SanDisk: SSD will hit mass adoption in one or two generations

By on October 27, 2010, 10:01 AM
Despite Seagate's remarks that Solid State Drives (SSDs) are not the future (but hybrids are), SanDisk, one of the world's largest producers of flash-based devices, disagrees. The company has high expectations for SSDs in both enterprise systems and mobile computers.

"As for SSD, these are transforming enterprise storage as we speak, and we are within one or two generations from their mass adoption in notebook PCs and other thin clients," Eli Harari, Sandisk's outgoing Chief Executive Officer, said during the company's Third Quarter (PDF) conference call with financial analysts. "To be a market leader in SSD you need to have access to leading-edge high-quality Flash, shippable in high volumes at a competitive cost, applying sophisticated know-how for managing highly scaled NAND, having the requisite patents, and building on strong OEM credentials. SanDisk has it all, and we are working diligently to gain a leadership position in this space."

Harari admits that currently only a fraction of notebooks use SSDs but he believes as notebooks get thinner, PC makers will be forced to use SSDs instead of HDDs. Price will of course be the main driving factor for getting SSDs into PCs. I personally expect my next PC to have one, what about you?





User Comments: 52

Got something to say? Post a comment
treeski treeski said:

Weren't Seagate's remarks more focused toward mobile computing?

Regardless, SSDs would hit mass adoption much faster if the prices became more reasonable.

alexandrionel said:

I would like an SSD in my PC but I am still not so sure about the life expectancy of it. I read in the article where Seagate was saying that hybrid is the future that Luczo has such a notebook with an SSD drive and in just on year the boot time increased from 12 second to 25-30. So, if this is what happens in just one year, I cannot imagine what will happen after 3-4-5 years.

Also, how much does it mean in years one or two generations?

kevin1212 said:

I wouldn't be surprised to find most notebooks having them in the near future, they're smaller, cooler, more power efficient and less fragile, while improving performance, which benefits the slower laptops that are actually becoming more popular since people are willing to sacrifice speed for battery life and smaller sizes. The drawback is capacity and price, which is slowly improving, so indeed its only a matter of time.

As for desktops, only the enthusiasts would be interested right now i think, perhaps again when they become more affordable we will find more people adopting them, at least as a boot drive... I don't think they will serve much for mass storage, our typical drives would be around for a long time for that purpose at least.

samironsy said:

the price is always the big problem of SSDs

Geniusguy said:

Price is the only barrier in SSD adoption but this is definitely the way to go

63Jax said:

i really hope the prices will fall, they are expensive as gold right now...

alinsaviuc said:

I would like to have a SSD but they are to expensive right now.

n00bzZy said:

"In one or two generations" really depends on how fast those will arrive. That prices will eventually drop and capacities are already getting higher and higher, I think I'll be running my OS on SSD in a year or so

This transition will probably hit netbooks faster I guess, as they mostly come with relatively small capacities anyway, so price should be less of a problem.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Right now they're just a bit too expensive. I've been consistently using about 300 GB of space on my OS drive, I'm probably not going to switch over until I can get that much space for about $100. I hate having to delete programs or move them to other drives.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

I bet this thread can be copy and pasted and found decades ago( if there was internet then) when the com 64 hit the streets.

crzydave said:

When the day comes that I can get a 1TB SSD for 100 let me know.

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Yeah - Price and Capacity are issues for me.

Cueto_99 said:

They're too expensive for their capacity... In a world where games weight almost 8gigs, and the Os takes up to 20 gigs, you need at least a 64 gb SSD, and still you need to keep replacing files all the time... While I look forward to this technology, I expect some lower prices in the near future...

Lokalaskurar Lokalaskurar said:

If SSD's come down in price, then I'd definently buy one as soon as I can. I guess not only notebooks will have SSD's in the near future, but regular desktop-PC's as well. Even though SSD's have not been adopted well by Mr. Stan McNormalguy, it's certainly heard of.

Maybe that is all it really needs in order to become successfull? Provided that the price-tag stop turning heads.

Neojt said:

After seeing the difference in data transfert i WANT a SSD drive

dosent have to be big give me 250G (at a resonable price) is plenty of room space to install the OS and games. My regular data ,music,video can stay on a normal drive

This is the future

SilverCider said:

alexandrionel said:

I would like an SSD in my PC but I am still not so sure about the life expectancy of it. I read in the article where Seagate was saying that hybrid is the future that Luczo has such a notebook with an SSD drive and in just on year the boot time increased from 12 second to 25-30. So, if this is what happens in just one year, I cannot imagine what will happen after 3-4-5 years.

Also, how much does it mean in years one or two generations?

I read that too but I believe that is just to do with the OS and software bogging it down, as does a normal hard drive. Most of the benchmarks shown in reviews of hardware begin with a fresh OS install to show them in their best light - I'm afraid time really does tell with storage devices.

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I see SSD's as a more viable option than hybrids in 5 year's time. Like everyone else, they gotta do something with the pricing though.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

It would be so great if prices would go down and capacity go up on SSD drives. I am thinking that all notebooks and netbooks will ship with ssd's withing two years time. IMO anything less than a 120GB SSD is a waste since it would be full so fast.

jetkami said:

I will go SSD when I can get 750gb for less then $150. I I hate deleting old games to make room for new games. I also use my computer to mix music and video which is why a 300gb drive would just be too small. Funny but maybe in the next 2 years we will all have "Windows 8 (no NTFS)" 16 gigs of ram, 12 core cpu's I am more excited about that then SSD drives.

Nexus7Model said:

Hybrids are nice but matching a small boot (OS, games, etc...) SSD with a larger standard data (pics, movies, etc...) HD is a reasonable approach currently.

pyari said:

price and the size of SSDs that matter me.....right now 500GB is insufficient then 120 GB of SSDs cost very high.....

edison5do said:

SSD are the future but based on price and mass storage, I would go to Hybrid at least until SSDĀ's prices go down, hybrid are fast enough for the price and the storage size. but we DO have to realyze that SSD are the real future after the tecnology really grow up, cause it still too young.

HaMsTeYr HaMsTeYr said:

File size is my main concern with SSDs... I think i'd have to go with Seagate on this one, I have a feeling that it'd be hybrid drives that take center stage.

Its sort of like a halfway WIN breed between SSD's and normal HDDs, sure you don't get the speeds of a normal SSD, but they're still fast.

My question now is why haven't companies like samsung (which undoubtedly is one of the world's major outputters of flash memory chips) considered Hybrid drives...

Think about it, with their super speed 3.5" Hard drives, (Read HD103SJ) coupled with hybrid flash mem? Thats gotta be a recipe for win :x

sMILEY4ever said:

I agree but not before they get as cheap as today's hdds.

Elitassj4 said:

The current generation of SSD has a long way to go.MLC flash memory wears out after 10,000 write cycles, as the drive fills up, performance significantly degrades.So the HDD will last much longer than a SSD, but still...i think the SSD is the future, they have to sort some problems but they are on the wright way

mikeusru said:

I'm very excited for SSD... have you seen these comparisons?

[link]

i mean... boot time alone excited me. Cut down on loading screens for games? yay!

I'll consider investing when 250GB goes for around $100. that's actually the size of my OS drive right now, so I know it'll do.

customcarvin customcarvin said:

I agree with what most are saying here, the price to capacity ratio is way off. Once we can get 500+GB SSD's for $75 then I'll consider buying one. Flash memory is great for things like mobile phones, netbooks, and so on, but for a laptop or desktop I would much rather have a capacious mechanical hard drive, or possibly a hybrid, if the price was right. The thing with NAND memory is, it has really fast READ speeds, but its write speeds suck big ones, especially with small writes; not to mention, as of now, it only has an average life expectancy of 150,000 read/write cycles.

ChrisG683 said:

When and if SSD becomes as cheap as HDDs, my wallet and I will be waiting

geektastic said:

good to hear SSD price going down rapidly. In the market for one soon.

Zackurben said:

Does anyone know what the cost behind a SSD is? What makes it so much more than an optical drive?

Also, what its everything stored on? Is it all flash, like a bunch of ram?

zogo said:

Hoping the prices will drop very soon. It's nice to have 128Gb SSD for a system particion. I'll gladly purchase one of these.

UT66 said:

SSD is the future. The distant, distant future. Distant.

oasis789 said:

i already have an ssd. to play crysis etc.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

The whole hybrid drive comment from Seagate is mostly marketing since last time I checked, they are the only ones with hybrid drives (sure Samsung tried it out a few years back, but don't have any now). Plus their habit of "being first" in each new storage size but being relatively unreliable or low performing drives isn't helping with their reputation, at least for me (the last time I had a seagate drive was back when 18GB was the way to go).

Arguably for now, the concept of SSD main drive + HDD storage is king; you don't particularly need (note, "need" as opposed to "want" a large SSD if your primary purpose is strictly storage. Yes, cost is a huge factor in this as the cost per gigabyte is exorbitant for SSD. But for storage and simple playback (say of images or videos), there is no need for the storage medium to be extremely fast. Even with video/audio/large image editing where fast reads/writes are important, it would be cheaper to buy a small but fast SSD and use it as a dedicated scratch drive, assuming the constant read/writes do not kill the drive sooner than constant gaming like a number of people buy these drives for.

Speaking of gaming, What's the point of keeping games you don't intend to play anymore? It becomes clutter that'll slowly but surely choke the drive in both capacity and performance, and this is true regardless of the type of drive. If you're that nostalgic for them, move them to another drive and update the registry keys associated with said game if necessary (if you're comfortable that).

Personally, when the 120/128GB and/or 250/256GB SSD drives become less expensive and better designed/tested for long term reliability I'll be a very happy camper. Of course I'll welcome the time when 1TB+ SSD become financially viable for the average consumer, but that time will likely not come for a while, unless the NAND overproduction peaks and prices crash...

Scshadow said:

SSD should be the near future. If they put it into mass production and put their best heads together on making SSD cheaper to produce, there is no reason SSD can't have mass adoption in a matter of a couple of years. Meanwhile I'm probably going to happily put a SSD in my next build. I'm not really anticipating problems managing a small boot drive.

customcarvin customcarvin said:

Does anyone know what the cost behind a SSD is? What makes it so much more than an optical drive?

Also, what its everything stored on? Is it all flash, like a bunch of ram?

Google is your friend... drink the kool-aid

[link]

FYI, an optical drive is like a CD, DVD, Blu-Ray drive; what I think you're asking is why is it more expensive then a mechanical hd? Right?

In one word: Production. SSD are new tech, which means expensive, new fab processes, machines to make parts, engineering, and so on. Theoretically, once things get going, it should be cheaper to produce an SSD in the future than a mechanical hd. Hard drives have glass or alloy plates coated with a magnetic compound that have to hold a ridiculous tolerance, and an electric spindle motor, magneto-resistive mechanical actuator arms, as well as PCB boards with processor(s) and cache memory. SSD's have the processor(s) and cache memory, but silicone memory chips (NAND) to replace the rest.

Zackurben said:

Google is your friend... drink the kool-aid

FYI, an optical drive is like a CD, DVD, Blu-Ray drive; what I think you're asking is why is it more expensive then a mechanical hd? Right?

In one word: Production. SSD are new tech, which means expensive, new fab processes, machines to make parts, engineering, and so on. Theoretically, once things get going, it should be cheaper to produce an SSD in the future than a mechanical hd. Hard drives have glass or alloy plates coated with a magnetic compound that have to hold a ridiculous tolerance, and an electric spindle motor, magneto-resistive mechanical actuator arms, as well as PCB boards with processor(s) and cache memory. SSD's have the processor(s) and cache memory, but silicone memory chips (NAND) to replace the rest.

Hahaha too much erroneous crap comes with searches.. Thank you for your time though.

TuesdayExpress said:

I sat on the fence for about a year before pulling the trigger on a 160Gb SSD on my latest build. Yes, the price/Gb was higher than I would have liked, but I will never go back to spinning disk...the boot times minimal, but it's the minute-to-minute performance gains that are the most noticeable, especially when firing up Photoshop or other big programs. Fantastic.

Of course, I keep all of my multimedia on a spinning-disk NAS, and likely will for a good long while. Prices may be dropping, but not that fast.

frodough said:

i think SSD price and production goes hand in hand. when they mass produce price goes down because competitors will do the same around that time, but first they need mainstream market to adopt it and start ordering them by hundreds of thousands. laptops are already making progress toward it due to its compact nature. but most pc out there are still making a killing off a HDD because dollar/gb is very effective. Acer, Dell, HP & others need to raise their hardware standard and take a leap of faith. without that we will only see a steady drop in SSD price. this is only what i think.. might be wrong, probably wrong.. but as far as i can see. someone needs to step up and start offering PC desktop builds in SSD only and help humanity move quickly to the next phase of super fast computing world.

omega00 said:

Yeah, I completely agree with you Emil. My next computer will definitely use SSDs. Unfortunately, SSDs are still too expensive for me. I will have to wait awhile for prices to fall dramatically. From what I have read about SSDs, they are excellent as a boot drive and for gaming. I don't require hard drives in the terabyte range and I'm pretty sure most people don't need that much storage. I would much rather have one or two speedy SSDs in order to take advantage of my cpu. I read somewhere that a computer's hard drive is typically its bottleneck, in terms of speed.

DryIce said:

SSDs will not reach mass adoption until buying one saves people money. Sure there will be persons who prefer performance over price but neither the every day user nor most businesses will be using SSDs until it is cost effective.

Zecias said:

I think that most laptops will and should have SSDs, but it'll be a while until they are frequently used in desktops.

Regenweald said:

When I can get at least 128gigs with TRIM support in a laptop AT_A_REASONABLE_PRICE, I'd say the SSD's are here. But they are'nt.

pheonixnexus said:

In 2000 an 80 gig drive cost 479.99. now prices are $70 or $80 for a terrabyte. so lets see in ten years the price is less than one fifth and more than ten times the size. so if the same happens to SSD then these high prices will not last long and sizes are going too increase as well.

Guest said:

You are very right .. the price of SSD is linked to the volume of production. It is inherently cheaper to produce silicon (compare Pressed DVD) than to mFr a Hrd disk (compare recorded VHS). Silicon can and does improve in leaps and bounds 2x the speed 2x the amount in a year versus Hrd disk drives improve gradually. Hard disks are the main bottleneck in today's PC's. All other elements are 1000x times better than 20 years, hard disk just 100x. SSD are especially good in Laptops for ruggedness, size and power-savings. Imagine Intel producing a single chip, (Sandy bridge plus 2 generations) which comprises CPUx8/Gpux4/Ramx10/Storagex200Gb all on one chip, for a fabrication price of less than $10.

(sadly INREL will be 60% owned by the Chinese by then). Follow the commodification of flash drives, now ubiquitous and cheap, sold in Tesco's.ergo SSD's.

ruzveh said:

I dont see SSD coming into my system or even any of my friends relatives or clients system for the simple reason that they dont have capacity that other HDD have and also the cost of SSD is 100times more than HDD. So why should i pay for SSD? That price simply dont justify it for me. I am better off using HDD with slower BIOS which i dont mind or loading of OS or applications. BIOS issue will be solved by UEF interface in future. Thereby i go with Seagate in this forum. Hybrid rocks

Recipe7 Recipe7 said:

Adoption will take place when 120gb SSD can be had for 100 USD. SSD price per GB is not very generous at this time.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

One or two generations mean 1-2 years, which doesn't really seems to be realistic considering the current prices. Instead, it may take roughly 3-5 years for SSDs to become standard HDD on notebooks, however, if you takeout the price out of equation and simply consider the performance benefits, they already make a lot of sense for not only notebooks but for desktops as well.

Mischief007 said:

Well SSDs in laptops are great. Recently made the switch from regular HDDs to SSDs in laptops at work. So far so good. We had one laptop come back dropped into a million pieces and the drive was fine. Able to get the information without a problem and re-use the drive. Where I work, people go through hard drives like candy. Replacing the regular HDDs with SSDs cost us the same in the end with the introduction of some newer laptops.

I'm all for SSDs but the prices have got to come down for regular consumers.

xcelofjkl said:

By generation, do they mean every year? Hehe. Can't wait for $1/GB SSD's!!!!

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.