Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Technology and Gadgets > Storage

February 7th, 2008, 09:48 GMT · By Bogdan Botezatu

The Awful Truth: SSDs Are Faster, But Not Better Than HDDs

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


A bunch of chips and bytes
Enlarge picture
Hard-disk drives are a common appearance in any personal computer and have a long tradition, dating back in the late '50s. It was improved and enhanced over the time, but its basic operating principle has not changed much. The advent of the newer storage media, known as the solid-state drives is the first significant change
in the last 50 years.

Hard-disk drives are mechanical units that records data in an analogue form on spinning magnetic platters. It uses plenty of mobile parts, such as arms, heads, platters and even motors. On the other side, solid-state drives store data digitally on NAND flash memory chips, which allows the retaining of information even when the device has been shut down.

The new solid-state drives bring obvious advantages to storing data. They don't use any moving parts and store data at the speed of light, since they don't have writing heads to look for the appropriate storage space, for instance. They need less power than a regular HDD, because there's no motor to drain additional electric power. Moreover, they are completely silent and extremely hard to kill. But that's all about them.

The current versions of SSDs are extremely expensive, because the single-level cell NAND flash is difficult to produce. At the same time, except for some military solid-state drives, the commercial units provide between 32 and 128 GB of storage space.

The latest notebook from Apple, the MacBook Air for instance would make a good example. If you pick the HDD version, you only pay $1,799 and get 80 GB of storage space. The solid-state drive option would squeeze your pockets off $2,798 and will provide only 64 gigabytes. The same thing happens with Toshiba's Portege R500 notebook, that can be purchased for $1,999 in the 120 gigabytes HDD version, while the SSD-enabled R500 will wear a price tag of $2,699 (64 GB of storage).

Neither the energy-efficiency, nor their rapidity will compensate for the financial and capacity compromise. Data recovery services are a life-savior in case disasters strike, and, while HDDs enjoy easier and cheaper recovery, SSDs act just like a fortress, and you'd rather get some new data than recover it. It's true that SSDs are one step ahead of older HDD in terms of technology, but they are still a luxury piece rather than a necessity. By the way, do you imagine yourself saying "I'm gonna store this file on my solid-state drive"?

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

6,079 hits · 5 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Is Data Recovery Possible When Using Solid-State Disks?

Toshiba, to Join the 128 GB Solid-State Drive Startup

Intel's NAND Products Go Under The Scope Tomorrow - Literally

100GB SSD storage: Here and Now, From Buffalo

CES 2008: Intel to Shift to Solid-State Drives

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Michael on 08 Feb 2008, 12:18 UTC reply to this comment

Thats an awful big statement!
There are many applications where the benefits will compensate for the cost of the SSD.
Laptops that last for many hours, increases in productivity and compact embedded systems, to name a few.
I am about to raid a pair of 64GB on an office machine. Sure it will cost a bomb but my calculations show about 30 minutes a day saved from application loading times a boot from my current machine and about 15 minutes compared to a new machine I am building for a friend.
As this machine is used to earn money I figure they can pay for themselves under 6 months!
How much is your time worth?


Comment #2 by: dsfasf on 27 Apr 2010, 14:03 UTC reply to this comment

I agree to what you said for the prices. but still in performance, sdd is better as you have stated in your comparison. price is a different quantity to quality.


Comment #3 by: Cristian on 30 Jan 2011, 13:10 UTC reply to this comment

Instead of paying for SSD's that lasts for 3 years or so and has the capacity of let's say 128GB, youc an always buy 2 or 3 HDD's of 1 TB each and and set them on RAID. You got the same access speed, 20 times the amount of storage and LONG lifespan.
I have HDD's that are still going in server setups since 1993 ! You won't see that happening with a SSD, the SSD simply consumes itself over time and in a few years, like 3 it will be slower than any HDD on the market and you will need to buy another. SSD's are a big lie for that, they fail to tell you that this is just a piece of hardware with a very short life span, ideal for marketing and profit predictions. SSD's are simply not worth the money, when HDD's are better in durability, capacity and even speed, after 1 or 2 years of use. SSD speed is quickly degrading, with use and is quickly degrading when the storage area gets filled with data. If u have an 128GB SSD and fill 110 GB of it, it will work slower than any HDD, empty or full, but they won't tell you that. They just compare the boot time and app start when the computers are empty and the SSD is brand new. It is a big lie, simply SSD's are just a marketing child, unfortunately.


Comment #4 by: Johnnythegeek on 21 Jan 2012, 13:56 UTC reply to this comment

My own opinion is that people over think the speed advantage of a SSD. Yes, boot times decrease, yes application start times decrease. But after that your running in RAM and so where is the constant speed advantage? When you break down that time spent opening a program or booting your computer. Is that worth the increased cost vs speed? I personally am not rebooting my computer, or opening and closing programs.

Comment #4.1 by: Sesshy on 09 Mar 2012, 05:07 GMT

Increased cost? A 64gb SSD can be had for $93 now, and that's all the space you need to take advantage of the technology. Windows will boot in about ten seconds, programs will load instantaneously, and performance is increased across the board. The only conceivable way in which you could fail to benefit significantly from an SSD is if you literally do nothing on your computer besides browse the web and instant message people without ever turning your machine off. Plunk down $100 on a terabyte HDD, or better yet, use one that you've already got, and your capacity problems are solved.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM