SSD capacity could quadruple by 2029 — 8Tb NAND will bring big and affordable SSDs to the market
SSD capacity could quadruple by 2029 — 8Tb NAND will bring big and affordable SSDs to the market
And Apple will finally sell the iPhone starting with 256GB
Technically the Pro Max already starts at 256 GB (starting with the 15 series iirc). But they simply removed the 128 GB option from the price stack.
What do you need 256gb for? You don’t seriously store photos and videos on your phone… as the only place?
My 100GB music library leaves less space than I'd like on a 128GB phone.
My girlfriend learned that lesson the hard way. We now have a nas and off-site storage.
Yeah, I don’t get this. I still haven’t used more than ~115GB in years that I’ve been on iPhone. All my photos are in RAW (since supported) and I’ve got a huge lossless (or better) music library.
Granted I don’t have 100% of everything on my phone all the time, but even my iCloud storage is pretty low.
The prices will stay the same. Manufacturers will just make more profit.
Is that what has happened to the storage market historically?
Not at all. The price of storage has plummeted so much that most video games comfortably use ~100GB for large games and don’t care because even SSD storage is extremely cheap.
If you don’t believe me, here’s a post on Reddit that shows it off pretty well.
I'm optimistic. I'm making numbers out of my butt because I literally can't remember.
But I think My 20GB SSD from 2010 was about $100. I used to dualboot.
Today, I can get a 512GB SSD for $50.
SSDs were relatively new in 2010, and priced accordingly. Now it's just about increasing sizes and (hopefully) reliability. I just don't think that all of a sudden we'll have huge cheap SSDs - people are used to a certain price point and manufacturers will take advantage of that.
Same SSDs are about 40% more expensive today than they were this time last year.
I got a 1TB SSD for 55€, so about 60 something dollars. Prices are certainly dropping
Today, I can get a 512GB SSD for $50.
Maybe 2.5" but not 2280
Yup.
For SSDs this has historically not been the case, there's no way in hell you could buy a 1TB SSD within $200 a decade ago.
A decade ago 1TB SSDs were rare and, like all new things in tech, expensive.
Yet apple will still charge $200 for 128gb
It's almost as if oligopolies can manipulate prices regardless of availability
32 level "PLC" cells, OMG. How about staying at levels with some durability.
Amazing news! Unfortunately, if this comes to Brazil and 8tb SSD would be the price of a car
That makes cars very cheap or technology very expensive
Or both extremely expensive.
What do they cost you now?
R$ 5.460,00 (Brazilian Reais), the first comment is just exaggerating and having a 'mongrel complex' take. It is nowhere near the price of a car even today.
They already exist. $dayjob bought some 64GB ssds. They were about $7500USD per drive.
For 64gb? Did you mean tb or is there something unique about these drives?
More density means less longevity, less write cycles before the blocks wear out, also decreases the time before Nand leakage can end up corrupting the data. Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.
Oh yeah, also more storage space causes complacency with developers who will terribly optimize their games because they don't have to worry about games not fitting on people's disks. Think 100GB games is bad it'll get much worse when they got more free space at their disposal, and worse, the perception that their customers have tons of free space as well.
I don't disagree with you, but on the other hand, this will be a huge boon for people who do things like sail the high seas and wish to keep what they acquire long term. You're not constantly rewriting in those cases. You're just slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) filling up the drive. Eventually, it's essentially read only.
Considering how much I spent on 6 TB of regular hard drive storage for this reason a few years ago, I'd be all for affordable 8 TB SSDs.
sail the high seas
You don't need solid state storage for Linux ISOs
I recently bought a 5TB hard drive. It's funny how that sounds like a lot of space until you fill it up and find yourself eyeing another.
I mean, you're not wrong but I eventually bought all that shit I torrented in college on gog or steam when I got a job
Thinking about it, it would be nice if when formatting a partition on mlc based drives, you could specify the number of bits per cell used. So an 8tb QLC drive could be formatted as a 2tb SLC for those who want the resilience, without having to commit to it permanently.
I'm sure there are technical reasons that would be difficult, but everything started out difficult until we figured it out.
For the first part, as long as it isn't too bad and it gets detected, and has methods for mitigating damage from losses, that's fine. If you get a lot more capacity but lose some over time, you still have more capacity.
For the latter, yeah it does but do they even care now? Personally, I don't play any games that large really anyway, so it doesn't effect me. Let them lose you as a customer too if that's an issue and they surpass how much you'll put up with.
The first part also applies to cold storage, like if you leave it off for a while and data will degrade without power as electrons leak out. Something that might be a concern for data archival on these drives.
I don't think they do care now, I'm not super worried about it but I might be if I wanted to get a PC port of a game that isn't on PC now, where the old one is well optimized but the new one isn't. Was the story when I got Okami HD on PC, it's insane how they went from a game which came on an 8GB disc for PS3 and it's 34GB on PC, I know they included 4K in the PC one but the fact it's so much insanely larger makes me think a lot of it was wasted space by not compressing what could be compressed.
Large game file size is an optimization
Excellent, I needed more space for cookies, malware and games that suddenly require 500GB of free space. I'll have that thing full in no time.
Just don't play the AAA slop and the file sizes are a lot better.
Not sure which ones are AAA slop. I play online every Monday with a friend in the UK. Here are some of the games we've played:
Grim Dawn, Diablo 4, Borderlands, Borderlands 2, Borderlands 3, Borderlands the presequel, Tiny Tina's Wonderland, and currently we're playing Aliens Elite something.
But I have played other games with a different group of friends online.
Man, the formatting sucks. There was a carriage return after every game. Why is it there for the paragraphs and gone for the lists?
And soon enough we'll see 1tb games once storage is plenty.
Good news but it'll be a while before I can replace the 20TB drives in my NAS with these.
It's looking like 2029 will be the turning point. Right now, we are on the verge of having 16tb m.2s on the market, and by 2029 SSDs will be around $10-15/TB like HDDs are now.
In 2029, if semiconductor trends continue, it is likely that we will have 16TB SSDs for ~$200 and 32TB SSDs for ~$500; Cheaper than the $320 we're paying for 20TB HDDs right now.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ssds/16tb-m2-ssds-will-soon-grace-the-market
The HDD industry doesn't seem like it will improve at the same rate. It is likely that the SSD market will have better $/TB than the HDD market in 2029, unless hard drives make some massive breakthrough before then. The survival of the HDD industry past the next 5 years is basically riding on Seagate's ability to successfully release HAMR technology.
While I fully agree with the SSD side, you seem to ignore that HDDs are also getting cheaper per TB (always have, and usually quite noticeably). Also the reliability of large to huge SSDs remains to be seen as well. Obviously a breakthrough in HDD technology would have an influence as well, as you mentioned.
I'm not saying SSDs aren't here to take over, they surely will eventually (preferably sooner), but I think it'll be a few more years until we got actual price parity per TB. Even when ignoring other aspects like reliability.
You can’t really reliably use consumer SSDs in a server/NAS situation though, unless you more prepared to replace them every 12-24 months and suffer poor read/write speeds under load
You would replace your NAS drives with SSDs?
Im not super experienced with NAS and only started home networking like three years ago. but I read SSDs would die quicker than traditional disks.
I’m not sure although it’s mostly used for media storage so there aren’t a lot of write operations. Having said that I do have solid state M2 drives in there for caching with no issues so far.
"Could"
I'll believe it when I see it. 4TB SSDs are still not affordable.
I'm all for it, and it's just the usual "moores law" trend, I just wonder if we won't hit a wall where (most!) users just won't need it?
most users already dont use what theyve got. its more about reducing physical size for the masses... these new techs will allow for even smaller storage for thinner, more efficient devices.
i think only some power users (im a data horader) and commercial interests care about bulk storage
I'm slightly surprised that loss of faith in corporations being good stewards of our cultural content - wantonly deleting cherished shows, namely - has not driven a larger move towards personal ownership of media. In a world where anything that fails to be profitable faces destruction, owning your stuff has never been a better idea.
I can't believe how much mileage I've gotten out of my 512GB SSDs on my laptops. And my "big" backup disks are hand me down 1TB HDs my friend didn't need. I don't do video, though.
Thermal is a wall to contend with as well. At the moment SSDs get the density from 3D stacking the planes of substrate that make up the memory cells. Each layer contributes some heat and at some point the layer in the middle gets too hot from the layers below and not being close enough to the top to dissipate the heat upwards fast enough.
One way to address this was the multi-level cell (MLC) where instead of on/off, the voltage within the cell could represent multiple bits. So 0-1.5v = 00, 1.6-3v = 01, 3.1-4.5v = 10, 4.6-5v = 11. But that requires sense amplifiers that can handle that, which aren't difficult outright to etch, they just add complexity to ensure that the amplifier read the correct value. We've since moved to eight-level cells, where each cell holds an entire byte, and the error correction circuits are wild for the sense amplifiers. But all NAND FGMOS leak, so if you pack eight levels into a single cell, even small leaks can be the difference between sensing one level from another level. So at some point packing more levels into the cell will just lead to a cell that leaks too quickly for the word "storage" to be applied to the device. It's not really storage any longer if powering the device off for half a year puts all the data at risk.
So once going upwards and packing hits a wall, the next direction is moving out. But the more you move outward, the further one is placing the physical memory cells from the controller. It's a non-zero amount of distance and the speed of light is only so fast. One light-nanosecond is about 300 millimetres, so a device operating at 1GHz frequency clock has that distance to cover in a single tick of the clock in an ideal situation, which heat, quantum effects, and so on all conspire to make it less than ideal. So you can only go so far out before you begin to require cache in the in-between steps and scheduling of block access that make the entire thing more complex and potentially slow it down.
And there are ways to get around that as well, but all of them begin to really increase the cost, like having multi-port chips that are accessed on multi-channel buses, basically creating a small network inside your SSD of chips. Sort of how like a lot of CPUs are starting to swap over to chiplet designs. We can absolutely keep going, but there's going to be cost associated with that "keep going" that's going to be hard to bring down. So there will be a point where that "cost to utility" equation for end-users will start playing a much larger role long before we hit some physical wall.
That said, the 200 domain of layers was thought to be the wall for stacking due to heat, there was some creative work done and the number of layers got past 300, but the chips do indeed generate a lot more heat these days. And maybe heat sinks and fans for your SSD aren't too far off in the future, I know passive cooling with a heat sink is already becoming vogue with SSDs. The article indicated that Samsung and SK hynix predict being able to hit 1000+ layers, which that's crazy to think about, because even with the tricks being employed today to help get heat out of the middle layers faster, I don't see how we use those same tricks to hit past 500+ layers without a major change in production of the cells, which usually there's a lot of R&D that goes behind such a thing. So maybe they've been working on something nobody else knows about, or maybe they're going to have active cooling for SSDs? Who knows, but 1000+ layers is wild to think about, but I'm pretty sure that such chips are not going to come down in prices as quickly as some consumers might hope. As it gets more complex, that length of time before prices start to go down starts to increase. And that slows overall demand for more density as only the ones who see the higher cost being worth their specific need gets more limited to very niche applications.
We hit that point in spinning disk drives a while ago for me
The issue is, every time we make a great leap in storage medium, we tend to use that new storage for BIGGER files. Higher quality media and all that. Back in the day, the average movie file was measured in the MB. Now it's GB. Think about an old floppy with 1.4 MB of data and how many text files you stored on it. You couldn't ever imagine needing more space. Then came pictures and music files. Video files. Then higher resolution picture and video files. Suddenly even your text documents aren't just raw .txt files, but Word documents and interactive PDFs.
As storage improves, what we expect to be able to carry around with us or have in our home computer changes. I'm currently running a home server with 18TB of storage. An amount that I would have never dreamed of possessing 20 years ago, and yet here I am debating when I grab that 24TB drive because I can already see me running out of space in a few months.
This is all to say that I really don't think there will ever be a maximum amount a user could need. Give them that maximum and in a week they'll have figured out a way to use it to capacity. I think video games and cartridge/disk size limitations and then the transition to digital games and balloning game size shows my point.
This demand is also dictated by what companies see as a default setup, now it's 0,5Tb+ SSDs as syst drives. W10\11 doesn't work on HDDs because their update and security services can overwhelm your disk's speed and make the system unresponsive. If you are given an older hardware by your employer, good luck, as your OS and other programs assume they don't need to limit either speed or size, and the only way to keep using the same features is to upgrade.
Our family’s first proper PC back in around ‘93 had a 1gb HDD. I remember strutting about at school like I was the top shit because of how great my computer was.
These days I have a modded iPod mini with 128gb that I’m getting close to needing to increase because of my love of 320kbps MP4 files.
Its already been 6 years since the first 100TB SSD released and I still don't think anyone has bothered to dethrone it last I checked. Density and number of layers possible have both increased since then. I imagine part of it is just a performance issue though; 10 10TB SSDs are gonna be faster than 1 100TB SSD.
At the consumer level, the usage of smaller form factors will probably mean more density will still be useful. Things like the steamdeck drives will benefit for a while.
64TB ssds are fairly common in the enterprise market now, I don't think they were 6 years ago. It's possible we'll see 128TB SSDs become fairly common on servers in a few years.
They'll be useful for gamers, at least. With the increasing trend of companies caring less about properly optimizing the size of game installs and expecting gamers to have SSDs for texture loading on the fly, these drives will definitely see use. I currently have a 4TB HDD that has over 2.3TB of Steam games installed on it right now (roughly 100 games from tiny indie games to big AAA releases that are 40-80 gigs in size), and several newer games have an SSD listed as one of their minimum requirements.
Ya, didn't say it will instantly be useless 😁, I'd pick up a 4TB or more because why not?
My first SSD was a 256GB (I really splurged on that one) now I have a 2TB for cheaper, soon it will be 20TB and then 200TB etc. Will video games grow that fast? My thought is it won't and that's all I guess 😊
NAND density is always useful for the ultra portable end, be it used in applications like phones, portable gaming devices, microcontroller boards and such, where space or pci-e lanes is often the limiting factor. when the capacity of nand grows, options become better, as nand usually doubles in capacity per chip.
We've already hit a perceived user experience limit. The perception of responsiveness in blind tests between SATA and NVMe SSDs isn't always apparent--people sometimes say the SATA drive is faster--even though the speed difference on paper is substantial.
IMO, programmers haven't exploited the possibilities of extremely fast mass storage yet. The orders of magnitude difference in speed isn't fully realized. It's not just faster, it's faster in a way that requires new approaches. Unlike multicore CPUs over a decade ago, this change in thinking has gone relatively unnoticed by programmers.
I'm already avoiding buying newer SSDs because the durability is dropping off a cliff.
I'm really scared of them cramming more and more bits in the same cell. Every time they double that number it's got to be cutting the write longevity in half. Unless they've got some other thing they can do to increase that.
TLC or bust for me.
I'd only consider QLC for low write high read situations like a NAS that serves as media storage.
Yeah, density isn't really an issue IMO, I want reliable, cheap, and fast, in that order, yet SSDs seem to be going for dense, fast, and cheap, with little thought for long-term reliability.
I'm sure we will get some "random" fire at some factory to drive prices up again.
That's likely the point where spinning platters die in the marketplace.
Right now, spinning platters are around $12/tb. SSDs are around $75. Exact numbers fluctuate with features and market changes, but those are the ballpark. Cut in half, SSDs will be $38/tb, and then $19 in the next halving. Spinning platters aren't likely to see the same level of reduction in that time period; they're a mature technology.
I think once they reach double the price per tb, we'll see a major collapse of the hard drive market. My thinking is that there's a lot of four drive RAID 10 systems out there. With SSDs, those can be two drive RAID 1, and will still be faster. With half the drives, they can be twice the price and work out the same.
Spinning platters are already dead in many ways because even though they've increased in capacity, they haven't meanigfully changed read/write speeds in decades, which makes moving the ever increasing data a huge pain.
Most hardrives live in servers, as part of storage volumes where IO can be optimised well beyond the capability of a single disk.
For the boot disk on my workstation I am absolutely using an SSD, but for the hundreds of terabytes of largely static data that I need to keep archived? Spinning disks all the way. Not only to SSDs need to match on price, but they also have a long way to come in terms of longevity.
This is it. Yes, spinning HDDs may be cheaper, but replacing mine with an SSD made my PC faster and quieter, especially on boot.
Not really relevant, but I just moved 150ish GB between SSDs in a few minutes, less than 5 for sure. As a teenager such an operation (moving 3 games between drives) would have taken an hour. As a kid I'd be furiously changing floppy drives all day.
I just thought that was an interesting thought.
are HDDs finally dying?
Not yet, unless the higher capacity comes at a much lower price. HDDs are fine for the price currently
Yup, I use HDDs for my NAS and SSDs for my desktop and laptop. HDD for cheap storage, SSD for fast storage.
it'll be interesting to see what happens, but i've been hoping that at some point SSDs will simply hit a cost point that is lower, whereas HDDs won't be able to go below that (due to physical tolerancing and complicated manufacturing) whereas with an SSD it's literally just chips on a board. You put more of them on the board it has more storage, simple as that.
Although i think before that, HDDs would likely become extremely competitive since they would actually be forced to lower cost some substantial amount.
nar. HDDs don't require power to maintain their state. So that's an advantage they'll always have over SSDs, which means there will be use-cases where HDDs are the better choice.
SSDs can reliably hold charge states for years, and there are storage media that are more reliable than HDD.
HDD's would still find a niche, probably, as a balanced option, but said niche will likely get smaller and smaller over many years.
HDDs don’t require power to maintain their state. So that’s an advantage they’ll always have over SSDs
SSDs are not flash memory.
daamn 1 TB in 2029 now ay
This is per chip. A given NVMe drive usually contains multiple chips.
might wanna make sure they have sufficient emf shielding
Probably being paranoid, but it seems to me like one of the few untapped utilities of this much cheap storage is just increased surveillance. Hi resolution recording of everything, all the time.
Not really? Storage isn't really much of a limiter, tape drives are huge. High res is more about the camera AFAIK, high res but low refresh rate(frame rate?) probably doesn't have much of a transfer speed issue to necessitate SSD speeds.
If you want to search and index it, you don't want to do that on tapes. It's doable, but difficult. And what benefits tapes gain in reliability/long term storage, a RAID system would negate. Cheaper large SSDs make these kinds of systems more economical to the average person.
I dunno. It's all about lowering the barriers of accessibility. Tape drives are not widely adopted. Cloud camera monitoring is already common. Windows is pushing this recall feature, cameras are on everything, AI video analysis is taking off, and the populous is completely numb on privacy issues. My tech paranoia sense is usually right on track. We'll see
That will be helpful. Unless I want to prune my node, I should probably consider upgrading my storage space for my Monero node in the near future anyway.
just in time for GTA6 to come out and be 3TB in size
I wouldn't even mind tbh.
Except it would take 3 literal months to download it (stupid home internet with a 1.25TB data cap)
250GB tops or it will be bs.
GTA5 already had about 90-110GB of raw gamedata. I think right now it's 150GB.