F**k Hard drives.

[Nodscene]

I just read an article recently where OCZ (I could be wrong on the manufacturer) will be coming out with large capacity SSDs. All the way up to 1TB, although the price is somewhere around $2200.

I just found a link...

OCZ's 1TB Colossus SSD gets a price and launch timeframe

 

[gingerbee]

yes all the major ssd makers are planing big boys i believe 500 gigs and up

 

[bissa]

if they started making 3.5 SSDs than they could probably get higher capacity for the same or slightly higher price since the components dont need to be nearly as compact.

 

[MonsterSound]

SATA 2.5" SSD's are so mid 2009 :haha:. PCIeSSD is where the action is;

Fusion-io 160GB ioDrive​

Capacity 160GB (80GB and 320GB MLC available)
NAND Flash Components Single-Level Cell (SLC) NAND Flash Memory
Bandwidth
Up to 750MB/s Read Speeds
Up to 650MB/s Write Speeds
Read Latency 50 microseconds
Interface PCI-Express X4
Form factor Half Height PCIe Card
Life expectancy 48yrs - at 5TB write-erase/day
Power consumption Meets PCI Express x4 power spec 1.1
Operating temperature -40°C to +70°C
ROHS Compliance Meets the requirements of EU RoHS Compliance Directive

and only ~ $7000.00
Seriously though, when SSD prices come down, I'm in.

 

[lowfat]

if they started making 3.5 SSDs than they could probably get higher capacity for the same or slightly higher price since the components dont need to be nearly as compact.

not really. Higher capacities yes, but not not for a better price point. The NAND chips and controller will be the same size no matter what pcb they put them on. And that is where all the costs are.

 

[miggs78]

When cost per gb drops a lot compared to normal hdds perhaps.

Until then meh.

Agreed.. Too expensive at the moment, just like darkstar said, you could buy plenty hard drives for the price of 1 SSD.

And not everyone is that rich to spend that much money on couple SSDs to run in RAID...

 

[lowfat]

People need to start thinking of SSD's more like a videocard,not a hard drive replacement. They will never replace HDD's. SSD's are for performance, not mass storage.

 

[enaberif]

People need to start thinking of SSD's more like a videocard,not a hard drive replacement. They will never replace HDD's. SSD's are for performance, not mass storage.

If they would quit marketing it as a hard drive replacement or people would quit acting like its a hard drive replacement perhaps.

But as it is that is how SSDs are looked at by most and by a small fraction as you a performance upgrade.

But is there REALLY that much difference in speed and I'm not talking benchmark wise I'm talking end user wise from a 250gb single platter drive to a 64gb SSD drive?

I'd like to see benchmarks of that.

 

[chrisk]

How much faster generally are:
1. boot times
2. OS install
3. program load times

Benchmarks help, but these are the real-world usage things for me. From what I have read a few times, these things are substantially better, no?

 

[AkG]

Enaberif, they ARE hard drive replacements; albeit high performance HDD replacements. Up until SSDs the hard drive was doing double duty as mass storage AND OS loader. In the future HDDs will be for storage only and SSDs will be for the OS.

A good SSD like the Vertex or even Summit IS a huge improvement over any HDD, including the WD blacks and the VRaptors or even SCSI 15k drives. They really do make your system seem faster and are easily biggest one piece upgrade that will make even an old system feel like new. On a new system, 9 times out of 10 by the time you have released the mouse button from double clicking the icon of program the damn thing will be loaded. It even makes PHOTOSHOP CS3 / CS4 load times peppy!

There really is no comparison and now that the stuttering issue is a thing of the past, my question is WHY would anyone building a new mid level or higher rig NOT go SSD?

Right now I am running a single Torqx in an old craptop and it easily has added years to the life of my laptop.

When Win 7 comes out my main rig will be outfitted with at least one SSD, and I can not wait for SATA 3.0 and that gen of SSDs!

If they would quit marketing it as a hard drive replacement or people would quit acting like its a hard drive replacement perhaps.

But as it is that is how SSDs are looked at by most and by a small fraction as you a performance upgrade.

But is there REALLY that much difference in speed and I'm not talking benchmark wise I'm talking end user wise from a 250gb single platter drive to a 64gb SSD drive?

I'd like to see benchmarks of that.