When are we gonna see 2TB SSDs sitting on the shelf of Frys Electronics for like $150

[sammich]

I was going to post this before, so forgive me if it's been mentioned:

Solid state memory: made of lots of little individual circuits
Hard drives: made from a specially formed piece of metal.

Which one is harder to make a lot of?

 

[Bobby Corwen]

I was going to post this before, so forgive me if it's been mentioned:

Solid state memory: made of lots of little individual circuits
Hard drives: made from a specially formed piece of metal.

Which one is harder to make a lot of?

So does a higher capacity SSD really have that many more "NAND memory chipsets" or whatever??

And is that the singled out component that is so expensive? and the more you fit into a small space the harder it is to fit? or what?

 

[getz76]

This isnt about my money specifically, but rather the prices for everyone. I mean I could afford it sure.. even if it was 5K.... but thats not the point.

That is nice of you. Most people are not complaining, though.

I just dont understand why 80GB = 100$ and 500GB = 1000$ when there are no extra spinning plates and they are just virtual memory holders. Obviously they can be created, but why so much extra cost for more size? Even 2 years later??

You realize those NAND chips inside the drive contain millions of little transitors. Making them dense costs quite a bit on the production side. It is not just "virtual". Ever bit still needs a physical switch.

 

[sammich]

So does a higher capacity SSD really have that many more "NAND memory chipsets" or whatever??

And is that the singled out component that is so expensive? and the more you fit into a small space the harder it is to fit? or what?

The capacity of a solid state chip is defined by the number of these circuit gates it has. So more capacity = more little gates = more complexity.

Hard drives are essentially lots of tiny magnetic domains baked into metal. It's not simple to make, but it's easier to make higher density versions.

 

[revelated]

Well as a power user I have 4 music composition plug-in bundles that all equal over 50 GB each as an install. This means they are not just files totaling over 200GB but rather programs that need to be installed. And on top of that I have 600GB of samples and sounds. I also need space to work with the actual renderings and future Final Cut X work files and then I have years of music and movies and pictures. Lots of extra DAWs with their own soundbanks on both OSX and Win7, and even games.

All of which are best used on scratch disks. An external 7200RPM drive attached via FireWire will give you WAY better value with no appreciable loss in performance. SSD isn't going to do you any good for scratch disk activities. Trust me, I know exactly what you're doing with what you're doing, I do the same thing with my 27" iMac. All of the scratch files go to an external 7200RPM Western Digital FireWire800 drive. I can encode videos and songs three times faster on the iMac with its platter drive than I can with my MacBook Pro and its SSD. Besides, all of that file activity will just degrade the SSD faster.

For previewing samples SSD helps with speed of access and sifting through thousands of samples and instruments.

No, no it does not. Your processor will do way more for previewing samples than a SSD. Your problem is that you're using the wrong machine for the job. The MacBook Pro i7 can get it done with a 7200RPM drive; the i7 iMac will do it faster with the same drive.



Your problem is that you're making assumptions. I've been using four different SSDs over the last two years. There are three primary benefits: boot speed (read), application speed (read), and virtual machines (Read/write). Your use case is scratch disks. You won't see an appreciable benefit for a SSD vs. a platter drive. An externally (Firewire 800) connected 7200RPM drive, or even if you want to go to the 10kRPM drives - the Barracuda, I believe - or the Momentus XT, will give you the same or better results at a reasonable cost point. Scratch disking is the worst use case of a SSD I can think of.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

All of which are best used on scratch disks. An external 7200RPM drive attached via FireWire will give you WAY better value with no appreciable loss in performance. SSD isn't going to do you any good for scratch disk activities. Trust me, I know exactly what you're doing with what you're doing, I do the same thing with my 27" iMac. All of the scratch files go to an external 7200RPM Western Digital FireWire800 drive. I can encode videos and songs three times faster on the iMac with its platter drive than I can with my MacBook Pro and its SSD. Besides, all of that file activity will just degrade the SSD faster.



No, no it does not. Your processor will do way more for previewing samples than a SSD. Your problem is that you're using the wrong machine for the job. The MacBook Pro i7 can get it done with a 7200RPM drive; the i7 iMac will do it faster with the same drive.



Your problem is that you're making assumptions. I've been using four different SSDs over the last two years. There are three primary benefits: boot speed (read), application speed (read), and virtual machines (Read/write). Your use case is scratch disks. You won't see an appreciable benefit for a SSD vs. a platter drive. An externally (Firewire 800) connected 7200RPM drive, or even if you want to go to the 10kRPM drives - the Barracuda, I believe - or the Momentus XT, will give you the same or better results at a reasonable cost point. Scratch disking is the worst use case of a SSD I can think of.

So you're telling me loading hybrid instruments that work with both samples and virtual processing won't open faster? What about loading multi channel multi sampled choirs into memory?

And even so, won't SSD help operate my DAW faster? Like saving and exporting large files? Bouncing tracks?

Nothing? Honestly?

 

[SavMBP15]

YES I DO NEED IT.

No you don't.

 

[clickclickw00t]

So you're telling me loading hybrid instruments that work with both samples and virtual processing won't open faster? What about loading multi channel multi sampled choirs into memory?

And even so, won't SSD help operate my DAW faster? Like saving and exporting large files? Bouncing tracks?

Nothing? Honestly?

Dude of course it helps. I use Logic with ABleton and Reason in Rewire with Maschine, and Serato running with The Bridge. Running about 100 VSTs all working so much better with an SSD than a HDD.

Waves Complete
Komplete 7
Maschine
Sylenth
Omnisphere...

Runs so nice

 

[revelated]

Dude of course it helps. I use Logic with ABleton and Reason in Rewire with Maschine, and Serato running with The Bridge. Running about 100 VSTs all working so much better with an SSD than a HDD.

Waves Complete
Komplete 7
Maschine
Sylenth
Omnisphere...

Runs so nice

Placebo effect. I guarantee you.

Buy a 10k RPM drive. Connect it Firewire800. Compare the access speed. You won't notice a difference and if you claim to, it's a placebo effect.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Placebo effect. I guarantee you.

Buy a 10k RPM drive. Connect it Firewire800. Compare the access speed. You won't notice a difference and if you claim to, it's a placebo effect.

Can you give me some source where I can read about that explains this in more detail?

The claim that SSD doesn't help all those complex compound activities as I am using the programs described above compared to HDD.

Have you ever used Ableton?

I have a feeling part of it is in fact just perception...

I mean a 5400 RPM was never that slow in the first place. It was still instant response for the most part...

 

[Bear]

It's interesting, someone asked a question and instead of most people giving an answer somewhat related to the question they said the OP didn't need what he was asking a pricing question on.

• The question was when people though SSD prices would drop like a rock.
• Some people responded you don't need SSD at all.
• Some people said you only need a small SSD.
• The most reasonable answers were about current prices and pricing trends.
• Also reasonable was suggestion multiple 500GB units.

And to the first poster that said you don't need SSD at all: You don't know what the original poster is using the system for. I run a few applications that would be sped up noticeably by SSD. ANd not just at startup.

Anyway to the original poster, it will be a number of years and it depends on a lot of factors. If you want the SSD soon, a 500GB SSD + regular or ssd fronted hard drive for the rest of your primary storage.

 

[cube]

IS IT REALLY THAT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PRICES TO COME DOWN YET? Its been 2 years.

And you should expect the price to halve every two years. Do the math. That's how transistor count has worked ever since integrated circuits have been made.

The wall keeps getting pushed so far.

 

[cirus]

YES I DO NEED IT.

I have tons of gigs of music composition plug ins and samples. 100s of Gigs each.

Doesn't seem like stuff that you would need an SSD for.

 

[Maven1975]

Steve has space in the cloud for sale. To be honest, I bet we see faster mobile broadband and cloud storage before we see 2TB SSD @ $150

More secure to boot...

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[reclusive46]

I actually don't think it'll be long before we see 1TB drives at reasonable price. Maybe 2 or 3 years. Technology moves on and maybe eventually we'll all use SSDS.

 

[revelated]

Can you give me some source where I can read about that explains this in more detail?

The claim that SSD doesn't help all those complex compound activities as I am using the programs described above compared to HDD.

Have you ever used Ableton?

I have a feeling part of it is in fact just perception...

I mean a 5400 RPM was never that slow in the first place. It was still instant response for the most part...

You just gave yourself a source. The 5400 wasn't noticeably slow. Logically, if you didn't consider the 5400 slow, the 7200 must necessarily be faster, and the 10k even faster than that. I submit that if the 5400 was giving you "instant response", that the 10k would provide response times equivalent to that of a SSD at a fraction of the price.

If you still don't believe it you really have nothing to lose. Buy a 10K Velociraptor and TRY IT. Then get a SSD (if you don't already have one) and try it. If you honestly think you're getting any faster speeds out of the SSD, then by all means, sit for years waiting on a SSD that large for that insane price.

 

[reclusive46]

I use an SSD for my important stuff because from experience I find them a lot more reliable than a HDD.