only interested in high margins by selling MLC and now TLC drives, and fuck reliability and longevity.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:yea they fell by 44% by David_Hart · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is just uninformed. Not all drives use TLC and most drives released in 2012 do not. Some drives did, like the Samsung 840, but the 840 Pro for example did not, nor did the OCZ Vector, etc.

      I have to disagree - this is very well informed, because the OP is at least aware that triple-level cell SSD drives have been introduced last year, and he/she is aware that TLC is crap waiting to unleash it's crappiness.

      Besides, just because "not all drives are TLC", the point still remains that manufacturers are only interested in high margins by selling MLC and now TLC drives, and fuck reliability and longevity.

      Until this article, I didn't realize that there was a difference in SSD technology (SLC, MLC, TLC). I recently built a new system with two Samsung 840 250GB TLC SSD drives (paid about $170 each). 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. My static usage on each SSD drive is about 80GB with 120GB free and 32GB unallocated. 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.

      I'm not worried about my setup. Based on the TLC numbers, it should last about 7 to 10 years in this configuration, much longer than the expected lifetime of most consumer grade mechanical drives.

    6. Re:yea they fell by 44% by janisozaur · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's an interesting article on how do TLC drives compare to others on anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6459/samsung-ssd-840-testing-the-endurance-of-tlc-nand

    7. Re:yea they fell by 44% by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      This is just uninformed. Not all drives use TLC

      And this is a straw man. The OP never said that "all drives are TLC" - it is you who made that straw-man in order to imply that the OP is "uninformed", whereas the OP is actually perfectly well informed, and shared valuable info - namely, that TLC drives have been introduced to the market.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    8. Re:yea they fell by 44% by abigsmurf · · Score: 2

      The problem with SSDs is not that they fail. It's that they fail completely without warning (or at least mine did), no have no chance to do emergency backups, order a replacement and no way of running repair utilities to reconstruct some of the files.

      I've had HDDs die but never complete data loss out of the blue like with the OCZ Vertex 2.

    9. Re:yea they fell by 44% by Christian+Smith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.)

    10. Re:yea they fell by 44% by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until this article, I didn't realize that there was a difference in SSD technology (SLC, MLC, TLC).

      "I am an uninformed buyer and will now dispense my lack of wisdom to you."

      I recently built a new system with two Samsung 40 250GB TLC SSD drives (paid about $170 each). 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. My static usage on each SSD drive is about 80GB with 120GB free and 32GB unallocated. 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.

      I'm not worried about my setup.

      "I am actually worried about my setup, as I intend to move frequently written datasets to the mechanical drives."

      Based on the TLC numbers, it should last about 7 to 10 years in this configuration, much longer than the expected lifetime of most consumer grade mechanical drives.

      "I am pulling some numbers right out of my ass. Also, my configuration which consists of mechanical drives should last much longer than mechanical drives."

      How did this bullshit get modded up?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    11. Re:yea they fell by 44% by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:yea they fell by 44% by HaZardman27 · · Score: 2

      This is how I feel. I keep my most common-used programs and OS on SSDs, and I keep my documents, code, and less-critical software on HDDs. Loss of data is expensive. Loss of software is extremely cheap when typical internet speeds allow me to re-download even large games in less than 2 hours.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    13. Re:yea they fell by 44% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      TLC has not a "less-then-year life expectancy".
      See the endurance test here:
      http://www.anandtech.com/show/6459/samsung-ssd-840-testing-the-endurance-of-tlc-nand

    14. Re:yea they fell by 44% by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      The problem with SSDs, especially the MLC is the hot/crazy scale and I have seen this with my own eyes, I have several gamer customers that buy the top o' the line SSDs and they are already on double digits because of all the failed drives.

      The problem AIN'T the cells though, its the damned controllers. I have been saying for years they need to have a simple ARM chip that kicks in when the main controller fails that makes the drive read only so you can at least get your shit off but after looking into it this is why I do NOT install SSDs as main drives and advise against using them as main drives, because when the controller fails? unless you have the skills to unsolder the chips and get the data off one chip at a time you are screwed, it won't even show up under BIOS. This also makes many of my customers leery about using the warranties because who knows what third world country they send dead drives to and since you can't nuke it who knows where your CC numbers and data would end up.

      At the end of the day this is what i tell my customers: The SSD is like any other tool in that used WISELY it can be a benefit. if its in a mobile device that you back up religiously or which doesn't have any important data, like a netbook? Works great here. if its for an OS drive where you have image backups and all your important data on spinning rust? Again works great. if this is a mission critical system or is gonna have important irreplaceable things like family photos? NOT a good use, in fact it will end up biting you in the ass. The good old HDD may not be the fastest but at least you usually get plenty of warning before they fail, too many times i have seen an SSD go from 100% good to deader than Dixie overnight. NO WARNING, that is just fucked up and why I still use spinning rust in my builds.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Prediction by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Prediction by jonnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't seem to know what price fixing is. Prices dropping steeply as more competitors enter a market are indicative of a price war, effectively the opposite of price fixing.

      But don't let this minor detail interfere with your rant about the government.

  3. Selection Bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did anyone read their methodology? They only looked at Amazon and Newegg. And only in the US. -1 Misleading.

    1. Re:Selection Bias? by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 5, Interesting


      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/

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  4. has reliability with smaller processes been fixed? by SuperBanana · · Score: 2

    19- and 20-nm NAND that should be cheaper to produce, those drives didn't debut at lower prices.

    I remember reading at one point that the drives with smaller processes sizes had higher failure rates. Has that been addressed, or are drive makers over-provisioning more to compensate?

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  5. Who are "they"? by Gordo_1 · · Score: 2

    Do you mean Samsung? In 2012 they were the only manufacturer using TLC NAND and in only one line of drives (840). Don't let me steal your thunder though...

    An incidentally, the 840 has been shown to do over 400 TB of writes (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271063-SSD-Write-Endurance-25nm-Vs-34nm&p=5163560&viewfull=1#post5163560), which is probably fine for most desktop uses...

  6. Re:has reliability with smaller processes been fix by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2

    19nm/20nm has proven to be no worse than the existing 2Xnm processes as far as durability is concerned. So you're still looking at a 3,000-5,000 program/erase cycles before NAND cells start giving out.