Why are high capacity SSDs so much more expensive than smaller capacity SSDs?

[Pandamonium]

With the right promotions, you can find SSDs as low as $1/GB for a 64 GB SSD. So why is it that the lowest price we see on 96 GB SSDs is ~$120-150ish ~$1.2-1.5/GB? And similarly, why are 256 GB SSDs close to $2/GB?

It's not as though higher capacity SSDs use twice as many controllers. All that differs (in some designs) is that more NAND is wired to the same controller. Even if a manufacturer needs to run an internal RAID 0, the chipsets don't seem like they could be expensive enough to be responsible for the costly price increases. It seems to me that manufacturers just want higher margins on higher capacity drives. (Which they're welcome to do- I just won't be buying in at those margins.)

Is there some fundamental reason for why higher capacity SSDs should be disproportionately more expensive than their lower capacity siblings?

 

[Zap]

Higher prices = lower volume = higher prices.

Bigger drives also outperform smaller drives.

Finally, big drives are "halo" products.

Pricing like this is not unique to SSDs. Think about hard drive pricing.
500MB $45
1TB $55
2TB $70
3TB $130

CPU pricing is like this especially with Intel CPUs. Highest end has a big price jump for little performance gain. How about motherboards? Sure, I can see how a $150 motherboard may overclock better than a $100 motherboard, but how can a $300 motherboard make sense?

 

[nanaki333]

Higher prices = lower volume = higher prices.

Bigger drives also outperform smaller drives.

Finally, big drives are "halo" products.

Pricing like this is not unique to SSDs. Think about hard drive pricing.
500MB $45
1TB $55
2TB $70
3TB $130

CPU pricing is like this especially with Intel CPUs. Highest end has a big price jump for little performance gain. How about motherboards? Sure, I can see how a $150 motherboard may overclock better than a $100 motherboard, but how can a $300 motherboard make sense?

$45 for 500MB? you got ripped off!

 

[Emulex]

2TB $59 dude. get with it

 

[Zap]

Fine print disclaimer: Pricing pulled out of my ass and may not include latest hot deals.

 

[Nothinman]

Fine print disclaimer: Pricing pulled out of my ass and may not include latest hot deals.

Statistics 101 followed to a T, kudos to you. =)

 

[corkyg]

Ha,ha! Point made. I see no lowering of prices as chip makers are being hit with serious market un-demand. Today they have generally been downgraded by investors.

 

[TemjinGold]

It's also by volume. There are way more people buying the smaller drives. For folks who can afford the larger ones, price isn't as much of an issue.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I think manufacturers think higher prices are justified by the increased performance you get.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

i just bought a 96GB SSD for $1/GB.

 

[taltamir]

The controller costs about 5$ in an SSD.
The bulk of the cost is the NAND chips. A NAND chip often has more then 1 die stacked vertically. such vertical stacking gets expensive the more die you add.
That being said, limited supply of a high demand product, Lower production volume, and the fact that people who want it can afford it are all also part of the equation. Most likely a bigger part of the reason why it is so expensive.

 

[Termie]

$45 for 500MB? you got ripped off!

Fine print disclaimer: Pricing pulled out of my ass and may not include latest hot deals.

I think he meant that 500MB isn't $45, 500GB is.

That being said, the hard drive example actually made me think of something. The sweet spot for both HDs and SSDs is actually not the cheapest drives, but somewhere in the low-mid segment.

For instance, you can get a 1TB HD for just a few dollars more than a 500GB or 250GB drive. While you can also get 2TB drives in the same price range, these are 5400rpm drives, so you can't directly compare them. A 7200rpm 2TB drive is much more expensive, and all 3TB drives are ludicrously priced.

Likewise, you can get 64GB SSDs for around $65-$100, while 40GB SSDs are mysteriously often more expensive, and 128GB drives are at least twice as much (in the same drive family).

I'd say today's 64GB SSD is equivalent to the 1TB drive - adequate for many people's purposes, and priced very well.

 

[Anonemous]

64 gb maybe enough for a desktop since you can add multiple drives but for a laptop 120/128 gig drives will be needed since they usually only hold one drive.

 

[Zap]

I think he meant that 500MB isn't $45, 500GB is.

But that 500MB drive is MINT! Collectors item! :sneaky:

The sweet spot for both HDs and SSDs is actually not the cheapest drives, but somewhere in the low-mid segment.

Law of diminishing returns.

Same thing with CPUs. For instance Core i5 2500K is not the cheapest, but since it is overclockable it becomes a much better value proposition than any CPU below it for a fast system. It also makes more expensive CPUs not worth it.

Also same with graphics cards. Take the $150-250 range for instance. You have the GTX 460 1GB, GTX 560, GTX 560 Ti and Radeon 6950. Go higher than $250 barely gets more performance, but go lower and you take a drastic cut in performance with the Radeon 6770 or GTS 450.

PSUs? Plenty of great quality units in the $60-120 range, but above that and the price rises quite a bit for not much more quality or wattage, and below that and outside of some special sales, you can drastically suffer quality.

 

[jimhsu]

With the right promotions, you can find SSDs as low as $1/GB for a 64 GB SSD. So why is it that the lowest price we see on 96 GB SSDs is ~$120-150ish ~$1.2-1.5/GB? And similarly, why are 256 GB SSDs close to $2/GB?

It's not as though higher capacity SSDs use twice as many controllers. All that differs (in some designs) is that more NAND is wired to the same controller. Even if a manufacturer needs to run an internal RAID 0, the chipsets don't seem like they could be expensive enough to be responsible for the costly price increases. It seems to me that manufacturers just want higher margins on higher capacity drives. (Which they're welcome to do- I just won't be buying in at those margins.)

Is there some fundamental reason for why higher capacity SSDs should be disproportionately more expensive than their lower capacity siblings?

There's your answer right there. Even though the regular prices for all capacities is quite similar, the fact is that lower capacity drives simply move much more market volume. Hence, they have more frequent promotions, and hence lower average prices. In fact looking at regular prices, high capacity drives are actually slightly cheaper (which they should be). On the rare occassions that high capacity drives have promotions (e.g. Newegg's 15% deal), I've gotten 256GB drives for under $400, so yes those deals do exist. Just less often.

I strongly suspect that retailers aren't making any profits (or even taking slight losses, if this is an in-store deal) on these low capacity drives. Just a hunch based on looking at spot flash prices.

 

[stevech]

It's about chip yield, isn't it? Harder to get flawless chips at higher densities, meeting speed vs. temperature specs, and voltage margins.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Except...as far as I know the different capacity SSDs in any given family all have the same number of dies in the package and all the dies are the same capacity and density. It's just a difference of how many they put onto the PCB.

 

[shady28]

Except...as far as I know the different capacity SSDs in any given family all have the same number of dies in the package and all the dies are the same capacity and density. It's just a difference of how many they put onto the PCB.

Exactly, at least when looking at 64GB vs 120GB. Go up to 256+ and the flash chips have to be more dense.

60/64 GB drives use half the channels too, so they are slower than 120/128s. I believe the 40 GB drives are the Intel and Indilinx chipsets which seem to go up in 40GB increments.




Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

With the right promotions, you can find SSDs as low as $1/GB for a 64 GB SSD. So why is it that the lowest price we see on 96 GB SSDs is ~$120-150ish ~$1.2-1.5/GB? And similarly, why are 256 GB SSDs close to $2/GB?

It's not as though higher capacity SSDs use twice as many controllers. All that differs (in some designs) is that more NAND is wired to the same controller. Even if a manufacturer needs to run an internal RAID 0, the chipsets don't seem like they could be expensive enough to be responsible for the costly price increases. It seems to me that manufacturers just want higher margins on higher capacity drives. (Which they're welcome to do- I just won't be buying in at those margins.)

Is there some fundamental reason for why higher capacity SSDs should be disproportionately more expensive than their lower capacity siblings?

Where??? For that price I may just buy one.

To answer your question, it's because even though they have lower margins, they have higher volume. That allows them to get equal or better profit overall.

 

[corkyg]

An interesting discussion. But, it generally reflects a lack of industrial production and pricing experience. We users tend to focus on material costs. But, we don't consider developmental costs, which must be amortized over a period of time), and general and administrative (G&A) costs. The latter is a share of total overhead - facilities, utilities, management, etc. At times, those can be "eaten" if the sales volume is sufficient, especially in a very competitive market. And, sometimes charges can be declared as expenses to be recovered against taxes, etc.

Anyway, SSDs are slowly but surely working their way through all these phases. Intel is now pricing a 300GB model at $540. That is $1.80/GB - a step in the right direction.

I recall, back about 1991, paying $900 for a 500MB HDD.

 

[code65536]

Those $1/GB SSDs are the Kingston ones. You know, the ones whose performance are closer to that of HDDs than of most other SSDs...

 

[Concillian]

They aren't the fastest SSDs, but they aren't THAT bad.

 

[Pandamonium]

Heh- serves me right for trying to write so soon after a 700 mile drive..

Anyway, what I was getting at was the material costs. I have a hard time believing that supply/demand is responsible for 100% of the markup. Supply/demand curves are out the window if there's any element of price fixing. I guess what I was asking is more like "is there any intrinsic reason for the pricing phenomena we see in SSDs today?"

I suppose it's because after jumping on the SSD bandwagon last year (80 GB G2), I'm running out of capacity and itching to upgrade. But I'm only willing to pay in the range of <$1.5/GB, which limits my options. I think the best I can do are the 96 GB Kingstons or a 128 GB C300 if I'm lucky. The problem is that the slight bump in capacity is going to leave me itching to upgrade yet again in a few months. I'd rather get it over with and get something in the 160~256 GB range (which I figure will last me until this computer is EOL), but the pricing is through the roof. These drives are in the "notch below bleeding edge" that I generally tend to shop, but I consider the pricing more in the "bleeding edge" range. It's a bit frustrating and I was trying to rationalize the situation.

 

[Emulex]

price monopoly. there are only two or three 25nm flash makers? or one? ...

supply and demand - the american way - if they have it (good A quality flash) and you want it - and steve jobs has his hand on a big pile - there isn't enough to go around.

supply and demand my friends like when hard drives came out...

 

[Voo]

[..]we don't consider developmental costs, which must be amortized over a period of time), and general and administrative (G&A) costs. The latter is a share of total overhead - facilities, utilities, management, etc. At times, those can be "eaten" if the sales volume is sufficient, especially in a very competitive market. And, sometimes charges can be declared as expenses to be recovered against taxes, etc.

Well but I doubt that you need much extra G/Q &A to populate the drive with all channels instead of only the half. The same goes with the extra cost for using larger flash chips - sure if you have to use 32 instead of 64gb that'll be more expensive - but using 5 instead of 10chips, but exactly the same controller and pretty much identical fw, that won't hardly cost especially more. I'd hope you could use pretty much exactly the same infrastructure as well.

So I'd think it comes just down to the simple fact that there's a number of people who will pay more for a larger SSD and so they can make some extra bucks - why wouldn't they? With the current supply of flash they can sell the chips anyhow.