Tests show modern SSDs can handle a thousand years of use

[BoberFett]

I finally made the jump to SSD a few months ago on my aging Core 2 system. The machine I used to curse while listening to the hard drive churn is now a pleasure to use again. It won't run the prettiest new games, but typical desktop use is fast as I could ask for and WoW loading screens are minimal. It feels like a brand new machine as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I have had a 256GB SSD in my main laptop for just over 2 years and upgraded the second drive from 1TB to 2TB a few months ago. I would have a 4TB or larger second drive if I could bu that's not possible right now, at least with a HD -- a 4TB SSD is possible but the cost would be insane...


Brian

 

[poofyhairguy]

I'm simply not going for the early-adopter pricing.

 

[lxskllr]

Even with a thousand year rating, people will still complain and worry about endurance on them as if mechanicals never break.

I think it's because the tech is still relatively new, and you get more of a surprise factor with SSDs. Many times platter drives will tell you before they go tits up. A SSD will just decide it doesn't feel like working anymore.

 

[jlee]

I'm simply not going for the early-adopter pricing. I don't shutdown/boot my PC everyday (reboot once every 2 weeks) and really the only app I consistently have to run is Chrome so it's not a huge deal to me. If it loaded my games faster then perhaps I'd strongly consider it (someone said it won't?). And a new OS while I'm at it.

I'm still on Vista too. Rest assured, next need for an upgrade I'm all over it. Just don't see a need yet with how I use my PC (play videos with MPC, streaming server to tablets/roku, google play music, browsing, 1 or 2 large games, storing and uploading pics/vids with OneDrive). None of those except Chrome is on my boot drive. Correct me if I'm wrong in seeing benefits.

Early adopter pricing? Wut?

It depends if you use a DVD to install or a bootable flashdrive with the ISO.

With a flash drive I can do a full install in 10 maybe 15 minutes to an SSD. With DVD installation it still takes some time, even when installing to an SSD.


I got a 120GB SSD for $149 in 2011 or so, ended up selling it with a laptop (as the boot drive), when I built my desktop I got a 240GB SSD for around $180. Got a second 240GB SSD on sale for $150 a few months later, and about 6 months after that I picked up a 480GB SSD for $200.

I have kept one 240GB SSD and the 480GB SSD in my desktop, and I put the other 240GB SSD in my PS4, cause fuck it. why not.

The last DVD install I did was..ESXi on a very old HP server, I think. I do USB installs for everything.

 

[edfcmc]

What I'd be curious to know is how consumer drives would fair out in a semi enterprise environment. Ex: a large array of disks with 10+ VMs on them with continuous IO. Nightly backups between raid arrays and just generally lot of data moving around all the time 24/7.


/fap.

I think you might find this interesting:

http://lifehacker.com/consumer-drives-might-be-more-reliable-than-enterprise-1650338754

http://lifehacker.com/the-most-and-least-reliable-hard-drive-brands-1505797966

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think you might find this interesting:

http://lifehacker.com/consumer-drives-might-be-more-reliable-than-enterprise-1650338754

http://lifehacker.com/the-most-and-least-reliable-hard-drive-brands-1505797966

Knew about that. Was talking about consumer grade SSDs specifically. But yeah I never bothered with enterprise drives for spindles. I have about 20 consumer spindles in 24/7 operation and they're fine. The key is 24/7. Don't turn off your disks array all the time and don't buy the drives that go to sleep or do other weird stuff. All the failures I've got were as a result of shutting down the server.

 

[AdamantC]

Game load time will not get any better, stick with the HDD and the vintage SSD

Looking at benchmarks it would provide about a 5-8 reduction in load times, not a gigantic improvement, but an improvement none the less. However even with my HDD I find that I'm usually the first to load in MP games. If I'm quick enough I can pretty much snag any vehicle I want in BF4.
The only real downside to my Caviar Black is that it is a bit noisy.

 

[mikeymikec]

Early adopter pricing? Wut?

I think the logic goes something along the lines of "if a 500GB SSD isn't cheaper than the cheapest 500GB HDD, it's early adopter pricing"

 

[Bob the Coder]

I think it's because the tech is still relatively new, and you get more of a surprise factor with SSDs. Many times platter drives will tell you before they go tits up. A SSD will just decide it doesn't feel like working anymore.

I don't have any first hand experience with an SSD dying, but everything I researched prior to my purchase indicated that you're likely to get plenty of warning. Even still, with my 1TB of OneDrive, I'm not at all worried. Worst case scenario, the thing croaks on me, I drop another $100, and I'm up and running an hour later.

I've only had one HDD go bad on me, and the indicator was that I was having trouble saving Office documents. I'd get read-only errors when trying to save. After dicking with it for a month or two, I wondered if the drive was dying. Tossed a new one in and all was well again (of course, this required a fresh install of everything, so I can't say with 100% certainty that was the issue).

 

[rh71]

I think the logic goes something along the lines of "if a 500GB SSD isn't cheaper than the cheapest 500GB HDD, it's early adopter pricing"

Considering how cheap and plentiful memory cards are these days, why can't they be? Or rather, why shouldn't they be? Because they are newer? Artificially high. I know it's common practice but my point is I was waiting till it normalizes more. $400 for 1tb which isn't even that much storage these days... come on now.

 

[jlee]

Considering how cheap and plentiful memory cards are these days, why can't they be? They will.

What's price per GB for a "cheap and plentiful" memory card?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Considering how cheap and plentiful memory cards are these days, why can't they be? Or rather, why shouldn't they be? Because they are newer? Artificially high. I know it's common practice but my point is I was waiting till it normalizes more. $400 for 1tb which isn't even that much storage these days... come on now.

It runs over 10x faster in straight speed, and over 10x faster in access response times.

You wonder why they're more expensive?

 

[Bob the Coder]

Considering how cheap and plentiful memory cards are these days, why can't they be? Or rather, why shouldn't they be? Because they are newer? Artificially high. I know it's common practice but my point is I was waiting till it normalizes more. $400 for 1tb which isn't even that much storage these days... come on now.

For everyday usage, it sure is quite a bit of storage. Your typical user doesn't need anything close to that.

SSDs are now far below the $1/GB sweet spot (hell, they're under $0.50/GB if you're looking at consumer grade drives). Sorry, that's nowhere near "early adopter pricing," especially when you consider how much people spend on other upgrades in pursuit of performance. That super low-latency RAM and i7-4770k are absolutely silly expenditures/obsessions if you're not using an SSD.

 

[rh71]

It runs over 10x faster in straight speed, and over 10x faster in access response times.

You wonder why they're more expensive?

The technology already exists.

 

[Bob the Coder]

The technology already exists.

... and?

 

[mnewsham]

... and?

flash drives are the same thing as SSDs, obviously the cost should be identical, charging anything more is pure profit to the company.

 

[dainthomas]

... and?

Why does the mere fact of it being faster HAVE to make it more expensive?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Why does the mere fact of it being faster HAVE to make it more expensive?

Because the technology making it fast is more expensive?

 

[mnewsham]

Why does the mere fact of it being faster HAVE to make it more expensive?

because it requires more advanced production, testing, and components....?

 

[Carson Dyle]

Because the technology making it fast is more expensive?

That's the simplest explanation, and almost certainly the case here.

But it's not always so. If the technologies cost the same and were capable of being produced in the same quantities, then you'd have marketplace pressures of supply and demand, with the more desirable item commanding higher prices.

 

[mikeymikec]

Considering how cheap and plentiful memory cards are these days, why can't they be? Or rather, why shouldn't they be? Because they are newer? Artificially high. I know it's common practice but my point is I was waiting till it normalizes more. $400 for 1tb which isn't even that much storage these days... come on now.

This point of view is based on an analysis of the production costs of a mainstream SSD, or wishful thinking? How about supply and demand? After all, everyone and their dog is running an SSD these days! Yeah, no.

I'm not sure how many memory cards I've seen with capacities that I'd expect SSDs to have, but I think it's a very round number.

Furthermore, the price of SSDs has come down a huge amount; not so long ago a 500GB SSD was beyond the budget of most people here, and cost more than a mid-range PC. The prices are steadily coming down, and I imagine I'll probably be able to replace my internal WD Black 1TB with a Samsung 1TB PRO SSD in a couple of years' time without breaking my bank account.

 

[Cerb]

Considering how cheap and plentiful memory cards are these days, why can't they be? Or rather, why shouldn't they be? Because they are newer? Artificially high. I know it's common practice but my point is I was waiting till it normalizes more. $400 for 1tb which isn't even that much storage these days... come on now.

Where is a 1TB USB or SD flash drive for under $400?

Right now, SSDs are in the same price range as USB drives and SD cards of similar size, once above minimum sizes (where the controller, DRAM, extra PCB, packaging, etc. add some necessary costs).

 

[StrangerGuy]

Because the technology making it fast is more expensive?

We already don't need *faster* SSDs. Techreport SSD reviews show the difference in real-world boot and game load times between the value champion MX100 and a "premium" 850 Pro is so tiny its as good as non-existent. What will take the market by storm is something that offers 90% of a MX100 speed but at half the price per GB, not more 850 Pros to appease synthetic benchmark gods.

 

[Carson Dyle]

We already don't need *faster* SSDs.

Which is exactly why SSD manufacturers have been producing and marketing slower, less expensive product lines.