SSDs Shipments to outsell HDD shipments by 2021

#5480907 Posted on: 10/12/2017 08:07 AM

---

Yasss. Can you imagine all those office machines across the world, reception desks waiting forever as pdfs, excell documents wtc taking forever to open, and then bam, storage revolution happens and every pc had an ssd.

Internet speeds and network speeds are still a problem. But hard drive limitations are a much bigger proplem.

Can't wait till the change.

#5480962 Posted on: 10/12/2017 11:42 AM

---

All computers in my office are SSD equiped. It changes alot for daily work even for pdf documents

#5480988 Posted on: 10/12/2017 12:48 PM

---

You have to remember all of the countries that don't have the resources or are slow to bring aboard new technology. I remember the days of tapes on computers!

#5481025 Posted on: 10/12/2017 03:30 PM

---

I'm a bit surprised it is expected to take that long. HDDs are now really only seen in super high-capacity situations (where they're still significantly cheaper than SSDs) or in budget PCs. The average person doesn't need more than 1TB, and SSDs tend to get too expensive once you reach 1TB capacities. I'm seeing devices everywhere starting to ship with SSDs as the only option, and almost everyone who builds their own PCs gets at least 1 SSD.

#5481032 Posted on: 10/12/2017 03:45 PM

---

Considering you can buy 1TB HDD's @7200rpms for $50 right now, it's going to be awhile before SSD prices get that low... This estimate probably includes similar price reductions in SSD's, which remains to be seen. I think SSD's are great and I love mine, but they have a long way to go before becoming competitive in either price or capacity with HDDs.

#5481133 Posted on: 10/12/2017 08:40 PM

---

Ssds don't cost the same as a hdd for the same reason a sports car doesn't cost the same as an entry level hatchback. You get what you pay for.

Load shadows of war with ultra settings and the ultra high resolution texture pack on a hdd and hen compare it to the load speed of an m.2 sata drive...I would be disgusted to see hdd load times in modern games.

Years ago when the witcher 2 came out. Load times were absurd. Maybe 2 minutes to load a save...not load the game. Even the 830 series samsung ssds back then were night and day.

When I opened a folder on a hdd with large folder icons for video folders with pictures. You have to sit there and wait first as the folders load, then as the pictures load on a hdd, even on a sata ssd they are all loaded as soon as you open the folder.

I just got rid of my last mechanical drive. Copying several hundred gig from it took like an hour or something. And after getting rid of that drive and copying it across to a not even new ssd...just an old 500gb 840 series one that had been in my pc unused...I think it took about 3 minutes to copy those files across. That's 20x faster just for copying backup files of mixed size...a very common operation.

I thought it might a bit faster....I didn't realise it would be that drastic. And that was from an 840 evo drive to an 840 pro. I can only imagine how fast my 950 pro would have been.

#5481136 Posted on: 10/12/2017 08:44 PM

---

Ssds don't cost the same as a hdd for the same reason a sports car doesn't cost the same as an entry level hatchback. You get what you pay for.

Load shadows of war with ultra settings and the ultra high resolution texture pack on a hdd and hen compare it to the load speed of an m.2 sata drive...I would be disgusted to see hdd load times in modern games.

.

If i remember correctly the difference between load times on a SSD vs m.2 in most places are non-existent. seen videos of them loading games at the same speeds due to m.2 bandwidth just not being used and even in many cases full SSD speeds not being used...

But yeah HDD load times these days on most modern games just aren't that fun... though you can go put the kettle on and make a cup of tea while you wait

#5481139 Posted on: 10/12/2017 08:48 PM

---

If i remember correctly the difference between load times on a SSD vs m.2 in most places are non-existent. seen videos of them loading games at the same speeds due to m.2 bandwidth just not being used and even in many cases full SSD speeds not being used...

But yeah HDD load times these days on most modern games just aren't that fun... though you can go put the kettle on and make a cup of tea while you wait :p

I'm sure load times aren't that different. But I was talking about the time it would take to transfer several hundred gig if back files. A sata drive doesn't have 2500mb/s. Or 3500mb/s if you have a 960 pro. And it's only going to get better from there. Mechanical drives aren't even getting faster. Just stagnated at 7200rpm and what is it now 64/128mb cache/buffer?

Same speed as 10 years ago minus miniscule imrpovements from platter density.

#5481144 Posted on: 10/12/2017 09:10 PM

---

Not necessarily. SSDs are more expensive for the same reason DVDs once were (back in the 2000s, a typical DVD player would cost as much as $1000, not adjusting for inflation). What we're paying for is the technology, not so much the benefits of it. This is why SSD prices have been dropping significantly every year, despite performance and density going up. Meanwhile, sports cars are expensive because they're uncommon, usually hand-built, and the prestige; many Ferraris make for pretty terrible vehicles - they're just fast and cool looking, but they're unreliable, impractical, uncomfortable, unsafe, and inefficient.

As for HDDs, it seems $50 is about as cheap as they can get without being a white label or refurbished, regardless of capacity. This is likely because we're reaching a point where all you're really paying for is the materials and manufacturing process. SSDs, meanwhile, are basically just made of silicon, copper, and probably trace amounts of other elements like tantalum or germanium. SSDs are relatively cheap, in terms of materials and manufacturing. What you're mostly paying for are the factories and the engineers who design the controllers. Paying off these things isn't a very long-term issue.


It's been a while since I've opened a picture folder with thumbnail icons in Windows, but isn't there a cache for that? When I open a folder full of pictures in Linux on a HDD, it's really only slow the first time around. And even then, I've always found the wait tolerable. What personally tests my patience is waiting for thumbnails reading from a NAS, or video thumbnails.

#5481171 Posted on: 10/12/2017 10:31 PM

---

I'm sure load times aren't that different. But I was talking about the time it would take to transfer several hundred gig if back files. A sata drive doesn't have 2500mb/s. Or 3500mb/s if you have a 960 pro. And it's only going to get better from there. Mechanical drives aren't even getting faster. Just stagnated at 7200rpm and what is it now 64/128mb cache/buffer?

Same speed as 10 years ago minus miniscule imrpovements from platter density.

top end has 128mb... which does help a tad... but yeah for transfering data about it might as well be USB1 transfer speeds at that point XD

#5481216 Posted on: 10/13/2017 03:05 AM

---

Can someone please tell the HD manufacturers to stop making ssd drives with capacity less than 2T
If it's less than 2T I'm just gonna buy nvme
The only place in the market for ssd is in high capacity, otherwise they are useless.

Or please tel) your friends to stop buying low capacity ssd drives as they are a scam by the manufacturers

Thank you

#5481224 Posted on: 10/13/2017 04:48 AM

---

Can someone please tell the HD manufacturers to stop making ssd drives with capacity less than 2T
If it's less than 2T I'm just gonna buy nvme
The only place in the market for ssd is in high capacity, otherwise they are useless.

Or please tel) your friends to stop buying low capacity ssd drives as they are a scam by the manufacturers
Wait, you want the hard drive manufacturers to stop making SSDs lower than 2TB? So, companies like Hitachi, Western Digital, and Seagate? Because why would they want to cannibalize their HDD sales? (and for anyone about to question this, I'm pretty sure WD and Seagate make SSDs; not sure about Hitachi or others).

If you're just referring to SSD manufacturers in general (like Crucial, Toshiba, Samsung, Intel, Mushkin, etc), there are drives greater than 2TB, but they're either very expensive or only found as PCIe drives. You are being pretty naive if you think this is done intentionally. Obviously there is a market (not the only market; you don't represent everyone's needs) for 2TB+ drives but there are physical limits to what can currently be done with flash memory and their controllers.

The only SSDs that are rightfully called a scam are drives that are below 64GB - most of those are overpriced. The rest are either fairly priced or have a good reason for their price point.

All that being said, go for M.2 or hybrid drives because you're going to be waiting a long while before there are consumer 2TB+ SSDs that are affordable. Even Intel, a company that manufactures SSDs but not HDDs, is aware this is going to be the reality for a while, hence Optane.

#5481226 Posted on: 10/13/2017 05:01 AM

---

schmidtbag - what are you talking about? The average person needs 1tb???? Ummm. No. Probably about 4. Most people I know, even those who are clueless about how to use PCs for the most part, download TV shows and movies to their hard drives and have 2-4tb. Your estimation of 1tb is pretty far off target IMO

Also, your idea that SSDs would be more popular than HDDs sooner because people don't need more than 1tb, shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. You seem unaware of how much SSDs cost compared to HDDs and also this varies per country. Here in Australia everything is more expensive than in Europe (except petrol) so people are slower to pick up new technologies. I can get around 6tb of HDD for 1 x 500gb SSD.

Everyone needs storage. SSDs are mostly advantageous for the OS, games and other HD intensive applications. For everything else, it's not necessary.

#5481233 Posted on: 10/13/2017 06:42 AM

---

schmidtbag - what are you talking about? The average person needs 1tb???? Ummm. No. Probably about 4. Most people I know, even those who are clueless about how to use PCs for the most part, download TV shows and movies to their hard drives and have 2-4tb. Your estimation of 1tb is pretty far off target IMO


That's just not correct. Almost no one, aside from people who are not clueless about PCs, download videos, they stream them.

The average person uses LESS then 1TB of storage.

Only people who STORE music/videos or play a lot of games, in general, even get to 1TB, let alone beyond, and again people who do these things are no where near the majority, as the majority streams and don't game.

And if you disagree with this statement, which with your post you probably will, just remember:

Just because you WANT something to be true, doesn't make it true.

And the fact is, the MAJORITY need less then 1TB, and i'd even say less then 500GB. In 2013, 320GB was plenty, and for a large portion is still plenty. Heck, a lot of people are now using tablets instead of PCs, with 32GB and even less, and at most, 256GB (and working retail, selling these things, 7/10 people went for the lowest storage tablets whereas only 1/10 people went for the highest, if not 1/20, and when it came to buying computers and laptops, the storage was not even remotely a factor for them, pretty much ever)

So what you're trying to say is, the majority of people, who don't care about how much storage their computer has, because they only use it to stream videos, facebook, stream music, google stuff, MAYBE even use word, somehow need 4TB of storage?

Heck, if you look at steam stats, of which steam is a place where above 1TB would be a whole lot more logical, and computers with steam is by far definitely not the majority (in the grand scheme of computers, the amount of computers with steam on it is definitely a minority), more then 50% of the steam survey has less then 1TB of storage, and about 30% have less then 500GB storage. And the amount of free space people have is about 80% having more then 100GB of free storage. Again, that's more then 100GB, not at 100GB, they could have 400GB for all we know. But the point of the matter is: This is a STEAM survey, where people have a lot of games, a lot of games that take up a lot of storage. Utilizing steam, downloading games, etc. would be a prime example of why having a large amount of space would be recommended, and yet the majority of people, even here in this minority of PC users where high storage wouldn't be unreasonable due to games taking up a lot of storage, need 1TB or less.

So Yeah...., again just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it true.

#5481283 Posted on: 10/13/2017 10:12 AM

---

It doesn't matter if the average person only needs 500GB (which I don't believe at all). A standard mechanical is FAR cheaper than the same sized SSD.

Wanna know what the average person needs? Look at the average new PCs for sale and you'll see. To me, 500GB seems kind of small for the average user. If they do any kind of home videos or a lot of pictures, they'll run out of space pretty quickly as new content is much larger than past content was. Look it up. Almost every new PC comes with a 1TB HDD. That's what the market thinks. It doesn't care about forum rants.

s
Everyone needs storage. SSDs are mostly advantageous for the OS, games and other HD intensive applications. For everything else, it's not necessary.

Yes. I'm not even sure how this is a debate. Clearly, SSDs are better but they cost a LOT more and come in much smaller sizes. Pictures, videos, music, programs... all of this takes up a lot of space but it doesn't need to load at light speed. No need to put it on an SSD at 6-10x the cost per/GB.