SSDs

>being too poor for a ssd
Jesus fucking christ, spend some time working instead of hoarding animes.

>>55821068
Six 4TB hard drives go for less than $1k and you not only get the same storage on a RAIDz2 pool, but get the benefits of some redundancy. It's not that people can't buy them, it's just that buying them now would be really, really stupid.

>>55821029
>Will HDDs die in the next 15 years?
Likely. Seagate only recently released their 10TB. Although HAMR is supposed to produce big returns, solid state has the advantage. Once price parity is hit there will be no reason to buy an HDD anymore.

>>55821185
No it's not. Storage space is dirt cheap in either way. If you're autistic enough to archive movies and games just get a nas with some hdds. Otherwise get 1tb of ssd and you'll be happy.

File: Sad Horo.jpg (28KB, 950x534px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 950x534px

>>55821237
>No it's not.
No what nigga? I was referring to the 15TB SSD. I have about 19TB on the desktop with backups.

>If you're autistic enough to archive movies and games just get a nas with some hdds
>not archiving in preparation of the great purge
I will be laughing in the end.
>pic related

>>55821029
Thats $1.50 per gigabyte

Their 1TB/2TB SSD are around $0.35 per GB.


They really need to stop jewing around with the prices. Put them down to sub $0.50 per gigabyte.

>>55821029
It'll be cheaper in about 6 years. 6 years ago SSD's are pricey and have less storage space.

>>55821029
>Will HDDs die in the next 15 years?

Unlikely. We hit a hard limit at transistor size, so SSD cells won't become any smaller (and therefore more dense and with a higher capacity) for a long time.

The only way SSDs can become more affordable than HDDs is if production ramps up so much that they have to reduce prices. The question is whether this will be economical.

>>55821292
In comparison, the cheapest HDD are @ $0.02 per GB (2 cents)

cheapest SSD are @ $0.20 (20 cents) per GB.

SSD are still 10x more expensive, even at its best.

>>55821325
>>55821292
You're comparing an Enterprise SSD to Consumer SSDs. There's a huge difference.

>>55821300
>We hit a hard limit at transistor size
Suffering. They can't just stop there with silicon. What of InGaAs and memephene?

>>55821325
>In comparison, the cheapest HDD are @ $0.02 per GB (2 cents)
Yes but the price is pretty stagnant. It's very expensive to develop HAMR (which Seagate is doing).

>>55821300
>>55821377
The limit with silicon is why they're doing 3D chips now. Assuming you can cool a 3D chip with microfluidic channels we'll have literal memory cubes.

>>55821300
>I have literally no idea what I'm talking about: The Post

No one has come close to hitting a "hard limit" in conventional CMOS scaling, and bleeding edge NAND arch like Samsung's VNAND isn't even increasing density by area scaling. They're building TSV stacks of vertical GAA structures instead of using planar structures and wire bonding dies atop each other.
Their latest dies being churned out are up to 100 stacks high, not even fabbed on the smallest node used for consumer M.2 devices.

>>55821377
Don't listen to retards.

>>55821420
Yet again you have no idea what you're talking about.
Samsung started building their VNAND on an older process node because larger structures have inherently higher endurance, and they aren't pressed for horizontal die area when they can stack layers.

Stop talking out of your ass. Retard.