The fact is, HDD has a rather slow improvement curve compare to SSD.
Slow improvement in speed, but pretty big improvements in capacity. 320 GB is standard for 2.5" and 500 is possible. Less than 4 years ago (the first MBPs) the numbers were 60GB and 80GB.
Quote:
And there are A LOT more speed we could squeeze out of SSD.
For a price. The fast drives are still very expensive.
Quote:
But currently, the only the top SSD are worth the investment. Lower End SSD are even slower then HDD. ( Although they will be out phased very soon )
More accurately, the top end is faster than HDD. The midrange is about equal to the HDD. Only the low-end is affordable.
Quote:
There are still a lot of different areas for improvement. Such as software, protocol stack, controller chip.
I hope by 2010 SSD will be mainstream.
Not very likely. The price isn't dropping nearly fast enough. They will be mainstream for high-end laptops maybe around 2011, and for the mainstream laptops around 2012. Probably another year for Desktops, and at least one more for servers.
Slow improvement in speed, but pretty big improvements in capacity. 320 GB is standard for 2.5" and 500 is possible. Less than 4 years ago (the first MBPs) the numbers were 60GB and 80GB.
For a price. The fast drives are still very expensive.
Yes HDD has grown significantly but what people don't realize is that SSD is silicon
and thus Moore's Law applies (it doesn't apply for HDD). 32Gb 34nm production on 300mm wafers is due this year from Intel and Micron which means they can deliver better price/performance of SSD. (Also enables a 32GB iPhone/64GB iPod Touch)
I think fast drives regardless of architecture will always command a premium
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
Not very likely. The price isn't dropping nearly fast enough. They will be mainstream for high-end laptops maybe around 2011, and for the mainstream laptops around 2012. Probably another year for Desktops, and at least one more for servers.
Agreed. It's not that NAND technology all that difficult but it's a margin opportunity that many are taking advantage of. Once Seagate and WD flood the market with product we'll be able to afford larger/faster drives due to more competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
Wonderful. I might boot my Mac every month or two.
Fast boots are only 1 benefit of SSD. Faster app launching and better multitasking are likely going to be key in a multi core present and future computing landscape.
Yes HDD has grown significantly but what people don't realize is that SSD is silicon
and thus Moore's Law applies (it doesn't apply for HDD). 32Gb 34nm production on 300mm wafers is due this year from Intel and Micron which means they can deliver better price/performance of SSD. (Also enables a 32GB iPhone/64GB iPod Touch)
You will have to work a bit harder to convince me that Moores law really applies. The thing is this, how much smaller is it possible to go with a Flash memory cell. The other problem is that 34nm and smaller manufacturing technologies are getting very expensive. SSD Flash drives may become competitive in capacity but cost may be an issue for awhile.
Quote:
I think fast drives regardless of architecture will always command a premium
While this is true flash does have an advantage in that it can continue to get faster. Even intel has said that their drives are fast due to advancement in the controller and allied electronics. Imagine if you will a SSD that operates the flash chips as if they where a embedded RAID drive.
In any event fast Flash drive have already been demonstrated working over PCI Express. The big problem with FLash drives right now is SATA - it is much to slow.
Quote:
Agreed. It's not that NAND technology all that difficult but it's a margin opportunity that many are taking advantage of. Once Seagate and WD flood the market with product we'll be able to afford larger/faster drives due to more competition.
That won't happen as long as the parts going into a SSD drive cost more than those going into a magnetic drive. You have to realize that Flash chips themselves are already in mass production and it can be argued that there is to much competition as it is very difficult for the Flash companies to make a profit right now.
Quote:
Fast boots are only 1 benefit of SSD. Faster app launching and better multitasking are likely going to be key in a multi core present and future computing landscape.
If you are talking about the future then you need to look at technologies beyond flash. These would be technologies that are faster and easier to produce. Flash could end up being a flash in the pan so to speak. Even with Microns announcement of extended durability Flash it still isn't rugged enough for many applications. Combine that with significant technology barriers to increased densities and it is easy to see opportunies for alternative storage tech to replace Flash in the SSD market.
Now I would like to have a 500GB or 1 TB SSD to stuff in my MBP so I'd love to see the price of these drives come down while capacity goes up. The problem is I don't see it happening quickly. Hopefully I'm wrong but if they can't do something agressive by mid year then most likely a magnetic alternative will be the cost effective choice.
Not very likely. The price isn't dropping nearly fast enough. They will be mainstream for high-end laptops maybe around 2011, and for the mainstream laptops around 2012. Probably another year for Desktops, and at least one more for servers.
The price is getting close to the high performance mechanical drives. If you buy a 10,000 rpm hard drive, you'll pay more than a standard drive.
Apple 128GB SSD = £350
Fujitsu 300GB 10k = £293
The difference here is almost 2:1.
They can't reduce the price of SSD so much that manufacturing of mechanical drives instantly becomes unprofitable. It needs to be phased in to ensure longevity of the hard drive market.
I can see 2009 being the year for the big push for SSD to be adopted as the standard to go with similar to Blu-Ray in some ways. Few will upgrade early as there will be problems in the revisions and costs are high but they'll be sorted as time goes on.
Crucial have their own SSD drives now and I can see more companies trying to jump in while it's a new technology and profitable.
If they half the price or double the capacity for the same price by the end of the year, they will match 10k drives. I can see people favoring SSD over high end hard drives so prices should even out but a 3 year time-frame for mainstream adoption is reasonable.
I personally plan to move to SSD by next year. A 128GB good brand SSD for £200 and I'm moving.
The price is getting close to the high performance mechanical drives. If you buy a 10,000 rpm hard drive, you'll pay more than a standard drive.
Apple 128GB SSD = £350
Fujitsu 300GB 10k = £293
The difference here is almost 2:1.
I personally plan to move to SSD by next year. A 128GB good brand SSD for £200 and I'm moving.
There's the key. I've seen too much "well 80GB 2.5 mechanical drives are $50" when comparing SSD to HDD but that's consumer level performance. A 10k 2.5 drive isn't nearly as affordable.
I'm with you. I'll give it 18 months and I'd like a 160GB SSD for $400 as my ceiling. I think I'll easily have multiple options that perform better than today's Intel x25-m.
2008 is the year that every major vendor - with the laudable exception of laser-focused WD - announced alliances and/or plans to enter the flash drive market. High-end SSDs will displace 15k high-end disks in the next 3 years.
But flash-in-disk-clothing is the near/medium-term solution. Fusion-io and Violin are on the winning architectural track. Flash belongs between the CPU and disk layers: that?s where we?ll get the most benefit for the added cost.
Hey, disk vendors: want to stick it to Intel, Micron and Samsung? Buy one of them. You are in the I/O business, not the disk business.
My emphasis added.
He also notes
Quote:
Rumor has it that Seagate is designing its last generation of 3.5″ drives, which augurs the switch to SFF in desktop and enterprise systems. 3 years ago 2.5″ drives were 1/5th the capacity; today the gap is 1/3 the capacity and a much smaller price differential.
Well, I just got off the phone after talking to Apple about their SSD. I ask them (engineers) what company makes the SSD for the MacBook Pro 17". They said that that information can't be given out because they are or will be buying SSDs from different companies.... whoever offers the best deal at the best quality. The guy that I spoke to said that if I did order one for the MacBook Pro 17" all I would have to do is look at the spec. sheet that came with the computer to find out who made mine. Also, Apple engineers said that everything WILL BE solid state for their computers ..... eventually.
BTW, thanks Carniphage for those 2 video websites. And I want to thank everyone so far for giving their insight on SSD vs HDD.
Well, I just got off the phone after talking to Apple about their SSD. I ask them (engineers) what company makes the SSD for the MacBook Pro 17". They said that that information can't be given out because they are or will be buying SSDs from different companies...
Let's forget for a moment that booting your computer is not something that you need to do particularly often. My rule-of-thumb is that you need a three-fold speed increase in a computer operation to make a substantial perceptual difference. The YouTube video of the boot times show a 9 second decrease--from 43 seconds to 34 seconds. In relative terms, this is a 21% decrease in boot time/26% increase in boot speed. You can probably do as well with a faster hard drive and save a buttload of money in the process.
Let's forget for a moment that booting your computer is not something that you need to do particularly often. My rule-of-thumb is that you need a three-fold speed increase in a computer operation to make a substantial perceptual difference. The YouTube video of the boot times show a 9 second decrease--from 43 seconds to 34 seconds. In relative terms, this is a 21% decrease in boot time/26% increase in boot speed. You can probably do as well with a faster hard drive and save a buttload of money in the process.
True but his drive doesn't represent state of the art SSD performance. In fact we know it's not as fast as an Intel MLC.
Let's forget about the speed benefit of a SSD for a moment.
What about data integrity and data security?
The denser HDD become, the more error prone they are. It's not unlikely that a high-density 2.5" drive dies within 2-3 years. In fact, they are most likely to die within the first year.
And when an HDD dies, it usually means loss of access to all the data. Clicking drives, etc.
How does this work with SSD?
From what I understand only certain bits die, i.e. one file or application might get corrupt, but the rest of the data is fully intact and fully accessible.
Is that true?
If so, I'd say this is a major benefit of SSD over HDD. You only lose bits, you never lose all.
I had 2 HDDs die on me over the last 3 years and - Murphy's Law - they always die at the most inconvenient time, when you really need to access the data, when you just don't have a few days (and dollars) extra to send the HDD off to some data recovery company.
It would really put my mind at ease to know that in a worst case scenario I would only lose individual files and not all at once.
Sounds like you really want the SSD so as long as money isn't too much of a concern I say go for it. Let us all know how you like it and if you ever have any problems with it. Good luck and enjoy!
Well, the logical side of my brain is kickin' in fiercely. Even though I've been waiting a long time for the new MacBook Pro 17" I think I'll wait some more. I'm not really going to be happy until I see a 500GB SSD in this laptop. I just have to quit looking at those new 17" laptops! My question is, how long do you think I'll have to wait? The way technology is moving I hope not long. I figure maybe by this summer or autumn they'll have it. And by that time maybe (?) the price of SSDs (and RAM) will be lower. They already have a 240GB SSD for a laptop for $499. Look here -->
With a little luck I may get my wish by this summer. Now if Apple can put the following SSD in their 17" laptop this summer I think they'll really capture some interest (depending on the price??) -->
With a little luck I may get my wish by this summer. Now if Apple can put the following SSD in their 17" laptop this summer I think they'll really capture some interest (depending on the price??) -->
Just go buy the computer you want with a conventional drive now and then replace the drive at some point down the line when SSDs become much more affordable. Right now, you're over-analyzing.
Comments
And there are A LOT more speed we could squeeze out of SSD.
But currently, the only the top SSD are worth the investment. Lower End SSD are even slower then HDD. ( Although they will be out phased very soon )
There are still a lot of different areas for improvement. Such as software, protocol stack, controller chip.
I hope by 2010 SSD will be mainstream.
The fact is, HDD has a rather slow improvement curve compare to SSD.
Slow improvement in speed, but pretty big improvements in capacity. 320 GB is standard for 2.5" and 500 is possible. Less than 4 years ago (the first MBPs) the numbers were 60GB and 80GB.
And there are A LOT more speed we could squeeze out of SSD.
For a price. The fast drives are still very expensive.
But currently, the only the top SSD are worth the investment. Lower End SSD are even slower then HDD. ( Although they will be out phased very soon )
More accurately, the top end is faster than HDD. The midrange is about equal to the HDD. Only the low-end is affordable.
There are still a lot of different areas for improvement. Such as software, protocol stack, controller chip.
I hope by 2010 SSD will be mainstream.
Not very likely. The price isn't dropping nearly fast enough. They will be mainstream for high-end laptops maybe around 2011, and for the mainstream laptops around 2012. Probably another year for Desktops, and at least one more for servers.
The speed benefit is in random access - which makes launch times particularly fast.
Booting.
http://www.the-iblog.com/2008/11/11/...500-on-an-ssd/
Launching apps.
http://www.the-iblog.com/2008/11/30/...-with-the-ssd/
C.
This fellow has upgraded his Macbook with an SSD.
The speed benefit is in random access - which makes launch times particularly fast.
Booting.
http://www.the-iblog.com/2008/11/11/...500-on-an-ssd/
Launching apps.
http://www.the-iblog.com/2008/11/30/...-with-the-ssd/
C.
Wonderful. I might boot my Mac every month or two.
Slow improvement in speed, but pretty big improvements in capacity. 320 GB is standard for 2.5" and 500 is possible. Less than 4 years ago (the first MBPs) the numbers were 60GB and 80GB.
For a price. The fast drives are still very expensive.
Yes HDD has grown significantly but what people don't realize is that SSD is silicon
and thus Moore's Law applies (it doesn't apply for HDD). 32Gb 34nm production on 300mm wafers is due this year from Intel and Micron which means they can deliver better price/performance of SSD. (Also enables a 32GB iPhone/64GB iPod Touch)
I think fast drives regardless of architecture will always command a premium
Not very likely. The price isn't dropping nearly fast enough. They will be mainstream for high-end laptops maybe around 2011, and for the mainstream laptops around 2012. Probably another year for Desktops, and at least one more for servers.
Agreed. It's not that NAND technology all that difficult but it's a margin opportunity that many are taking advantage of. Once Seagate and WD flood the market with product we'll be able to afford larger/faster drives due to more competition.
Wonderful. I might boot my Mac every month or two.
Fast boots are only 1 benefit of SSD. Faster app launching and better multitasking are likely going to be key in a multi core present and future computing landscape.
Yes HDD has grown significantly but what people don't realize is that SSD is silicon
and thus Moore's Law applies (it doesn't apply for HDD). 32Gb 34nm production on 300mm wafers is due this year from Intel and Micron which means they can deliver better price/performance of SSD. (Also enables a 32GB iPhone/64GB iPod Touch)
You will have to work a bit harder to convince me that Moores law really applies. The thing is this, how much smaller is it possible to go with a Flash memory cell. The other problem is that 34nm and smaller manufacturing technologies are getting very expensive. SSD Flash drives may become competitive in capacity but cost may be an issue for awhile.
I think fast drives regardless of architecture will always command a premium
While this is true flash does have an advantage in that it can continue to get faster. Even intel has said that their drives are fast due to advancement in the controller and allied electronics. Imagine if you will a SSD that operates the flash chips as if they where a embedded RAID drive.
In any event fast Flash drive have already been demonstrated working over PCI Express. The big problem with FLash drives right now is SATA - it is much to slow.
Agreed. It's not that NAND technology all that difficult but it's a margin opportunity that many are taking advantage of. Once Seagate and WD flood the market with product we'll be able to afford larger/faster drives due to more competition.
That won't happen as long as the parts going into a SSD drive cost more than those going into a magnetic drive. You have to realize that Flash chips themselves are already in mass production and it can be argued that there is to much competition as it is very difficult for the Flash companies to make a profit right now.
Fast boots are only 1 benefit of SSD. Faster app launching and better multitasking are likely going to be key in a multi core present and future computing landscape.
If you are talking about the future then you need to look at technologies beyond flash. These would be technologies that are faster and easier to produce. Flash could end up being a flash in the pan so to speak. Even with Microns announcement of extended durability Flash it still isn't rugged enough for many applications. Combine that with significant technology barriers to increased densities and it is easy to see opportunies for alternative storage tech to replace Flash in the SSD market.
Now I would like to have a 500GB or 1 TB SSD to stuff in my MBP so I'd love to see the price of these drives come down while capacity goes up. The problem is I don't see it happening quickly. Hopefully I'm wrong but if they can't do something agressive by mid year then most likely a magnetic alternative will be the cost effective choice.
Dave
Not very likely. The price isn't dropping nearly fast enough. They will be mainstream for high-end laptops maybe around 2011, and for the mainstream laptops around 2012. Probably another year for Desktops, and at least one more for servers.
The price is getting close to the high performance mechanical drives. If you buy a 10,000 rpm hard drive, you'll pay more than a standard drive.
Apple 128GB SSD = £350
Fujitsu 300GB 10k = £293
The difference here is almost 2:1.
They can't reduce the price of SSD so much that manufacturing of mechanical drives instantly becomes unprofitable. It needs to be phased in to ensure longevity of the hard drive market.
I can see 2009 being the year for the big push for SSD to be adopted as the standard to go with similar to Blu-Ray in some ways. Few will upgrade early as there will be problems in the revisions and costs are high but they'll be sorted as time goes on.
Crucial have their own SSD drives now and I can see more companies trying to jump in while it's a new technology and profitable.
If they half the price or double the capacity for the same price by the end of the year, they will match 10k drives. I can see people favoring SSD over high end hard drives so prices should even out but a 3 year time-frame for mainstream adoption is reasonable.
I personally plan to move to SSD by next year. A 128GB good brand SSD for £200 and I'm moving.
240GB 1.8" good quality (Samsung) SSD for $499. I am going to get one of these as soon as they become available. Woot!
The price is getting close to the high performance mechanical drives. If you buy a 10,000 rpm hard drive, you'll pay more than a standard drive.
Apple 128GB SSD = £350
Fujitsu 300GB 10k = £293
The difference here is almost 2:1.
I personally plan to move to SSD by next year. A 128GB good brand SSD for £200 and I'm moving.
There's the key. I've seen too much "well 80GB 2.5 mechanical drives are $50" when comparing SSD to HDD but that's consumer level performance. A 10k 2.5 drive isn't nearly as affordable.
I'm with you. I'll give it 18 months and I'd like a 160GB SSD for $400 as my ceiling. I think I'll easily have multiple options that perform better than today's Intel x25-m.
http://storagemojo.com/category/ssdflash-disk/
2008 is the year that every major vendor - with the laudable exception of laser-focused WD - announced alliances and/or plans to enter the flash drive market. High-end SSDs will displace 15k high-end disks in the next 3 years.
But flash-in-disk-clothing is the near/medium-term solution. Fusion-io and Violin are on the winning architectural track. Flash belongs between the CPU and disk layers: that?s where we?ll get the most benefit for the added cost.
Hey, disk vendors: want to stick it to Intel, Micron and Samsung? Buy one of them. You are in the I/O business, not the disk business.
My emphasis added.
He also notes
Rumor has it that Seagate is designing its last generation of 3.5″ drives, which augurs the switch to SFF in desktop and enterprise systems. 3 years ago 2.5″ drives were 1/5th the capacity; today the gap is 1/3 the capacity and a much smaller price differential.
The writing is on the wall..in BOLD
BTW, thanks Carniphage for those 2 video websites. And I want to thank everyone so far for giving their insight on SSD vs HDD.
Well, I just got off the phone after talking to Apple about their SSD. I ask them (engineers) what company makes the SSD for the MacBook Pro 17". They said that that information can't be given out because they are or will be buying SSDs from different companies...
Samsung currently.
I can't really justify it - but I just like the *idea* of a solid state device over a spinning platter.
C.
I am tempted to get a 32GB SSD to replace the (mostly empty) 80GB hard drive in my Netbook.
I can't really justify it - but I just like the *idea* of a solid state device over a spinning platter.
C.
There is performance differences. Provided you get the right one.
This fellow has upgraded his Macbook with an SSD.
The speed benefit is in random access - which makes launch times particularly fast.
Booting.
http://www.the-iblog.com/2008/11/11/...500-on-an-ssd/
Launching apps.
http://www.the-iblog.com/2008/11/30/...-with-the-ssd/
C.
Let's forget for a moment that booting your computer is not something that you need to do particularly often. My rule-of-thumb is that you need a three-fold speed increase in a computer operation to make a substantial perceptual difference. The YouTube video of the boot times show a 9 second decrease--from 43 seconds to 34 seconds. In relative terms, this is a 21% decrease in boot time/26% increase in boot speed. You can probably do as well with a faster hard drive and save a buttload of money in the process.
Let's forget for a moment that booting your computer is not something that you need to do particularly often. My rule-of-thumb is that you need a three-fold speed increase in a computer operation to make a substantial perceptual difference. The YouTube video of the boot times show a 9 second decrease--from 43 seconds to 34 seconds. In relative terms, this is a 21% decrease in boot time/26% increase in boot speed. You can probably do as well with a faster hard drive and save a buttload of money in the process.
True but his drive doesn't represent state of the art SSD performance. In fact we know it's not as fast as an Intel MLC.
Here's a better test
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=us
Bootup took 91 seconds with the 5400rpm HD that came with the MBP.
His SSD boots in like 25 seconds or less from what I can tell.
What about data integrity and data security?
The denser HDD become, the more error prone they are. It's not unlikely that a high-density 2.5" drive dies within 2-3 years. In fact, they are most likely to die within the first year.
And when an HDD dies, it usually means loss of access to all the data. Clicking drives, etc.
How does this work with SSD?
From what I understand only certain bits die, i.e. one file or application might get corrupt, but the rest of the data is fully intact and fully accessible.
Is that true?
If so, I'd say this is a major benefit of SSD over HDD. You only lose bits, you never lose all.
I had 2 HDDs die on me over the last 3 years and - Murphy's Law - they always die at the most inconvenient time, when you really need to access the data, when you just don't have a few days (and dollars) extra to send the HDD off to some data recovery company.
It would really put my mind at ease to know that in a worst case scenario I would only lose individual files and not all at once.
Samsung currently.
Sounds like you really want the SSD so as long as money isn't too much of a concern I say go for it. Let us all know how you like it and if you ever have any problems with it. Good luck and enjoy!
http://i.gizmodo.com/5126848/sandisk...aking-the-bank
And they already have an external 500GB SSD out but the price ..... OMG!
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/06...he-mac-addict/
Playing the waiting game again.....
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/12/18/tosh_512gb_ssd/
~~back to dreamland~~
With a little luck I may get my wish by this summer. Now if Apple can put the following SSD in their 17" laptop this summer I think they'll really capture some interest (depending on the price??) -->
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/12/18/tosh_512gb_ssd/
~~back to dreamland~~
Just go buy the computer you want with a conventional drive now and then replace the drive at some point down the line when SSDs become much more affordable. Right now, you're over-analyzing.