Monday, November 26th 2018

SSDs Are Cheaper Than Ever, Hit the Magic 10 Cents Per Gigabyte Threshold

It may be quite difficult to find bargains when it comes to DDR4 system memory or high-end graphics cards these days, but at least SSDs are more affordable now to help bandage that wound. This price drop of solid state storage has been happening throughout this year, and some units have reached a cost of 10 cents per gigabyte, a milestone difficult to have imagined a couple of years ago. The 2 TB variant of the Crucial MX500 SSD, for example, can be found now at $209, and those interested may want to check out our review of the 1 TB version before committing to a purchase.

This is great news already, but there is even better news coming as that cost will reportedly continue to drop. NAND flash could drop to $0.08 per gigabyte in 2019 according to some analysts, and some alternatives such as QLC drives from Samsung could push that trend even further. The traditional HDD market is also getting more inexpensive and better bang-for-your-buck, with a 2017 report from BackBlaze showed for example how cost per gigabyte was approaching $0.02 per gigabyte a year ago on some units. As always, price prediction reports tend to come out with the US market as a case study, but our own global TechPowerUp team is appreciating having more SSDs on deck for files and programs alike.
Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

70 Comments on SSDs Are Cheaper Than Ever, Hit the Magic 10 Cents Per Gigabyte Threshold

#51
Ubersonic
R0H1TStop saying the same thing over & over again, you have no evidence nor data to support that assertion!
Are you addressing me there? Because in that case you may want to Google how SSDs work.

QLC is literally a reduction in longevity to reduce costs. That's the entire point of it, hence why most (sane) power users wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. Saving 25% but getting a product that lasts 50% as long isn't very savvy lol.
Posted on Reply
#52
R0H1T
UbersonicAre you addressing me there? Because in that case you may want to Google how SSDs work.

QLC is literally a reduction in longevity to reduce costs. That's the entire point of it, hence why most (sane) power users wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. Saving 25% but getting a product that lasts 50% as long isn't very savvy lol.
Do you want me to present research papers detailing how NAND, controller & firmware work inside an SSD?

Yeah anyone sane can see the irony in that statement! What, you're not making sense anymore o_O
Posted on Reply
#53
Ubersonic
R0H1TWhat, you're not making sense anymore o_O
It's not a difficult concept, saving 25% on the purchase price but getting something that lasts half as long (I.E 4 years instead of 8) is not a good buying decision.
Posted on Reply
#54
R0H1T
UbersonicIt's not a difficult concept, saving 25% on the purchase price but getting something that lasts half as long (I.E 4 years instead of 8) is not a good buying decision.
The 860 QVO 4TB is rated for ~1.4PB writes, that's the warrantied limit. Previous "endurance" tests have shown that MLC & TLC exceed that by a large margin. IIRC the Samsung planar SSD's survived more than a PB worth of writes, their TBW rating was a fraction of that, 3D NAND lasts much longer. Even if we assume QLC won't allow that luxury, there's no evidence to say that they're less reliable than most consumer HDDs.

Now let's see how you spin the other part, oft repeated by you, that the (QLC) SSD lasts less than HDD?
Posted on Reply
#55
bug
UbersonicIt's not a difficult concept, saving 25% on the purchase price but getting something that lasts half as long (I.E 4 years instead of 8) is not a good buying decision.
It might be, if you only need a drive for 3 years.
Posted on Reply
#56
Ubersonic
bugIt might be, if you only need a drive for 3 years.
Generally speaking, people who throw their computer parts in the bin after 3 years aren't the type of people who buy a worse product to save a few bucks.
R0H1TEven if we assume QLC won't allow that luxury, there's no evidence to say that they're less reliable than most consumer HDDs.
If my main drive was QLC it would be around 20-25% health by now, it's only 3 years old. Most HDDs last 4 years of more.

Here's the thing, most people don't just keep an SSD for a few years then bin it, so having it fail sooner to save a few bucks is counter productive. I.E the 6 year old 500GB SATA-III SSD I use for games used to be my boot drive before I got the aforementioned NVMe one, and the near 9 year old 480GB SATA-II SSD I use for downloads and older games was my boot drive before that. Many people keep their drives long term so having them last longer is worth more to us than saving a nominal amount because the quality is lower.
Posted on Reply
#57
ddmeltzer8
bonehead123'Bout.. Friggin.... Time.......

Die spinners, die :D

Does anyone have a chart that shows how fast the capacity of SSD's has grown in the past few years ?
Check out BACKBLKAZE.If anyone has it,they prob will.
Posted on Reply
#58
95Viper
Stop calling other members derogatory terms in your posts... you can think/mumble/say it all you want, but don't post it
Stop the retaliatory comments.
If you have a problem or see a forum guideline's violation, report it.

Stay on topic.

Again, Thank You, Have a nice day.
Posted on Reply
#59
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
Andika@95Viper read comment #32 and you will understand it. I hate fanboys who do not accept different viewpoints.
So, I have post #32, and I don’t see what you think is so “offensive” or fanboy-like. Neither of those, if they exist, is an excuse to violate the rules and attack people or use derogatory terms, so @95Viper is correct.

Here is #32:
rtwjunkieIt’s even way lower now. I just bought a Crucial MX500 in 500GB size for $63. It dropped $35 in just about 3 months from when I put it on my Amazon wishlist.

@neatfeatguy Im right there with you. Many terabytes of media and of data on server. Red HDD are still way more cost effective for me than any SSD with needing over 20TB of storage. One day we’ll get there, but it’s not now and won’t be next year. After? We’ll see.
Posted on Reply
#60
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I still have my doubts that NAND flash will ever catch magnetic storage at high density. Mechanical drives cost a relatively fixed amount to manufacture based on the number of platters. How much data can be packed in to a square inch of platter space is mostly a matter of technique. Magnetic fields are much, much smaller than transistors. SSDs on the other hand need more transistors manufactured in order to reach higher densities. There's also that growing issue of smaller processes costing more and taking longer.

The hard drive I want to get is $0.037/GB (12 TB).
Posted on Reply
#61
Andika
@rtwjunkie I'm new to this community I though my comment had been posted elsewhere.... :confused:
here it is.

Posted on Reply
#62
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
Andika@rtwjunkie I'm new to this community I though my comment had been posted elsewhere.... :confused:
here it is.

That is weird it has the same number. :confused:

Welcome to TPU!
Posted on Reply
#63
bug
FordGT90ConceptI still have my doubts that NAND flash will ever catch magnetic storage at high density. Mechanical drives cost a relatively fixed amount to manufacture based on the number of platters. How much data can be packed in to a square inch of platter space is mostly a matter of technique. Magnetic fields are much, much smaller than transistors. SSDs on the other hand need more transistors manufactured in order to reach higher densities. There's also that growing issue of smaller processes costing more and taking longer.

The hard drive I want to get is $0.037/GB (12 TB).
Yeah, well, in turn HDDs didn't need to catch up in all aspects to tape drives, so Idk why you think SDDs need to. Tapes have carved a niche on their own where they survive to this day, HDDs will probably so the same.
Posted on Reply
#64
neatfeatguy
rtwjunkieThat is weird it has the same number. :confused:

Welcome to TPU!
The issue stems from browsing the comments on the Home page where News stories are posted. The story there isn't counted as a post number. However, when you come into the actual forums to read the story, the initial entry by the writer is considered post #1



When you see the story from the home page, the first comment there (after the story) is considered post# 1



That's where the confusion is coming from when @Andika made reference to post #32. @Andika is referencing the comments from the home page under the story and @rtwjunkie is looking back through the forums posting.

I'm not sure if there is a way that @W1zzard could fix this so there isn't future confusion or issues?
Posted on Reply
#65
W1zzard
neatfeatguyThe issue stems from browsing the comments on the Home page where News stories are posted. The story there isn't counted as a post number. However, when you come into the actual forums to read the story, the initial entry by the writer is considered post #1



When you see the story from the home page, the first comment there (after the story) is considered post# 1



That's where the confusion is coming from when @Andika made reference to post #32. @Andika is referencing the comments from the home page under the story and @rtwjunkie is looking back through the forums posting.

I'm not sure if there is a way that @W1zzard could fix this so there isn't future confusion or issues?
Good question, how would you change it?
Posted on Reply
#66
R0H1T
Was this ever an issue in the past, I've always observed this behavior after reading the news & considered it normal?
Posted on Reply
#67
Tatty_Two
Gone Fishing
Andika@rtwjunkie I'm new to this community I though my comment had been posted elsewhere.... :confused:
here it is.

That post was low qualitied, was 33, maybe it for some strange reason took the numbering berserk.
Posted on Reply
#68
neatfeatguy
W1zzardGood question, how would you change it?
I don't know.....

Not sure if there's a way for you to allow the news entries on the home page to be considered post #1 so any comments after it start off as post #2? That way it would match up with what you see if you're on the forums.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 18th, 2024 10:10 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts