Why can't SSD have more storage space?
phases
Posts: 255 Forum Member
✭
Why can't SSD have more storage space like 500gb as is the case in hard disk drives?
0
phases
Posts: 255 phases
Posts: 255 phases
Posts: 255 phases
Posts: 255
Comments
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-Series-500GB-Solid-State/dp/B009LI7CEE
You can see the problem though ;-)
They can have more GB but they would cost even more than they do now.
But you really only need them for the operating system and then use another drive for storage, so a 100GB drive will do and then use a normal HD for storage.
Samsung do 1TB of their consumer drives but they are £370 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00E3W16OU/
As with the 1TB SSD in the link below.
http://www.dabs.com/products/samsung-1tb-840-evo-series-sata-6gb-s-2-5--solid-state-drive-8WCN.html?refs=52450000-376770000&catid=15004&src=3
Exactly. Buying an SSD simply to store stuff on would be a waste of money. In my opinion, SSDs show their 'magic' when using applications and stuff like that. The rendering of websites might also be much faster as well.
err why? when they will all end up this way eventually in years to come anyhow. i'd love to store all my pics, music etc on an SSD.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seagate-ST1000DX001-Hybrid-Internal-Solid/dp/B00ELAVIQ0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1395272605&sr=8-2&keywords=hybrid+drive
Thinking of getting one. Already have a 120gb samsung SSD as my boot drive, but a normal one for my storage. Thinking maybe I will go for one of these hybrid drives which are claimed to be up there in speed with SSDs.
So the best solution could be like a 120gb SSD for boot drive and a 1tb or more hybrid drive, and it would only cost a little over £100.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-120GB-Basic-Solid-State/dp/B00E391KA8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395272795&sr=8-1&keywords=samsung+840+evo+120gb
Samsung 840 Evo 120gb ssd £61 and a Seagate 1tb hybrid drive for £58,
Yes, when the price of them comes right down. I think they cost too much at the minute to use them just for storage.
Incredible boot times, plus fast load times for my games and other stuff.
Long term stuff can go my standard 1Tb HD, or my 2Gb Nas, or even on the cloud.
Where did you see the 330GB one for that price? I can only imagine that the read and write speed is a lot lower than the better ones out there. Also, the 128GB one you mentioned is more pricier than the ones I've seen. I can imagine SSDs being put in laptops and computers in a few years the way prices are dropping.
According to the specifications on Dabs, the write speed for the Crucial SSD is a lot slower than the Samsung one. The Crucial one writes at only 400MBs/s, whereas the Samsung one writes at 520MBs/s.
That's ok, I'm prepared to wait 10.2 seconds for the crucial to boot into windows 7 as opposed to the 9.4 that the fastest Samsung one takes. I think I can spare the 0.8 seconds that I lose.
Actually, after a bit of research just now, it appears that what's more important could be the IOPS of the write and read speed. That Crucial SSD is quite high with these two. I think the Input Output Operations Per Second of the write and read are the ones to take most notice of. I suspect a high MBs/s is also good though.
The average home user won't notice any difference. In all the performance tests I have seen the Samsung is ahead but there is nothing wrong with the Crucial drive.
Samsung does have better management and migration software and caching in RAM function called RAPID.
Unless they take careful notice of the performance.
I remember many moons ago buying a very expensive 1 GB USB Stick.