SSD price downtrend welcome news for PC upgraders

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Miniscule regions of soft magnetised rust vs an isolated domain of silicon where you are almost counting individual electrons on and off. I think they are both great adverts for regular backups tbh

In both cases you probably want to be occasionally reading the entire drive and writing back blocks that needed a lot of ECC to recover them.

It is still a concern and HDDs are still better in that regard(after all what is magentic tape),and I have old HDDs which still read fine.

Cost is also way too high to have SSDs for backup,and as a previous poster has said modern HDDs also have improved too.

It might not an issue for a normal person,but if you are into photography/video(especially if you have RAW images or unprocessed footage) stuff you can easily generate 100s of GBs a year,and it has to be backed up and SSDs are not cost effective,especially if you want to have copies on multiple drives,and then replace those drives every few years. Online backup in the end can only do so much.

The same goes in some of the places which I worked in which did biological imaging. They generate TBs of data,which all has to be backed up,and SSDs would not be cost effective.

Plus when SSDs go kaput its not in a gradual way like HDDs too,so its even worse.

SSDs are not worth it for large backups,not considering they are still overpriced per TB. A 2TB HDD is around £50. A 2TB SSD is well over £400. That is 8X the price.

You could have mirrored or striped copies at home,have a backup copy at a mates,and pay for a year or two of 1TB of online backup for the cost of one 2TB SSD.

[DanceswithUnix]

SSDs are not worth it for large backups,not considering they are still overpriced per TB. A 2TB HDD is around £50. A 2TB SSD is well over £400. That is 8X the price.

Whilst everything you say is true, I don't think it is spotting the trend. What is the cheapest storage you can buy?

Looking on ebuyer I can buy a hard drive for £35, that gets me a choice of 500GB 2.5in drives. But for £25 I can have a choice of SSD, and they may only be 120GB but that is enough for an office PC where the main storage is on an enterprise server. So if I were fitting out an office full of PCs, they wouldn't have hard drives in them. That enterprise storage? I used to work in that industry, it is dominated by flash thanks to the cost of enterprise hard drives.

Hence my wondering what will happen long term. It is the likes of mobile phones that are driving down the cost of flash per GB, as PC users we are just benefiting from that, so SSD cost will continue to drop. As that carves a chunk out of the HDD market then HDD prices will at some point have to rise as volume drops. That makes your large archive HDD more expensive, which is unfortunate, but that's just how I see the future unfolding.

[Saracen]

....

Hence my wondering what will happen long term. It is the likes of mobile phones that are driving down the cost of flash per GB, as PC users we are just benefiting from that, so SSD cost will continue to drop. As that carves a chunk out of the HDD market then HDD prices will at some point have to rise as volume drops. That makes your large archive HDD more expensive, which is unfortunate, but that's just how I see the future unfolding.

Personally, I have no doubt the trend is, and will continue to be, from HD to SSD. I think it's inherent in the technologies.

We are certainly still a fair way from parity in terms of cost/GB, but it 'll come.

We have, however, seen a change in the nature of the HD market and it suggests HDs have reached a peak, at least in terms of mass market, though high-end high-capacity niches still exist.

What do I mean? Well, what size HD do most users need? As you pointed out, most office workers PCs really just need a boot drive because data storage is on an enterprise server. Sadly, that may imply the 'boot' device could be an easily (if you have a key) changeable non-volatile solid state device and we are then back in the realm, full-circle, of centralised control and semi-dumb terminals.

As for home users, it's less clear but as more and more non-gamers use faster, bigger and better cloud storage, it begs the question of just how much local storage they really need? 120GB? 500GB?

And all that begs the question of how relevant cost/GB, which is still the HDs biggest, and bordering on only, advantage, will be? Which is why, long-term (or even mid-term) the HD is doomed.


However .... none of that changes my view that upgrading is quite the no-brainer some argue it to be. That is very much a case of individual circumstances, needs and value for money judgements. HDs have a role to play for a while yet.

One such role is for those of us where capacity needs make a full SSD environment prohivitive and where privacy and accessibility considerations preclyde cloud storage. That is, those of us for whom the 'P' in PC is critically important.

[Ttaskmaster]

As for home users, it's less clear but as more and more non-gamers use faster, bigger and better cloud storage, it begs the question of just how much local storage they really need? 120GB? 500GB?

As a gamer and enthusiast, with an enthusiast level case, I find it quite exasperating that my choices are limited to cheap HDDs with air cooling, or to go liquid cooling but only if I ditch the HDD cages and stick a bunch of SSDs in...
I need at least 2TB in addition to the boot drive, which means I have 3 SSD slots with which to ammass that much space. But as with all my non-gamer friends, most of that 2TB is music, movies (instructional videos, in my case), photos and personal documentation. I only have maybe a couple hundred GB of games installed.
Cloud storage would be torture with 0.7Mbps internet, but even watching others' 74Mbps connections left me wondering what it would cost to get something cloudy as good/practical as a local HDD.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Whilst everything you say is true, I don't think it is spotting the trend. What is the cheapest storage you can buy?

Looking on ebuyer I can buy a hard drive for £35, that gets me a choice of 500GB 2.5in drives. But for £25 I can have a choice of SSD, and they may only be 120GB but that is enough for an office PC where the main storage is on an enterprise server. So if I were fitting out an office full of PCs, they wouldn't have hard drives in them. That enterprise storage? I used to work in that industry, it is dominated by flash thanks to the cost of enterprise hard drives.

Hence my wondering what will happen long term. It is the likes of mobile phones that are driving down the cost of flash per GB, as PC users we are just benefiting from that, so SSD cost will continue to drop. As that carves a chunk out of the HDD market then HDD prices will at some point have to rise as volume drops. That makes your large archive HDD more expensive, which is unfortunate, but that's just how I see the future unfolding.

Its the same with cloud storage providers - almost all of them use HDDs not SSDs,and it appears some of the studier industrial grade SSDs even have worse data retention than consumer grade SSDs(!).

The fact is most people are just very poor at backing up stuff in the first place,so yes their storage needs are low as a result,but I suspect unlike having physical videos or pictures,many people will probably now loose all the most important ones within 20 years,and that is even assuming they properly format switch too.

[DanceswithUnix]

As for home users, it's less clear but as more and more non-gamers use faster, bigger and better cloud storage, it begs the question of just how much local storage they really need? 120GB? 500GB?

My Windows SSD is currently 500GB, and I only fit into that because if I am running low on storage I go into Steam and delete a game. Getting it back involves going into Steam and asking to download, going to make a cup of tea, and it should be ready to play. Gamers with a fast network speed don't need that much storage, non-gamers I expect usually need less.

Its the same with cloud storage providers - almost all of them use HDDs not SSDs,and it appears some of the studier industrial grade SSDs even have worse data retention than consumer grade SSDs(!).

I can assure you there is some supposedly enterprise HDD setups out there that I wouldn't put my shopping list on. There will always be iffy cases if you look hard enough

Cloud backup providers only care about cost per GB, and right now that it the only metric that HDD wins on. If you care about how many racks your storage takes up, then the fact an 8TB SSD fits in a 2.5in form factor but the hard drive takes 4 times the volume in a 3.5in factor matters and HDD starts to lose again.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

My Windows SSD is currently 500GB, and I only fit into that because if I am running low on storage I go into Steam and delete a game. Getting it back involves going into Steam and asking to download, going to make a cup of tea, and it should be ready to play. Gamers with a fast network speed don't need that much storage, non-gamers I expect usually need less.



I can assure you there is some supposedly enterprise HDD setups out there that I wouldn't put my shopping list on. There will always be iffy cases if you look hard enough

Cloud backup providers only care about cost per GB, and right now that it the only metric that HDD wins on. If you care about how many racks your storage takes up, then the fact an 8TB SSD fits in a 2.5in form factor but the hard drive takes 4 times the volume in a 3.5in factor matters and HDD starts to lose again.

A 5TB 2.5" drive is £180. An 8TB SSD costs a couple of £1000. In fact I don't know anyone in the realworld,be it enthusiasts,or even an average person who uses an SSD based solution to have back-ups. They are all HDDs of some sort since cost is usually a factor for most people. Something like a portable 1TB external is like £30 to £50. Try buying an external 1TB SSD - easily £200 or more.

Even consoles don't come with SSDs at standard since they the cost per GB is not low enough.Its not viable.

If there is an SSD in most people's systems,it will be because their laptop had one already - I don't know a single non-enthusiast who would even bother to replace a computer with a spinny disk with an SSD.

But I suppose its the same as enthusiasts on tech forums thinking every gamer has a 4K monitor with a £400+ graphics card,running an overclocked Core i7 with 32GB of RAM and 4TB of SSDs. Plus all the enthusiasts complaining SATA3 is a bottleneck,so they need a PCI-E based SSD,which again I don't anyone in the realworld cares about.

The reality is actually much more mundane.

[Ttaskmaster]

Cloud backup providers only care about cost per GB

As in how much they charge you per GB, or how much they make per GB when selling your data on?

The reality is actually much more mundane.

Yeah, a paltry 1440 monitor with a £285 card running an overclocked Core i7 with only 16GB and 120GB of SSD.... I feel like such a peasant!!

[peterb]

What do I mean? Well, what size HD do most users need? As you pointed out, most office workers PCs really just need a boot drive because data storage is on an enterprise server. Sadly, that may imply the 'boot' device could be an easily (if you have a key) changeable non-volatile solid state device and we are then back in the realm, full-circle, of centralised control and semi-dumb terminals.

I remember looking at the dumb terminal concept back in around 1997 - the device booted and loaded the OS over the network. At the time we discounted it not only because of network speed to the desktop, but also overall bandwidth, several hundred employees logging on and downloading an OS at the same time would not be good! The advantages were the lower cost of the terminals and flexible licensing. We also thought that machines would be left hibernating so that they didn't download every day.

However with much higher bandwidth LANs, the concept has more merit, and high speed internet makes it possible for a single user to download software (such as Microsoft Office Click and Connect)

For me, the concern about SSDs is the failure mode. HDDs usually (not always) give some warning when they fail so they can beswapped out in good time. SSDs tend to failure catastrophically without warning.

As for home users, it's less clear but as more and more non-gamers use faster, bigger and better cloud storage, it begs the question of just how much local storage they really need? 120GB? 500GB?

And all that begs the question of how relevant cost/GB, which is still the HDs biggest, and bordering on only, advantage, will be? Which is why, long-term (or even mid-term) the HD is doomed.

I'm happy to use an SSD as a boot/system device where the speed might be useful, but HDDs for data storage where absolute speed is less important (to me).

However .... none of that changes my view that upgrading is quite the no-brainer some argue it to be. That is very much a case of individual circumstances, needs and value for money judgements. HDs have a role to play for a while yet.

One such role is for those of us where capacity needs make a full SSD environment prohivitive and where privacy and accessibility considerations preclyde cloud storage. That is, those of us for whom the 'P' in PC is critically important.

Indeed - I don't want accessibility to my data to be dependent on an internet connection with its own various points of failure.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As in how much they charge you per GB, or how much they make per GB when selling your data on?


Yeah, a paltry 1440 monitor with a £285 card running an overclocked Core i7 with only 16GB and 120GB of SSD.... I feel like such a peasant!!

I really am the peasant among my gaming friends. They point at my X99 board and laugh. They point at my lack of curved screen and shudder. Don't even ask about my graphics card with only three digits in the model number...!!
Even the "old guy" (as in close to retirement) has better specs than me, and he doesn't even know what the specs mean!!

One of them still has 1080p and he's got my old monitor, which he only uses because it's 27" and he's an aging mechanic with aging eyes and needs it for viewing wiring diagram PDFs.


It was when new, yes.
My SSD was new, as was the PSU and some of the w/c bits. Absolutely everything else was either bought for me in a massively discounted OCUK end-of-line sale or I picked up second hand.


Well since you failed to just snigger at what seemed like pretty obvious sarcasm, I just might argue, though I never do so just for the sake of it... I have better things to do with my better-than-average computer.
But yes, my experience differs from yours. I'm sorry if you think that's arguing for the sake of it, and that my life does not follow the prescription you've laid down for me, but it's just fact and I can't change it.

So do these Steam stats cover the whole world, or can you slim it down to just the Middle Classes of specific Western countries?

Interestingly - I do notice that the Working classers tend to have better rigs, most of which are enthusiast gamer desktops. Middlers seem to be the non-gamer ones getting the laptops, while using Smartphones for everything I'd use my desktop for...


Dunno why - They're horrible.
I'd also mention that this was the case round our way 2-3 years ago, but those guys all ditched their lappies and went back to desktop systems.


Mine is a good 4 dozen for whom I've built their computers for them, plus about 15 actual friends, plus about 40 work colleagues and friend-of-a-friends with whom I discuss computers. Oh, not forgetting my 7 in-laws, too!
I don't actually know what my own family has, as I stopped listening when they started getting Apple™ for everything - I may well have a better computer than them, but that's only because their mobile phone cost more than my entire rig.

Steam Hardware survey.















Performance=$250 and under worldwide.



Poor peasant!! Time to ditch it for an XBox methinks!

[Ttaskmaster]

Everyone is on 1080p displays still. Occasionally they might have two.

I really am the peasant among my gaming friends. They point at my X99 board and laugh. They point at my lack of curved screen and shudder. Don't even ask about my graphics card with only three digits in the model number...!!
Even the "old guy" (as in close to retirement) has better specs than me, and he doesn't even know what the specs mean!!

One of them still has 1080p and he's got my old monitor, which he only uses because it's 27" and he's an aging mechanic with aging eyes and needs it for viewing wiring diagram PDFs.

Your GTX980TI was a £500 card. I also know very few people who would buy secondhand components either.

It was when new, yes.
My SSD was new, as was the PSU and some of the w/c bits. Absolutely everything else was either bought for me in a massively discounted OCUK end-of-line sale or I picked up second hand.

But you would know that if you looked at Steam,the specs for most gaming systems are mundane,and gaming systems tend to be better specced than most normal systems too,but you will argue the point for the sake of it.

Well since you failed to just snigger at what seemed like pretty obvious sarcasm, I just might argue, though I never do so just for the sake of it... I have better things to do with my better-than-average computer.
But yes, my experience differs from yours. I'm sorry if you think that's arguing for the sake of it, and that my life does not follow the prescription you've laid down for me, but it's just fact and I can't change it.

So do these Steam stats cover the whole world, or can you slim it down to just the Middle Classes of specific Western countries?

Interestingly - I do notice that the Working classers tend to have better rigs, most of which are enthusiast gamer desktops. Middlers seem to be the non-gamer ones getting the laptops, while using Smartphones for everything I'd use my desktop for...

More and more people seem to be ditching desktops for laptops.

Dunno why - They're horrible.
I'd also mention that this was the case round our way 2-3 years ago, but those guys all ditched their lappies and went back to desktop systems.

That is amongst dozens of people maybe even more.

Mine is a good 4 dozen for whom I've built their computers for them, plus about 15 actual friends, plus about 40 work colleagues and friend-of-a-friends with whom I discuss computers. Oh, not forgetting my 7 in-laws, too!
I don't actually know what my own family has, as I stopped listening when they started getting Apple™ for everything - I may well have a better computer than them, but that's only because their mobile phone cost more than my entire rig.

[spacein_vader]

Price isn't the only thing HDDs still have the advantage on. For backup/archive work an unpowered hard drive is a known quantity in how long it'll store the data, SSDs not so much. Yet.

[DanceswithUnix]

A 5TB 2.5" drive is £180. An 8TB SSD costs a couple of a £1000. In fact I don't know anyone in the realworld,be it enthusiasts,or even an average person who uses an SSD based solution to have back-ups. They are all HDDs of some sort since cost is usually a factor for most people. Something like a portable 1TB external is like £30 to £50. Try buying an external 1TB SSD - easily £200 or more.

Of course you don't know anyone who uses SSDs as backups, people use either tape or disk for that as the cost is in that direction. The key here was:

If you care about how many racks your storage takes up

I was pointing out that hard disks lose on storage density because most people don't seem to appreciate that hard disks are pretty bad at storage per unit volume, perhaps I did that badly.

As for consoles, my Wii-U comes with eMMC flash storage, because HDD is just too expensive at the low end.

[DanceswithUnix]

Price isn't the only thing HDDs still have the advantage on. For backup/archive work an unpowered hard drive is a known quantity in how long it'll store the data, SSDs not so much. Yet.

That's very trusting. Make sure you don't accidentally slam the drawer you left it in

[peterb]

That's very trusting. Make sure you don't accidentally slam the drawer you left it in

If you are using an HDD for archive, it should be wrapped in the anti-static bag it came in, and in the original packaging which will soften the effects of shock - and of course you wont be keeping both backups in the same drawer!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you are using an HDD for archive, it should be wrapped in the anti-static bag it came in, and in the original packaging which will soften the effects of shock - and of course you wont be keeping both backups in the same drawer!

It does make me wonder with most people taking digital pictures and videos,how they are going to archive a lot of it over a lifetime,and how much of it would be printed too. Even cloud based storage has its limitations.