backtop

Print 49 comment(s) - last by tastyratz.. on Mar 7 at 12:28 PM
Combines SSD speed with HDD capacity

Seagate has announced that it will begin shipping the third-generation of its solid-state hybrid drives. The new series includes a Seagate Laptop SSHD that is 7 mm high and designed to be used in the thinnest and lightest laptops in the industry.

Seagate's SSHDs claim to offer the speed of a solid-state drive and the storage capacity of a traditional hard drive, combining the best of both worlds. The manufacturer says that its SSHDs at the most affordable way to add performance to your laptop.
 
The hybrid drives allow a laptop to boot up in less than 10 seconds and are available with up to 1 TB of storage capacity (the 7 mm thick option has 500 GB of capacity).

“Seagate’s engineers have really out done themselves this time. Our new SSHDs serve up your favorite content with the lightning-fast performance you have to experience to believe. With these new drives it’s like adding a turbo-charge to your PC, without having to sacrifice capacity, at a price that’s easy on your wallet,” said Scott Horn, Seagate’s vice president of marketing. “Now consumers can create, store and consume digital content like a pro without having to spend like one.”

Seagate also has a Desktop SSHD that has 2 TB of storage capacity and 8 GB of flash storage allowing for speedy use with the most commonly used PC applications and for bulk storage at the same time. Pricing and availability are unknown.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Fail
By Zaranthos on 3/5/2013 11:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
They're betting their business on hybrid drives? They drop 7200 RPM in favor of slower 5400 RPM mechanical drives and to stay relevant they focus on hybrid drives. The price gap between 5400 and 7200 isn't enough to matter to people who'd rather not wait. Unless their plan is to start producing pure SSD's I don't see how they're not doomed. SSD's keep getting cheaper and they already have plenty of competition in the mechanical drive market. I don't see hybrid drives having much of a lifespan considering they have the weaknesses of both technologies in one drive. Can you replace the SSD component when it wears out?




RE: Fail
By Motoman on 3/5/2013 11:43:56 AM , Rating: 4
The issue at the moment is still the cost of SSDs per Gb.

You can buy a 1Tb regular hard drive for about $60. 2Tb for $100.

Compare that to a 1Tb SSD at about $2,500.

For the price of 1Tb of SSD space, you could have 50Tb of traditional hard drive space.

That is how they're not doomed. SSDs are not a viable option for medium to large scale storage.

Maybe someday they will be. But at a price multiple of 50, they're not even close right now.


RE: Fail
By ReloadAO on 3/5/2013 1:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! We do not know the pricing.

Probably best option now is SSD for OS+Programs and old friendly HDD for data, music, movies etc.


RE: Fail
By bug77 on 3/5/2013 2:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly! We do not know the pricing.


We do have a ballpark figure: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/179-11268...


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/5/2013 2:04:35 PM , Rating: 3
Eh... 1TB of SSD space is no longer $2,500, where have you been?

A pair of Samsung 500GB SSDs will run you $600 today.

Besides, the average person isn't using 2TB of space, 250GB to 500GB is enough for the average user, even one who downloads some stuff from iTunes. The users here are not "average".

Hybrid drives would have been a great idea... 3 years ago... Seagate is way late to the party.


RE: Fail
By lennylim on 3/5/2013 2:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. You will soon be able to get it in a single unit too, though two 2.5" drives take up less space than one 3.5" drive in any case.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235277/Mic...

"First quarter of 2013" the press release says.


RE: Fail
By rameshms on 3/5/2013 3:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
And the average person doesn't care if their laptop boots in 15 seconds or 5 minutes..

If I had $600 to spare and < 500GB to store, your solution is perfect. Unfortunately I only have $200 to spend and > 500GB to store.

These drives are perfect for my cause.. I don't use my laptop for video editing, I really don't need super high speed of SSDs for read/write of data/files. But I like the fact that these drives make my laptop superquick to boot and launch apps. I do want my browser or my editor to launch instantaneously which this HDD makes possible.


RE: Fail
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2013 5:16:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And the average person doesn't care if their laptop boots in 15 seconds or 5 minutes..


I think an "average person" cares if a program takes 15+ seconds to load as apposed to 3, yes, yes I do.

You know what, it's been years since these have been out, so I'm just going to say it. And you and all the luddites out there who haven't experienced an SSD can hate me for it, but I'm saying it anyway. If you aren't running your OS and apps off an SSD by now...

YOU
ARE

WRONG !


RE: Fail
By mikeyD95125 on 3/5/2013 6:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
YOU ARE WRONG !


Ha that doesn't even make sense.


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 3:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the average users I have met don't care if something takes 5 seconds or 15 seconds, but they sure as heck care when it takes 5 minutes!

My wife used to turn on her laptop, then go make a cup of tea and do other things because it took 2+ minutes to boot. Upgraded it to an Intel 40GB SSD (this was 2 years ago) and boot time went to about 15 seconds.

It does matter...

Of course, it helps that her 17" Dell laptop has 2 drive bays, I know that not everyone has that.

As for the $200 to spend, that will buy a 250GB SSD and 1 TB hard drive, or at least really close to it ($225 total for the pair).


RE: Fail
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2013 5:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. Why are people still stuck in this "one drive to rule them all" mindset? It drives me crazy. You should have one moderately sized SSD for your boot drive and programs, and then whatever hard drives you want for pure storage. What's the problem? Why are people just determined that they need ONE drive for everything?


RE: Fail
By seamonkey79 on 3/5/2013 9:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Because my laptop only has one spot to stick a drive in. Therefore, a hybrid drive combining high speed SSD and storage capacity spinning drive makes beautiful sense. I have a 240GB SSD in it now, and it's great, but I'm tired of planning on going on a trip and having to move out stuff so I can bring music and movies with me for when I'm not paying bunches for bad connections at hotels.


RE: Fail
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2013 8:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
SSD's do wonders for laptops, which traditionally are saddled with horrible 5400RPM HDD's for low power use. SSD's consume less power and perform several times better.

These are just hard drives with more cache. They don't come close to "combining" SSD performance with the storage of a platter. I think you would be VERY disappointed going from your SSD to one of these. Frankly they aren't even close.


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 3:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with you. My 67 year old mother completely gets that her 120GB SSD C: drive is for programs and her 2TB D: drive is for all data.

It really isn't that hard, I even named the drives "Programs" and "Data" so in Windows Explorer she can see the names.


RE: Fail
By Motoman on 3/5/2013 6:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh... 1TB of SSD space is no longer $2,500, where have you been?


Newegg. Today. Which, as of right now, lists exactly one 1Tb SSD. It's "on sale" for $2,500.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

And having 2 500Gb hard drives isn't the same as having one 1Tb - certainly not for people for whom creating a JBOD array is out of the question, or people who only have one HD port to work with.

Maybe not everyone needs a terabyte of storage - but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the incredible price premium comparing SSD to regular HDs. Saying that a 500Gb SSD is "only" $300, when you could get a regular HD of that size for $50, isn't helping your cause...


RE: Fail
By Motoman on 3/5/2013 6:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
And for the record, my personal rig has a 256Gb SSD for the OS, MS Office, and some other stuff I use all the time - whereas I have a 2Tb regular HD that all my games and everything else are on.

I also switched my laptop from a regular HD to a SSD a while ago.

Do they boot faster? Sure. Do programs launch faster? Sure. Was it worth the money I spent?

No. The few seconds here and there really don't make much difference to me. The differences look night-and-day when you look at the hard numbers...say, 15 seconds to boot instead of 45. Word launches in 5 seconds instead of 10. The thing is, outside of that...there's not really any perceptible difference. And when it comes right down to it, I don't care that much about those handfuls of seconds in a day that are noticeable.

It's not worth the money. It's just not. Not at the price premium things are at now. A 256Gb SSD, right now on Newegg, is $170. Compared to a 2Tb regular HD at $99, that's 13 times the cost-per-volume. Thirteen times more expensive. To save myself, at most, a couple minutes in an average day.

Nope. Not worth it.


RE: Fail
By kypd275 on 3/6/2013 3:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
maybe not for you, but the improved responsiveness of my system and loading speed, which is what I bought my SSDs for, is certainly worth it for me.

For data storage, I leave that to the other 10TB of HDDs.


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 3:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. If it isn't worth it to you, then that is a true statement... for you...

I would submit then that you are not a power user and this is why you don't see a difference.

For anyone who does anything at all with computers beyond opening Word and Internet Explorer, it does make a difference, a huge difference.

I do this for a living... Every time I have to sit down at a computer with a HDD as the boot drive, it is painful! I'm like, "ugg, this is why these things can't die fast enough!".

I used to do what you do, use an Intel 160GB X25G2 for boot and HDDs for games and other things. That got so painful I upgraded the boot drive to a newer SSD and moved the 160GB SSD to game duties, and added some more HDD space for everything else.

I looked at Newegg's sale today of the 500GB SSDs and have been debating back and forth about replacing both of my SSDs (180GB Intel 330 & 160GB Intel X25G2) with a pair of the new 500GB 840 Samsung drives.

$600 sounds like a lot, but it really isn't in the long run, not if you make a decent income and you value your time. I would be able to move everything but movies to the SSDs, including temp files, working folders, music, pictures, games, etc.

2.5 years ago, I paid nearly $500 for my 160GB X25G2, now for about the same money I can get 1TB of space.

2.5 years from now, this will all be a moot point, 2TB SSDs will probably be $300 then and 500GB SSDs will be $100 and no one will be talking about spinning disks anymore.

That is why Seagate is way late to the party, SSDs will come down in price to the point where no one will care anymore.


RE: Fail
By Motoman on 3/6/2013 10:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would submit then that you are not a power user and this is why you don't see a difference.


That's funny...I'm pretty sure I make a living doing IT work and application development.

You've said nothing that actually makes any case as to how it's made a "huge difference."

Frankly, I just simply don't believe you when you say things like that. When a computer is slow to boot, it's probably because it's full of whackloads of BS bloatware starting at boot, and/or sucked up with malware, leftover BS in the registry from old/dead/uninstalled programs, etc. Maintain a decent computer and you won't have that issue.

Ultimately it kind of doesn't matter though - you boot your PC up in the morning, and you turn it off at night. That boot time just doesn't make any difference. And the time saved in launching a different program to work in, or to switch between programs, etc. just doesn't make much difference at all. The difference isn't "huge" - it's tiny, and the vast majority of the time, it's imperceptible.

Years from now, as SSD costs come down, this probably will be a moot point. But this is now. And right now, you're really just not making any sense.


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 10:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, making a living do IT work doesn't make you a power user.

If you don't see an improvement by moving to an SSD, then you're the exception, not the rule, as the vast majority of people are wowed when we upgrade them.

That is ok, everyone is different and there is always someone who doesn't see the benefit to something new.

But there is a reason everyone is rapidly moving to SSDs, this is clearly the future, the improvements are dramatic and very worthwhile for most people.


RE: Fail
By bsd228 on 3/6/2013 2:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
> If you don't see an improvement by moving to an SSD, then you're the exception, not the rule, as the vast majority of people are wowed when we upgrade them.

No, he said that the improvement was not great enough to justify the expense of a large SSD drive. Most people buy a 120 or 240G drive for the boot OS and programs, and keep large datasets on a 2TB disk. Few people are buying a terabyte or two of SSD and running no disks at all.

And for a desktop you turn on in the morning (or never turn off) and load up the programs upfront, the SSD performance gains are nearly over (still some gains on noise). Any machine with 16G of memory (or even 12 or 8) will happily keep most data in memory.

The first generation hybrid Seagate sent out was pretty awful. It was substantially better with the second, and people should wait to see some benchmarking (paying attention to the working tasks over the synthetic benchmarks like iops) before writing this off as a useless option. RST and the software OCZ has been using for SSD caching has proven to give substantial value.

in 5 years (or less?), the SSD pricing will likely make it all moot, but it's not 2018 yet.


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 3:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
You're using a single crazy overpriced example to dodge the point. 1TB of SSD storage doesn't cost $2,500 anymore and hasn't for awhile now.

Yes, granted, you do have to buy a pair of 500GB drives to do it, but really, even 1 of those is fine for the vast majority of people.

You're right, not everyone has a second drive bay in their notebook, but who is using their notebook as their only computer?

I would submit that *most* people who only have a small 14" or 15" notebook as their only computer are not the type of power user who needs multiple TB of storage.

There will be exceptions, but that covers most people.


RE: Fail
By kypd275 on 3/6/2013 3:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
and those who do, can just use a usb2/3 external drive.


RE: Fail
By Motoman on 3/6/2013 10:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
You think you're making a point - you're not.

A single 2Tb regular hard drive is $100. If we presume that you "want" 2Tb of storage space, one way or another, and it doesn't have to all be on one drive, then buy 4 of your $300 500Gb SSDs. That's $1,200.

$600 a Tb vs. $50 a Tb. That's a multiple of 12. Which is still a crazy increase in cost - assuming you're OK with juggling 4 drives instead of one.

No my friend, it isn't me who's dodging any points - it's you. The inescapable fact of the matter is that SSDs are still incredibly more expensive than regular HDs - whether you're trying to do it with one drive or not.
You think you


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 11:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
My point was that 1TB of SSD space no longer costs $2,500. $600 is a lot less than $2,500.

As for space, most people would be well served with the 250GB Samsung 840 SSD that Newegg is selling for $149 right now, then adding a HDD if they need large media storage beyond that.

The improvements to system speed and program loading that comes from an SSD are simply too great to ignore. The SSD might cost 12 times as much, but it is hundreds of times faster than a HDD for random reads, which is what happens when you run programs.

Cost per GB of storage, sure, HDDs win, but price per unit of storage isn't the only measure worth looking at.


RE: Fail
By Motoman on 3/6/2013 3:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point was that 1TB of SSD space no longer costs $2,500.


It does if you only want/have room for one drive.

But regardless, you're clearly vastly too impressed with SSDs anyway. I've already stated that they are, indeed, faster for bootup and launching programs. However, I defy you to demonstrate any noticeable difference while actually *using* your computer. Because, effectively, there is none.

Maybe you get wowed by the boot time. Great. Then what?


RE: Fail
By tastyratz on 3/7/2013 12:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Disagree,
I can see many opportunities for this although they are late to CAPITALIZE on it and take a lions share, there is still plenty of room in the market for the next few years where this is a viable option.


RE: Fail
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2013 5:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is how they're not doomed. SSDs are not a viable option for medium to large scale storage.


Except the hybrid drive stacks poorly against standard HDD's in cost per gig, and fails badly against SSD's in performance. If large scale storage is what you want, why would you buy these? There's virtually no benefits that can't be achieved with HDD's, for less cost and more reliability.

"Hybrid" drives are next to useless basically.


RE: Fail
By zephyrprime on 3/5/2013 1:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
They use single level cells so that allows for 10x the lifespan of multi level cells.


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/5/2013 2:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
SSD lifespans are not the concern everyone thinks they are.

I'm a fairly heavy user, I bought a 160GB Intel X25G2 SSD about 2.5 years ago, back when they were nearly $500.

It has been my boot drive ever since, it has 96% of its life left.

It would take me decades to wear it out, but I'll throw it in the trash long before that time comes.

The average user, and even heavy desktop users, do not write as much as they think they do.


RE: Fail
By Morvannec on 3/6/2013 8:24:11 AM , Rating: 2
I remember having a discussion at work a year or so ago about SSDs. I was saying SSD life was a non-issue and the other guy was adamant if we installed our software on one it would die after a year or two (our software writes to disk a lot).

We can run some numbers to see what SSD life might turn out like. Let's take a 128GB SSD and give it a juicy 500MB/s write speed. Worst case (and utterly unrealistic) is that it writes at the full 500MB/s 24/7. We next have to make some assumptions about how many writes the SSD can perform on each block/cell. I'll be honest here and say I don't really know, but from the research I've done in the past we're talking 10,000 to 100,000, even up to millions on top notch SSDs.

So a 128GB SSD @ 500MB/s with:

100,000 writes: 296 days
1,000,000 writes: 8.1 years

296 days doesn't sound great does it? It would only be 29 days with 10,000 writes. But this is at a continuous 43.2TB of writing per day.

So what about a more realistic (hah) usages and more conservative write limits? Let's say a day of constant usage averages out at a write rate of 10MB/s every day.

5,000 writes: 2 years
10,000 writes: 4 years
25,000 writes: 10 years
100,000 writes: 40.5 years

Now consider your average consumer won't ever average 10MB/s a day of writing (that'd be 864GB!).

I didn't account for the size of the SSD blocks (to be honest I don't know enough about the internal workings of SSDs to take the numbers any deeper), which would lower the numbers somewhat, but from the consumer side of things it wouldn't effect the results enough to matter (enterprise it might).

You get the idea.

*disclaimer: I hope my maths is correct, heck, even my understanding of the issue.


RE: Fail
By Motoman on 3/6/2013 10:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nice job. It is ridiculous how some people get all freaky over the MTBF of SSDs.

That's not the issue. The one and only thing holding SSDs back is cost.


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 11:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
On this we can agree...

My 160GB Intel X25G2 is now 2.5 years old. It spent 2 years as my boot drive used every day, now it is my working drive for temp folders, compressing files, running a few games, etc. Steam is installed on it so every time a game is updated, it is written to.

In 2.5 years, 4% of its life has been used up. At that pace, it will take 62.5 years to wear out the drive.

I will have thrown it away LONG before that happens...

In all the SSDs that I look at, none are worn more than a few %, outside of a server environment, SSD life is indeed a nonissue.

Cost is an issue, but that rapidly isn't as much of one anymore. Now that SSDs are approaching 50 cents a GB, it isn't such a concern. 2.5 years ago when the cost was $3 per GB, that was harder to deal with.

2.5 years from now, when SSDs are 10 cents a GB, is anyone going to care? I doubt it...


RE: Fail
By ritualm on 3/6/2013 2:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
The main problem with your numbers is this: when you measure the endurance of a SSD over time, the write speed of the SSD never matters ; what really matters is how much data you write to the drive every day.

Epic analysis fail. Go back to square one.


RE: Fail
By WeaselITB on 3/6/2013 3:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's take a 128GB SSD and give it a juicy 500MB/s write speed. Worst case (and utterly unrealistic) is that it writes at the full 500MB/s 24/7.


Epic reading comprehension fail. Go back to square one.

-Weasel


RE: Fail
By kyuuketsuki on 3/5/2013 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
"Weaknesses of both"? What about the strengths? The cost per GB is only barely more than a conventional HDD, which is still significantly lower than any SSD. The 8GB of NAND can hold enough data to make a lot of everyday tasks significantly faster than on any HDD.

Why would you buy a conventional HDD over one of these SSHDs in any application where performance is even of peripheral concern? Granted, I wish the 2.5" drives were 7200RPM, but I'd take 5400RPM with the NAND cache over a conventional 7200RPM drive any day.


RE: Fail
By Silver2k7 on 3/5/2013 4:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is still price per TB.

We will soon have 5TB drives.. and as soon as new manufacturing technologies get to the market we shall probably have 8TB+

Lets say that in 2015 we have a 8TB HDD 3.5" drive.

So unless there will be 8TB SSD competing at the same pricepoint I doubt that HDD is going anywhere at this time.


RE: Fail
By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 3:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
That is true, but don't be shocked if 5 years from now SSDs start to approach price parity with HDDs.

2.5 years ago, Intel 160GB X25G2 was $500. Today that money buys you nearly 1TB of space, this is an 8 fold improvement.

HDDs have not dropped in price that much in the same time.

SSDs will continue to come down in price, they do not have the same fixed manufacturing restrictions as HDDs.

While a 1TB SSD in 2.5 years might cost $200, that also means a 250GB SSD would be $50. In 2.5 years, 250GB will be plenty for most people and at the $50 price point, that removes price as an issue.

For the average user, I still don't find a need for TB hard drives. I just don't see it outside of video collectors, people with huge Steam game collections, and of course porn collections.

And I do this for a living and see a lot of computers.

Right now, 250GB is about the sweet spot for usage, 500GB is nice to have, 1TB covers 95% of our users.


Needs Larger SSD Cache
By Ristogod on 3/5/2013 10:49:46 AM , Rating: 1
I think these would do better with a 20GB SSD cache as opposed to the current 8GB.




RE: Needs Larger SSD Cache
By Ammohunt on 3/5/2013 11:38:51 AM , Rating: 3
So you need to write 20GB before its flushed to platers? 8gb seems to me to be a sweet spot.


RE: Needs Larger SSD Cache
By bug77 on 3/5/2013 11:50:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, currently these are looking rather sweet. However, the larger the buffer, the less wear if has to endure. Now if only manufacturers stopped rigging their systems with 5400rpm drives...


RE: Needs Larger SSD Cache
By theapparition on 3/5/2013 11:50:38 AM , Rating: 3
No, it's not cache. It's storage.

The system calculates the most commonly accessed files and stores them in the SSD area for quick access. There is actually very little writing to the SSD area once everything settles in.

Very different from actual cache.


RE: Needs Larger SSD Cache
By bug77 on 3/5/2013 2:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
The system? These need support in the operating system?


RE: Needs Larger SSD Cache
By kyuuketsuki on 3/5/2013 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's cache. The fact that it holds certain bits of data in there without flushing them doesn't suddenly make it not cache. Plus, it certainly will flush data out and move other data in if the algorithm determines it will be beneficial. The only things that stay in there permanently are those which have been programmed to do so, such as data used during startup and (likely) file indexing data.

Also, it's not the most commonly accessed *files*. These don't work through the system and are not aware of the file system (and hence, file-system agnostic). These work with blocks of data.


RE: Needs Larger SSD Cache
By Shadowself on 3/5/2013 5:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
No. You're talking about something like Apple's "Fusion Drive". This is not that. This drive is OS independent. The solid state storage is cache. This is not a tiered storage solution.


RE: Needs Larger SSD Cache
By kyuuketsuki on 3/5/2013 3:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
They are going to release drives with more cache (likely 32GB), but obviously those will be at higher price points.


Only 8GB of Cache? That isn't enough
By TacticalTrading on 3/5/2013 5:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think they need to offer at least 16GB or 32GB of Solid State. The problem is, if they do, then they start running into a pricing problem.

Most PCs or laptops have at least 4GB of RAM, and Windows likes the swap file almost as big as the RAM.
Part of the SSD is for frequent OS Files and programs. Note: My Windows folder is 34GB (I know, most isn't important) But still that give you some sizing perspective.
If the entire swap file won't fit on the solid state side, it is going to be on the (ouch) 5400RPM side. That defeats a major SSD speed advantages.

I like the Hybrid Idea. The problem is to hit the targeted price point, they can't put a lot of flash in it. Unfortunately, the target market user that fits comfortably into 8GB of flash, are generally basic users that don't really care for (read: won't pay up for) the speed advantage




By FlyTexas on 3/6/2013 11:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
This hits the nail on the head...

And while many systems have 4GB of RAM, 8GB is quickly becoming standard. Heck, even the new PS4 has 8GB of RAM and we're starting to put 16GB of RAM into better machines. 16GB of DDR memory now costs about $100, that much memory lets you do away with the page file completely and you can have everything under the sun running without an issue.

2-3 years from now, when desktops have 32GB of RAM, an 8GB SSD cache is really going to look silly.

Like I said, Seagate is way late to the party. 3 years ago, there could have been a serious market for this drive and it could have headed off pure SSDs at the pass, but that ship has sailed...

The fact that Western Digital and Seagate don't have a full line of SSDs is a shame, but not unexpected. They both have 20+ years of having their wagon hitched to HDDs, they didn't want to do anything to threaten that, but in being so married to them, they are both probably doomed.

HDD manufacturing volumes will start to drop as SSDs become less expensive, more production of SSDs will only bring their cost down, at some point, don't be shocked to see price parity between the two.


Seagate Is Expanding
By tng on 3/5/2013 6:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
Just a note that the building that Solyndra was in now has a very large Seagate symbol on the side of it.

Looks like Seagate is expanding.




"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone









botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki