Mistake buying three 32GB SSDs?

[dave_the_nerd]

Not really. They age just sitting on the shelf.

But anyway - the fabrication and shipping costs for SSDs are fixed, even if the parts costs aren't - nobody is going to use new controller/NAND tech to make 120GB drives even cheaper - they're going to use it to make newer >250GB drives with higher profit margins.

 

[cbn]

But anyway - the fabrication and shipping costs for SSDs are fixed, even if the parts costs aren't - nobody is going to use new controller/NAND tech to make 120GB drives even cheaper - they're going to use it to make newer >250GB drives with higher profit margins.

The price floor on SSDs right now is $20. This for a M.2 8GB SSD listed on Newegg--> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA53D1P54087

So $20 is apparently do-able.

So I think as controllers (2 channel, DRAM-less like Phison S11) and more TLC V-NAND become available we will see higher capacities at the $20 price point or the $27 sale price point of Larry's Transcend 370 32GB (which has Silcon Motion controller, DRAM buffer, Micron 2Xnm Synchronus MLC NAND).

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Not really. They age just sitting on the shelf.

source/citation needed

 

[cbn]

Another SSD with a very low price floor is the Sandisk Extreme usb 3.0:

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extre...89553&sr=1-3&keywords=SanDisk+Extreme+usb+3.0

$17 for the 16GB version and $23 for the 32GB version.

Now granted it is a usb stick, but it does use a SSD controller.

 

[fuzzymath10]

The price floor on SSDs right now is $20. This for a M.2 8GB SSD listed on Newegg--> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA53D1P54087

So $20 is apparently do-able.

So I think as controllers (2 channel, DRAM-less like Phison S11) and more TLC V-NAND become available we will see higher capacities at the $20 price point or the $27 sale price point of Larry's Transcend 370 32GB (which has Silcon Motion controller, DRAM buffer, Micron 2Xnm Synchronus MLC NAND).

And to the extent cost savings can be recognized through these methods (vs capacity), I think that is a great idea. A basic but reliable SSD would still be in a completely different typical use performance class than whatever crazy idea someone conjures up with spinners (short stroking, RAM disks, readyboost, etc.).

We're just getting to the point where the used market has good hardware available. I think it's another thread where I pointed out that 80-160GB X25-Ms/320s should be in the $30-60 range, and I would be comfortable taking the risk on one of those.

The last spinner I bought brand new for a boot drive was the 500GB Momentus XT because at the time (2009-2010) it was the best compromise available for a single-bay laptop that had outgrown the 80GB SSD I had put in it. It relies often enough on the swap file that I'm glad it has 4GB of memory, but 2GB is not out of the question for an SSD-based system, especially if it runs a 32-bit OS.

 

[VirtualLarry]

but 2GB is not out of the question for an SSD-based system, especially if it runs a 32-bit OS.

My HTPC is running Win7 64-bit, and has 2GB of RAM and a 120GB Kingston V300 SSD. Commit charge is often >2GB, after I leave my internet radio player (Web/Flash-based) running for a few days. Still pretty snappy with the SSD, and I just installed Kingston's "SSD toolbox" (whatever they call it), and it shows that my SSD has had 1.2TB, approx, both read and written. (Since I figure most of the I/O traffic is pagefile.) Still showing 100% health.

So running Windows (even 64-bit) with 2GB of RAM and an SSD, is pretty doable.

The machines in question in this thread, I have one 4GB DDR3 DIMM in each of them.

Edit: Not really interested in lowering the amount of RAM, nor in a Raptor. They have higher cooling requirements than a standard desktop drive, and the mini-ITX enclosure that the machines are in, only has vents, no chassis fan. So I don't want to put any high-temp items in there.

 

[cbn]

They have higher cooling requirements than a standard desktop drive

According to StorageReview start-up power of the 2006 150GB Raptor is indeed higher than the other tested 3.5" drives (the exception being the Seagate Barracuda 7200.9), but operating power dissipation was lower than many other 3.5" drives of that era.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/WD1500ADFD_1.html

 

[VirtualLarry]

source/citation needed

The lubrication can dry out.

 

[mxnerd]

I tested the Mint 17.1 installation in virtual machine with 4GB RAM and 20G disk, the installation used 9GB and left 11GB usable.

So 32GB should have 23GB usable after installation.