backtop


Print 13 comment(s) - last by Iridium130m.. on Aug 23 at 10:40 AM


Dropping NAND prices may mean lower costs for consumer SSDs  (Source: OCZ)
Chepaer NAND costs may drive SSD prices down

The SSD may be faster and offer power savings compared to the traditional HDD, but a few downsides to SSDs have kept them from overtaking the traditional HDD in the consumer market. Those downsides include lower capacities and higher costs.

The NAND flash memory that is integral to the SSD is set to see prices drop reports 
iSuppli. The iSuppli report predicts that pricing on 3-bit per cell NAND flash will drop to the range of $1 per gigabyte. That is the range when analysts predict that SSDs will be able to compete with HDDs on price and may signal the increased adoption of the SSD by the general consumer.

Analyst Michael Yang from iSuppli pegs the price of 1GB TLC NAND flash memory would average $1.20 for the entire fourth quarter of 2010 and then decrease to the $1 mark by the beginning of 2011. If the price hits the $1 mark it will be a huge decrease in prices since the start of 2010 with the same 1GB of NAND was selling in the $1.80 range.

Yang said, "When NAND pricing first fell below the $1 level at the end of 2008, many observers opined that this would sound the starting gun for solid state storage, allowing the technology to be cost competitive with Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) in PCs for the first time. However, during the following quarters, pricing rose because of strong demand and constrained production capacity, limiting the appeal of SSDs to low-volume servers in data centers and preventing widespread adoption in high-volume business and consumer PCs."

Yang also stated that for the SSD to be price competitive with the traditional HDD the cost of 1GB of NAND would need to decline to the range of $0.40 per gigabyte by 2012. At that price for a gigabyte of NAND, the cost of a 100GB SSD with the supporting electronics would be $50.

Yang continued, adding, "With NAND pricing having returned to per-gigabyte pricing levels not seen in two years, there’s likely to be a lot of new buzz created for the solid state storage market at the end of 2010. However, traditional HDDs gained a lot of additional ground during the past few years in terms of rising capacity and falling prices. In fact, HDDs have gained so much ground that SSDs now are in danger of never regaining their competitive footing."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By PAPutzback on 8/20/2010 12:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
People with home servers or those few that store huge amounts of photos but my guess is the typical enthusiast runs a lean machine which could get by with 128gb ssd and are smart enough to keep the miscellaneous stuff on a separate spindle most likely in its own remote box.




By QuimaxW on 8/20/2010 2:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree. Most people simply turn on their computer, login and open a web browser.

For my home system, I'd run a 40GB or 80GB SSD to boot from, then just carry a 500-1TB usb drive (2.5" USB powered) with for those rare times I need the storage. Otherwise, I keep everything on my 'desktop' server at home.


Supply and Demand
By Micronite on 8/20/2010 1:41:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
...flash will drop to the range of $1 per gigabyte. That is the range when analysts predict that SSDs will be able to compete with HDDs on price and may signal the increased adoption of the SSD by the general consumer.

Which will cause the prices of flash to go back up.




RE: Supply and Demand
By bplewis24 on 8/20/2010 2:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
That assumes that inventory stock won't be able to meet demand. We will have to wait and see.

Brandon


Still not price competitive
By Nutzo on 8/20/2010 2:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yang also stated that for the SSD to be price competitive with the traditional HDD the cost of 1GB of NAND would need to decline to the range of $0.40 per gigabyte by 2012. At that price for a gigabyte of NAND, the cost of a 100GB SSD with the supporting electronics would be $50.


And 1TB laptop drives will be $50. Still not price competitive with traditional HDD's.

What I would like to see is a Laptop with a built in 40-80GB flash drive for OS & Apps, and room to add an additional drive for Data.




RE: Still not price competitive
By seamonkey79 on 8/20/2010 10:29:07 PM , Rating: 1
They make them, they're just not very portable or battery life lengthy.


TLC?
By nurd on 8/21/2010 7:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
Did anybody else notice he's talking about 3-bit-per-cell NAND, which is way below the reliability level for hard drive replacement stuff?




By Iridium130m on 8/23/2010 10:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
Any body know what the wear endurance is of this technology?
SLC 1-bit is rated for 100,000 writes a cell.
MLC 2-bit is rated for 10,000 writes a cell...see where this is going?

I would hope that we are not down to 1,000 writes a cell, otherwise I cannot see how this technology would be viable for desktop SSDs, only thumbdrives and consumer flash memory cards.




25nm
By MrTeal on 8/20/2010 11:48:13 AM , Rating: 1
I'm looking forward to the upcoming introduction of 25nm flash. The lowest capacity rung is a little too low right now at 32GB, but if I could get 80GB for around the $100-150 mark I think I could trim my laptop down to work with that. I might even pick up a second for my desktop and move my 40GB boot drive over to my wife's computer, even as just an OS/app drive 40GB is a little restrictive.




Still waiting...
By twhittet on 8/20/2010 11:52:10 AM , Rating: 1
I've been telling people January for 6 months now.




By mindless1 on 8/22/2010 3:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Given the backup image, it's fairly irrelevant if the array is broken in a non-production environment. At worst you simply recreate, unless you have a hardware fault in which case you would have had the same subsystem losses and still a need to replace and restore a backup image of "something".

There is no such thing as "fake raid", rather hardware and software based. It is not very important anymore to move the work to the hardware when we have so much extra CPU idle time, so many CPU cores, such high memory bandwidth relative to HDD or SSD throughput.

... but if you want to make it hard, knock yourself out. Most RAID problems are user mistake, we can't very well assume RAID0 will cause a mistake but otherwise everything a user does is *perfect*.

Perhaps what you weren't doing is re-enabling TLER/etc support on desktop drives opposed to enterprise class drives? That's one of the main reasons members fall out of software raid arrays easily if they haven't had a complete failure to the point they are unsalvageable (which would bring us back to needing a backup and replacement hardware either way).


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki