Why aren't smaller SSDs the price of flash drives?

[VirtualLarry]

Why can't we get, say, 32GB SSDs (TLC NAND), with slower controllers, for around $15? Why are they $50, when we can get 128GB SSDs with faster controllers, for $55? I thought NAND was the primary cost of SSDs? And older, slower controllers, should be cheap. There's certainly some cheaper far-east controller companies, like Phison.

Edit: As a corollary to this, why is it that we can only install Windows onto a SATA device (*), and not a USB device, when Linux can be installed and boot off of either? That would solve the problem of cheap primary storage as well.

(*) Win8 enterprise can create a USB bootable image, but not any of the versions that an end-consumer can buy, and Win8.1 can install to eMMC as well as SATA.

 

[stlc8tr]

Edit: As a corollary to this, why is it that we can only install Windows onto a SATA device (*), and not a USB device, when Linux can be installed and boot off of either? That would solve the problem of cheap primary storage as well.

(*) Win8 enterprise can create a USB bootable image, but not any of the versions that an end-consumer can buy, and Win8.1 can install to eMMC as well as SATA.

http://lifehacker.com/how-to-run-a-portable-version-of-windows-from-a-usb-dri-1565509124

 

[Red Squirrel]

It definitely would be nice to see really cheap small SSDs. Great for a server where you just need a small amount of disk space as a boot drive, and being SATA you don't have to worry about whether the system supports USB boot or not like you would if you want to install on a USB stick, that and not all OSes may support being installed on USB.

Typically when I build a server I just try to find the cheapest SSD I can, make sure it's not a dud model like a OCZ Vertex, then buy it, but even the cheapest SSD is like 100 bucks. I like to use SSDs as in theory they should not randomly fail like HDDs so it saves me from having to do hardware raid.

 

[hojnikb]

There are no small SSD for a price like that simply because controllers have pretty fixed prices. For example, if one controller+dram combo costs 5$, it will be absorbed in a ssd with 128GB or more flash, since flash will take most of the cost. But once you go down, price/gb does not scale that well, because as i've said, controller+dram have fixed prices. And there is pcb, case and packaging cost, that also costs the same whenever is it 32GB or 1TB.

So thats why smaller ssds are so expensive price/GB. And part of the problem is also less demand and that drives the prices even higher.

Although i agree, that it would be be nice to have small and very cheap ssd. Very cheap controller (something from phison with no dram), TLC nand, oem packaging and it would be possible to come down to ~20$. Although no one is gonna do that. Simply not enough profit in that + that kind of SSD would only be good for caching, because with lower capacity performance also suffers.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Higher grade, faster flash and more complex, expensive controllers.

A USB drive is a cheap SSD, just a slow one.

Small 8-16GB SSDs do ecist, but the market is small (embedded computing) so they're typically expensive.

If you want to do internal, get a bootable SATA adapter for a compact flash card.

 

[Cerb]

Why can't we get, say, 32GB SSDs (TLC NAND), with slower controllers, for around $15? Why are they $50, when we can get 128GB SSDs with faster controllers, for $55? I thought NAND was the primary cost of SSDs? And older, slower controllers, should be cheap. There's certainly some cheaper far-east controller companies, like Phison.

Cost. USB controllers tend to have less RAM, not support external RAM, and have fewer channels. They can pack the USB controller and flash into one package for small USB drives, and use simpler PCBs. 4-10 channels, many dies, DRAM packages, etc., all add to the cost.

Then, there's much lower demand for small SSDs, so nobody wants to put the R&D efforts into integrating the parts well enough to make it cheap (FI, a single BGA package for an entire SATA SSD--just add a PCB and some passives).

Note that high performance USB flash drives cost about as much as SSDs (king of the hill being Sandisk's Extreme USB 3.0 series, but Transcend, Kingston, and Patriot, have fairly fast random access drives, and they aren't dirt cheap).

 

[cbn]

Very cheap controller (something from phison with no dram), TLC nand, oem packaging and it would be possible to come down to ~20$. Although no one is gonna do that. Simply not enough profit in that + that kind of SSD would only be good for caching, because with lower capacity performance also suffers.

ECS bundled a 32GB mSATA SSD (with phison controller) with my $50 (after rebate) ECS Z77 motherboard---> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2374094

Apparently it is the same drive as this MyDigitalSSD 32GB Super Cache mSATA SSD ---> http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/mydigitalssd-32gb-ddr2-super-cache-msata-ssd-review/

P.S. I was quite surprised at the performance of the phison controller 32GB mSATA SSD when I read that review. (It made me quite happy I purchased the ECS Z77).

(Notice the 4K random write. A much better score compared to some other forms of inexpensive flash storage)

EDIT: The ECS SSD I am linking in this post has a Phison controller with DRAM buffer. Phison does have even cheaper designs like the S9 controller mentioned later on in this thread which are DRAM-less.

 

[Blain]

"Why aren't smaller SSDs the price of flash drives?"

Market forces.

 

[cbn]

Small 8-16GB SSDs do ecist, but the market is small (embedded computing) so they're typically expensive.

About a year ago, I remember reading about the newly released chromebooks coming with 16GB or 32GB SSDs.

At the time I thought it was a mistake and the flash used by the chromebooks was eMMC, but then I checked and indeed they were actual mSATA SSDs.

P.S. Apparently some of the newer Chromebooks like the Acer C720 are also coming with small 16GB and 32GB SSDs in M.2 form factor as well:

http://www.thessdreview.com/daily-n...-2-ngff-128gb-sc2-ssd-worlds-easiest-upgrade/

16GB Kingston SATA 3 M.2 (NGFF) SSD and it is 42mm in length, better known as 2242.

 

[hojnikb]

ECS bundled a 32GB mSATA SSD (with phison controller) with my $50 (after rebate) ECS Z77 motherboard---> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2374094

Apparently it is the same drive as this MyDigitalSSD 32GB Super Cache mSATA SSD ---> http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/mydigitalssd-32gb-ddr2-super-cache-msata-ssd-review/

P.S. I was quite surprised at the performance of the phison controller 32GB mSATA SSD when I read that review. (It made me quite happy I purchased the ECS Z77).

(Notice the 4K random write. A much better score compared to some other forms of inexpensive flash storage)

That still doesn't mean, they could sell that ssd for 20$ alone. It was a one time deal, that happend to be VERY good.

Also. About that controller. It's CRAP. I still got Crucial V4 (which uses the same controller). It looks decend enough when completly empty and fresh. But once you start trashing it with writes or fill the thing to half, it starts being horribly slow. Writes dip well below 1MB/s and respinsivness can get way worse than with harddrives.

 

[Cerb]

With TRIM, they're better than the V4s (why did you ever even release those, Micron?!), and won't go down to HDD speeds. But, they do slow down once they're broken in, and are not comparable to the typical SATA drives we are used to. Not having many large M.2 2242 options is what makes them good buys. For mSATA, there are way too many better choices.

 

[who?]

Microsoft wants you to buy a separate copy of windows for every computer and not have one copy that you use on different machines. It's the software BUSINESS.

 

[cbn]

Note that high performance USB flash drives cost about as much as SSDs (king of the hill being Sandisk's Extreme USB 3.0 series, but Transcend, Kingston, and Patriot, have fairly fast random access drives, and they aren't dirt cheap).

Yes, the 64 GB Sandisk Extreme Usb 3.0 has a much faster 4K random write at 8.84 GB/s compared to other flash drives:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-3.0-thumb-drive-review,3477-3.html

 

[cbn]

Regarding the prices on Sandisk Extreme usb 3.0 (SSD on a stick), the price floor does appear to be dropping:

Prices from December 2013 --> http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35881509&postcount=19

16 GB: $21.99 FS
32GB: $34.99 FS
64 GB: $59.99 FS

Current prices on Amazon--> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008AF383S

16GB: $17.99 FS
32GB: $29.99 FS
64GB: $49.99 FS

So does this SSD controller technology make into another form factor like M.2? Or does something like eMMC 5.0 or UFS 2.0 take over for most entry level form of primary storage?

 

[cbn]

That would solve the problem of cheap primary storage as well.

I've seen folks discussing NOS (New Old stock) 3.5" SATA drives from Amazon (and other places) as way to lower the cost of a budget desktop system. (re: Not every desktop needs to have 1TB of local storage).

But the prices for these NOS SATA drives are not terribly good. $20 shipped for 80GB (NOS) 3.5" SATA. Maybe $25 shipped (if a person is lucky) for a NOS 120GB or 160GB SATA 3.5" drive.

Surely, there has to be a better alternative to using NOS low capacity SATA drives.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

It seems like the normal "fast, good, cheap, pick two" logic doesn't apply to this situation. There's no fast/cheap/crappy choice.

Except maybe buying a tiny used SSD.

 

[Revolution 11]

It seems like the normal "fast, good, cheap, pick two" logic doesn't apply to this situation. There's no fast/cheap/crappy choice.

Except maybe buying a tiny used SSD.

Except that "crappy" in this situation would mean the drive randomly drops data or gets spontaneously erased or frequently corrupts data silently, very bad behaviors for any consumer data storage product.

So all drives will be "good" in the sense that you have a reasonable degree of reliable reads and writes of data. The only two choices that are fast/good/expensive (SSDs) and slow/good/cheap (free USB drives).

So you do get 2 of the 3.

A flawed analogy because it originally referred to government space programs under NASA, and the theory has certain flaws to begin with. Also, if you assume "fast" to be the original definition of time to market (space launch), then common USB drives are (fast to market), cheap (cost), and crappy (performance). On the other hand, if you wait long enough, you will have cheap SSDs, (slow to market), cheap (low-cost), good (performance).

 

[Phynaz]

It seems like the normal "fast, good, cheap, pick two" logic doesn't apply to this situation. There's no fast/cheap/crappy choice.

Except maybe buying a tiny used SSD.

Sure there is, OCZ.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Regarding the prices on Sandisk Extreme usb 3.0 (SSD on a stick), the price floor does appear to be dropping:

That's a good bit due to price adjustments due to the even faster 128GB Sandisk Extreme Pro USB 3.0 drive appearing at $100 (but debuted at $150).

 

[ashetos]

Sure there is, OCZ.

In my case, the OCZ Vertex 4 has been rock solid and fast, still rocking the 5-year warranty.

I sure as hell wouldn't trade it for a crappy TLC Samsung SSD.

Maybe OCZ was crappy in the past, but since the post-Sandforce era and now with Toshiba things are continuously getting better.

 

[Phynaz]

In my case, the OCZ Vertex 4 has been rock solid and fast, still rocking the 5-year warranty.

I sure as hell wouldn't trade it for a crappy TLC Samsung SSD.

Maybe OCZ was crappy in the past, but since the post-Sandforce era and now with Toshiba things are continuously getting better.

Cheap not found.

 

[ashetos]

Cheap not found.

So then, which fast/cheap/crappy SSD does OCZ sell?

 

[master_shake_]

It definitely would be nice to see really cheap small SSDs. Great for a server where you just need a small amount of disk space as a boot drive, and being SATA you don't have to worry about whether the system supports USB boot or not like you would if you want to install on a USB stick, that and not all OSes may support being installed on USB.

Typically when I build a server I just try to find the cheapest SSD I can, make sure it's not a dud model like a OCZ Vertex, then buy it, but even the cheapest SSD is like 100 bucks. I like to use SSDs as in theory they should not randomly fail like HDDs so it saves me from having to do hardware raid.

this

i've got 4 or 5 120gb ssds in servers that could easily use a 30gb ssd as a boot drive.

 

[cbn]

this

i've got 4 or 5 120gb ssds in servers that could easily use a 30gb ssd as a boot drive.

I have to wonder if we see soon see eMMC 5.0/UFS 2.0 show up on certain boards because of that reason (as well as others).

32GB eMMC 5.0 vs. 32GB M.2 SSD (Phison Controller), I have to wonder what the price differential would be?

 

[cbn]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9357/...ys-upcoming-sm2260-pcie-30-x4-nvme-controller

Another product Silicon Motion had on display was the SM2246XT, which is a DRAM-less version of the popular SM2246EN. There is a slight performance impact from the lack of DRAM cache as only parts of the NAND mapping table can be stored in the controller's internal SRAM cache, but in return the SM2246XT offers lower cost due to a smaller die (no need for DRAM controller). Obviously the drive requires no separate DRAM either, which further reduces the cost for the assembler of the drive. SM2246XT is already used by SanDisk in the SSD PLUS and Z400s that was released a couple of weeks ago. I believe we will see the low-end market shift more towards DRAM-less designs in the next year as the race to the bottom gets tougher and with more sophisticated controllers it's possible to have decent performance even without the DRAM cache. Currently Silicon Motion has no plans for an XT version of the SM2256, although I would personally see TLC NAND and DRAM-less controller as the ultimate value play.

Looking forward to seeing improvement in the area of DRAM-less SSD controllers as I remember seeing mixed reviews on SSDs which use the DRAM-less Phison S9 controller.

Here was one of the less flattering reviews on a Phison S9 equipped SSD (the Patriot Blaze 120GB):

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6924/patriot-blaze-120gb-low-cost-ssd-review/index.html

Here were the results of the sequential read:

Notice only the Phison S9 drives (Patriot Blaze and Patriot Torch) are the ones with variation in min, average, and maximum read speeds. Here is what tweak town wrote about that:

The Blaze 120GB was unable to read sequential data at a consistent pace in our test. The Torch 120GB was the same way when we tested it. I think the lack of a DRAM buffer to cache the table data played a role in the wide separation between minimum and maximum performance.