# Why are 2TB hard drives falling in price?



## qubit (Sep 10, 2010)

2TB hard drives are currently the largest it's possible to make, due to addressing issues. As they are at the top of the food chain, I don't understand why they're plummeting in price. Normally the very top-end stuff retains its price.

Thoughts?


----------



## erocker (Sep 10, 2010)

Supply / demand?


----------



## digibucc (Sep 10, 2010)

when everyone knows how much something is to produce, you can't get away with holding a price just because you're top end.

that being said - top end stuff drops in price regularly , it's just normally still expensive.  HDDs are on the line


----------



## theonedub (Sep 10, 2010)

Probably getting cheaper to manufacture as well. Either way all good for those who want more storage  

(personally I don't think 2tb drives are as reliable as they could be, but the prices do make them tempting.)

Clear your PM box DD


----------



## hat (Sep 11, 2010)

Mechanical HDDs have been around for a while. I suppose they're pretty cheap to make these days (they have to be, or they wouldn't be so cheap to buy). Run of the mill drives are pretty cheap, with SSDs taking the performance crown, with performance mechanical drives like Velocirptors falling in close behind.


----------



## Disparia (Sep 11, 2010)

Because it's been a year since 2TB hit?

Seagate has their 3TB drive out (in an external housing), WD isn't far way from releasing theirs, and Hitachi wants 4TB by 2011.

And most importantly, I'm about ready to outfit a home server with six of them


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 11, 2010)

Speaking of, anyone seen a review of the F4? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245


----------



## qubit (Sep 11, 2010)

Judging by your replies, it would seem the answer is a combination of:

1 basic economics: the selling price falls to the marginal cost to make the item, due to competition
2 supply and demand
3 downward pricing pressure from SSDs

Sounds reasonable, especially point 3, which I'd forgotten about when I posted, lol.


----------



## DOM (Sep 11, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Speaking of, anyone seen a review of the F4? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245



no but i did get the WD 2tb hd with 30 off promo code 

but i seen the F4 are fast hds  that was after i ordered mine ohwell mines just for storage


----------



## qubit (Sep 11, 2010)

@DOM

Talking of "fast" hard drives, I got a WD 1.5TB GreenPower drive, back when that capacity was the sweet spot for price/capacity (heck, only 10 months ago).

These are billed as low performance drives, with benchies much slower than a "fast" drive, suitable for storage only. So, before pressing it into service for backups, I tried a Windows 7 install for a feel of its performance. And you know what? It was ok. Yep, Win 7 booted up just fine in a reasonable time and didn't feel laggy or anything. I guess "fast" and "slow" are relative.


----------



## DOM (Sep 11, 2010)

this is the one im getting from the egg 

and heres the Review of Samsung Spinpoint F4 320Gb Hard Drive

ill run some hd tune see what i get in raid 0 and single drive been so long i forgot what i got


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 11, 2010)

What are you going to be using it for? The 2 TB black is probably the nosiest new model drive out, aside from the new raptors. That and it seems to have a slightly higher failure rate than other drives, and slightly is a bit too much when it comes to my data. 

That 320 dive is odd, the 2 TB samsung uses platters twice that size, seems almost like the two F4 models aren't really related.


----------



## DOM (Sep 11, 2010)

im starting to wish i should of just got another 1.5tb 

so i thought WD was a good brand


----------



## qubit (Sep 11, 2010)

WD is definitely a good brand. In fact, there aren't any lemons when it comes to hard drives - they'd go out of business very fast.


----------



## Maban (Sep 11, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> That 320 dive is odd, the 2 TB samsung uses platters twice that size, seems almost like the two F4 models aren't really related.



That 320GB is only one side of that platter.


----------



## hat (Sep 11, 2010)

qubit said:


> @DOM
> 
> Talking of "fast" hard drives, I got a WD 1.5TB GreenPower drive, back when that capacity was the sweet spot for price/capacity (heck, only 10 months ago).
> 
> These are billed as low performance drives, with benchies much slower than a "fast" drive, suitable for storage only. So, before pressing it into service for backups, I tried a Windows 7 install for a feel of its performance. And you know what? It was ok. Yep, Win 7 booted up just fine in a reasonable time and didn't feel laggy or anything. I guess "fast" and "slow" are relative.



When I got my 2TB Green WD20EARS, I compared it to my 150GB Velociraptor.

Here's the Raptor:






And here's the Green:


----------



## qubit (Sep 11, 2010)

hat said:


> When I got my 2TB Green WD20EARS, I compared it to my 150GB Velociraptor.
> 
> Here's the Raptor:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100911/hdtachvelociraptor.jpg
> ...



Thanks, that's interesting and puts some numbers on it.

That "slow" Green drive is basically almost as fast as the Velociraptor. The difference in physical size and capacity must have a lot to do with it. But which feels faster in use?

Sounds like a cheap and large capacity drive allows you to have your cake and eat it, doesn't it?

Also, I wonder why so many dips in the Green graph? Was it a system drive perhaps, with Windows accessing it while the test was running?

Hey, this is my 1900th post - only 100 more for 2000!


----------



## DOM (Sep 11, 2010)

one raid 0 volume and single drive


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 11, 2010)

I think we would usually complain if things are too expensive, not if they are getting cheaper.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 11, 2010)

The cost to manufacturer hard drives is relatively constant depending on the number of platters.  A five platter hard drive, for instance, more or less costs about the same to produce since the 1990s.  Why the drop in price is most likely because these 2 TB hard drives don't have the maximum number of platters they can fit in a 3.5" case.  The higher the platter density goes (through new technologies like perpendicular recording and heat-activated recording) the fewer platters are necessary to achieve the target capacity and the cheaper the drive is to produce.

Samsung recently debuted a Tri-platter 2 TB drive or 666.67 GB per platter.  A 3.5" drive can hold five platters. Segates 3TB drives have five, 600 GB platters.


Platters aside, the other major driving force is MBR's (Master Boot Record) being unable to boot a hard drive larger than 2 TB.  This is why Seagate launched their 3 TB drive as an external.  Because of that 2 TB MBR barrier, the densities are still increasing but the higher density products aren't necessarily debuting.  Those products that aren't being released are the ones that would be your high-dollar drives.  In their absense, it looks like 2 TB (the highest available capacity) is getting cheap.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 11, 2010)

qubit said:


> Thanks, that's interesting and puts some numbers on it.
> 
> That "slow" Green drive is basically almost as fast as the Velociraptor. The difference in physical size and capacity must have a lot to do with it. But which feels faster in use?
> 
> ...



Not sure what happened to my reply but here it goes again.

You can't almost catch the rabbit. Either you do or you don't. Considering the green has over twice as high access times and 20MB/s slower bottom speed as the Velociraptor, it's safe to say they are not similar by miles.


----------



## qubit (Sep 11, 2010)

RejZoR said:


> Not sure what happened to my reply but here it goes again.
> 
> You can't almost catch the rabbit. Either you do or you don't. Considering the green has over twice as high access times and 20MB/s slower bottom speed as the Velociraptor, it's safe to say they are not similar by miles.



Actually, looking at those graphs again, if you look at the speed of the Green for the first 200GB, you'll see that it's actually got _higher_ read performance than the Velociraptor and is simply because all the data is packed in much more densely and is much closer to the outer edge of the disc, which is larger too.

Hence, if you're using it as your boot drive and your install fits within 150GB, performance will be higher with the Green! At least for sequential operations.

The Velociraptor would of course beat it on access times though, of course.


----------



## wolf (Sep 11, 2010)

I really can't believe how cheap they are just having a look at it now, less than six months ago I grabbed three 1.5tb green drives, and the 2tb's are now even cheaper than what I paid for the 1.5's, and the 1.5's are DIRT cheap now, completely ridiculous...

the age of the home server is really coming in now, any n00bster could build a 10tb monster.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 11, 2010)

The issue with green/5400 rpm drives, and the massive advantage of the raptor, is access time. Pretty much everything has good large single file transfer speed these days.


----------



## qubit (Sep 11, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> I think we would usually complain if things are too expensive, not if they are getting cheaper.



If you mean my OP, it was certainly not meant as a "complaint", lol. I'm certainly as happy as the next guy. I just wondered about the prices dropping like that, is all. And that question has been answered pretty well I think.


----------



## hat (Sep 12, 2010)

I wonder what a single platter 2TB drive would be like... they should get working on that


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Sep 12, 2010)

hat said:


> I wonder what a single platter 2TB drive would be like... they should get working on that



We don't even close to have density that uhh...  dense.  I guess what I mean to say is it will be a while before 1 platter can house 2TB of data.  SSD's will take over by then.  Also, don't expect hard drives over 5TB, again, SSD's will be king.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 12, 2010)

The more capacity on a SSD, the more expensive it is to produce.  They were already manufacturering in the 20's for nm size and it won't be long before they hit the size of an electron.  You can pack more magnetization on a surface than you can nanoscopic metal gates and do it for substantially less money.

HDDs will remain to be cheaper per gigabyte.  SSDs will remain faster.


----------



## xrealm20 (Sep 12, 2010)

i'd be inclined to agree with GT90 - I see SSD's as a stepping stone to something that has similar performance of the SSD's and capacity of today's HDD's...


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 12, 2010)

qubit said:


> Actually, looking at those graphs again, if you look at the speed of the Green for the first 200GB, you'll see that it's actually got _higher_ read performance than the Velociraptor and is simply because all the data is packed in much more densely and is much closer to the outer edge of the disc, which is larger too.
> 
> Hence, if you're using it as your boot drive and your install fits within 150GB, performance will be higher with the Green! At least for sequential operations.
> 
> The Velociraptor would of course beat it on access times though, of course.



I can't exactly agree on that...

My *WD Caviar Black 2TB 64MB* test...






The bottom is still 10MB/s slower than Velociraptor, but the top is higher.
However, top means best conditions scenario, bottom means worst conditions scenario.
In casual scenarios, you'll be usually located between best and worst or more down at the bottom than at the top. Unless you short stroke the 2TB Black monster and essentially get 600GB Velociraptor out of it... It has a higher price tag but it's as close as it can get to the Velociraptor in speed while also offer massive capacity of the Green. It makes me wonder why the Black series isn't getting all the attention with the new tech. It would make more sense to use denser plates in Velociraptors and Caviar Blacks first. But they constantly stick such stuff into already shitty drives like former Caviar Blue and Caviar Green. I mean, you gain some performance but the drives are still crap. With Black's, performance is already high and i can safely say we could expect well over 150MB/s easily with it. Along with even lower access time and quicker spinup time (4 platters take quite longer).
Just my observation and experience. The Caviar Black drives are well worth the higher price imo.


----------



## qubit (Sep 12, 2010)

@RejZoR

Sure, your Caviar Black blows away the Green, but I wasn't comparing with that. That drive has the same physical size and similar capacity as the Green, so of course it should run away with it.

I was simply comparing it to the Velociraptors and in that sense you can have your cake and eat it by buying a Green. Thinking about it, I was really making an implied statement about the small form factor of the latest Raptors: I wish they'd kept them at 3.5", because making them smaller results in lower performance, due to basic physics. Or put another way, putting the current Velociraptor tech into a 3.5" Raptor would really make it fly.

My Raptor X is very fast, even today, helped by that 10000 RPM speed (head seek noise drives me insane, but that's another matter, hehe). Wouldn't it be nice if they still did 3.5" drives with that spin speed? Perhaps they don't make 3.5" versions any more due to competition from SSDs? I dunno, it's the only thing I can think of.

BTW I've got two Caviar Black 1TB drives. They _are_ quick, aren't they...


----------



## wolf (Sep 12, 2010)

RejZoR said:


> Not sure what happened to my reply but here it goes again.
> 
> You can't almost catch the rabbit. Either you do or you don't. Considering the green has over twice as high access times and 20MB/s slower bottom speed as the Velociraptor, it's safe to say they are not similar by miles.



Relative speed is in the eyes of the beholder my friend.

if you hadn't built a rig for 5 years the green drive would still be fast to you, or simply if your not running your drive through a benchmarking program you might never notice an extra ~8-10 millseconds, considering the average young adult would react to visual stimulous in roughly ~190 milliseconds.

yes I agree the drive is slower, but the margin is'nt exactly massive when you think about it, sure it reads/accesses slower, but large green drives are made for file storage, raptors are made as high performance system drives, if you choose to invert that and use one for the other purpose, deal with the consequences.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 13, 2010)

Green drives are fine for data stations and media centers, but i wouldn't ever buy one for main system. HDD's are the slowest component even in the most crappiest systems you can imagine, so why not buy the best one and at least partially circumvent that but still not pay more than 250 EUR while doing that? It's 2TB we're talking after all, some pay 3 times the price for just 128GB or 256GB SSD. Sure it's faster but the price comes close to entire system cost while you still only have 1/8th of the capacity... But everyone has to decide on their own. This is my view on HDD's and would always consider Caviar Black over any Caviar Green model.


----------



## hat (Sep 13, 2010)

My green drive is strictly for storage. The most intensive thing it does is host WCG and FAH, offloading whatever minor load it imposes off my main system drive.


----------



## qubit (Sep 13, 2010)

RejZoR said:


> Green drives are fine for data stations and media centers, but i wouldn't ever buy one for main system. HDD's are the slowest component even in the most crappiest systems you can imagine, so why not buy the best one and at least partially circumvent that but still not pay more than 250 EUR while doing that? It's 2TB we're talking after all, some pay 3 times the price for just 128GB or 256GB SSD. Sure it's faster but the price comes close to entire system cost while you still only have 1/8th of the capacity... But everyone has to decide on their own. This is my view on HDD's and would always consider Caviar Black over any Caviar Green model.



+1 quite agree. 

I was just making the comparison over how a Green drive can actually compete with a Velociraptor in read/write speed for the first 150-200GB or so near the outer edge due to its physical size and greater capacity. Access time is still much slower and of course will impact overall performance.


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Sep 16, 2010)

i remember when i got my first 1tb drive when it first hit the market i payed 450 bucks for it now i really feel dumb.


----------



## hat (Sep 17, 2010)

skellattarr said:


> i remember when i got my first 1tb drive when it first hit the market i payed 450 bucks for it now i really feel dumb.



Things are almost always worth less after you buy them... no big deal really.


----------



## DOM (Sep 17, 2010)

well i got my hd right now im using it as a bench hd 

but its so quite i cant hear it running even when i installed xp


----------

