I have no problem with smaller drives being abandoned. It means even the cheapest tablets and laptops will get higher capacity drives. I'm just eagerly awaiting the drop in prices. They've been stuck at around 25-30 cents per GB at retail for a looong while now. Samsung probably has the cheapest cost of production but no real competition.
When comparing the performance and reliability of the lowest cost crucial SSD's to the most high performance and expensive Samsung SSD's I only 1 test that matters most to me simply because it is not addressed by Anandtech in a meaningful way that can be understood by the average end user
Copy and Paste!
When I copy and paste 100GB of non compressible test data "to and from" the same drive, I get a real feel for how fast the SSD is when comparing it to a other SSD's
It will show me how much data can be transferred before throttling occurs and how many MB/sec it can actually transfer internally
I have 5400RPM Laptop hard drives that can copy and paste faster than early Vertex SSD's internally even though the Vertex transfers to or from the SSD faster
Try a simple real-world copy/paste test and compare the results to the synthetic results you are getting from your software test suite
Are the numbers the same? Are they repeatable and reliable? Are they simple enough that your readers can recreate and understand the results clearly?
Internal throughput speeds (Copy/paste speeds) could theoretically be higher than the limit of the port it is attached to if the internal processors are tweaked for just that very situation
Gigabytes of data could be copied almost instantly for backup before processing the copy
Once again, the Samsung 850 Pro will copy and past TWICE as fast as the Samsung 840 Pro but your test methodology does not clearly indicate or explain this fact to the end users who could easily do their own tests if they knew where the bottleneck was and how to check it quickly and easily ------------------------------------------------------------ I also torture SSD's with wiping utilities that are NOT recommended by the manufacturers because I have yet to see a single SSD, thumb drive or SD card destroyed by defragging and wiping even though I keep hearing dire warnings of imminent death to my flash cells
I will probable stop testing that way because I have never destroyed a single flash card after hundreds of wipes, but Copy/Paste will continue to enlighten me
Please compare your synthetic results to an actual copy/paste and explain the results in easy to understand language as to why it is important to the ACTUAL speed of the SSD under test
I would think if they are able to get higher densities, such as 512Gb we might see some reductions in price again. A 30% reduction in price would be appreciated.
Ultimately if 500GB drives get to the point where it is viable in a $1000 laptop, that would be good enough.
I think what they're saying is that 512 GB will become the minimum size in those laptops, otherwise you'll sacrifice a lot of speed (*cough* iPhone 7 *cough*).
I bought a Crucial MX300 750GB SATA 2.5" Drive (CT750MX300SSD1) on Thanksgiving day from Amazon,com LLC for $99.99. The price of 13.33 cents per gigabyte seemed like a reasonable sale price.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
14 Comments
Back to Article
jjj - Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - link
You should check WD's investors presentation from last week ,a few interesting bits there.MrCommunistGen - Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - link
I thought this was all pretty interesting. I'd never read about the technical hurdles involved in manufacturing 3D NAND.sonicmerlin - Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - link
I have no problem with smaller drives being abandoned. It means even the cheapest tablets and laptops will get higher capacity drives. I'm just eagerly awaiting the drop in prices. They've been stuck at around 25-30 cents per GB at retail for a looong while now. Samsung probably has the cheapest cost of production but no real competition.sonicmerlin - Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - link
Also why does doubling the density only result in a 30% reduction of per bit cost?extide - Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - link
Increase of cost of manufacturing per wafer, ie each wafer costs more to make, but not twice as much so you get the benefit there.Bullwinkle J Moose - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
When comparing the performance and reliability of the lowest cost crucial SSD's to the most high performance and expensive Samsung SSD's I only 1 test that matters most to me simply because it is not addressed by Anandtech in a meaningful way that can be understood by the average end userCopy and Paste!
When I copy and paste 100GB of non compressible test data "to and from" the same drive, I get a real feel for how fast the SSD is when comparing it to a other SSD's
It will show me how much data can be transferred before throttling occurs and how many MB/sec it can actually transfer internally
I have 5400RPM Laptop hard drives that can copy and paste faster than early Vertex SSD's internally even though the Vertex transfers to or from the SSD faster
Try a simple real-world copy/paste test and compare the results to the synthetic results you are getting from your software test suite
Are the numbers the same?
Are they repeatable and reliable?
Are they simple enough that your readers can recreate and understand the results clearly?
Internal throughput speeds (Copy/paste speeds) could theoretically be higher than the limit of the port it is attached to if the internal processors are tweaked for just that very situation
Gigabytes of data could be copied almost instantly for backup before processing the copy
Once again, the Samsung 850 Pro will copy and past TWICE as fast as the Samsung 840 Pro but your test methodology does not clearly indicate or explain this fact to the end users who could easily do their own tests if they knew where the bottleneck was and how to check it quickly and easily
------------------------------------------------------------
I also torture SSD's with wiping utilities that are NOT recommended by the manufacturers because I have yet to see a single SSD, thumb drive or SD card destroyed by defragging and wiping even though I keep hearing dire warnings of imminent death to my flash cells
I will probable stop testing that way because I have never destroyed a single flash card after hundreds of wipes, but Copy/Paste will continue to enlighten me
Please compare your synthetic results to an actual copy/paste and explain the results in easy to understand language as to why it is important to the ACTUAL speed of the SSD under test
THANK YOU!
jordanclock - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
This is some Ken M levels of trolling. Good job!doggface - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Yeah.. Wowsonicmerlin - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
How is this trolling? Stop redefining the definition of the word.nirwander - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
It's not sequential operations that we love SSDs for.jamyryals - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Terrific article!doggface - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Great article. Thanks for the insight.I would think if they are able to get higher densities, such as 512Gb we might see some reductions in price again. A 30% reduction in price would be appreciated.
Ultimately if 500GB drives get to the point where it is viable in a $1000 laptop, that would be good enough.
sonicmerlin - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
I think what they're saying is that 512 GB will become the minimum size in those laptops, otherwise you'll sacrifice a lot of speed (*cough* iPhone 7 *cough*).dealcorn - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
I bought a Crucial MX300 750GB SATA 2.5" Drive (CT750MX300SSD1) on Thanksgiving day from Amazon,com LLC for $99.99. The price of 13.33 cents per gigabyte seemed like a reasonable sale price.