First 1TB SSD drive hits market, wallets

As the price for SSD capacity continues to descend, SSD manufacturers are making increasingly bigger drives. PC Authority reports that the Colossus LT Series, by OCZ, is the first market-available drive to reach 1TB. Instead of the 2.5" form factor commonly seen in laptop SSDs, OCZ opted for 3.5" size used in desktops, as that is the target hardware platform. The Colossus uses the increase in size to slide in more memory, allowing its capacity to reach the 1TB mark.

While nobody is giving out prizes for the feat, it is a milestone in the eventual demise of the mechanical spinning hard drive. The Colossus may be prohibitively expensive (it's going for $4000) and a 1TB spinning hard drive can cost you less than $100, it's only a matter of time before the production technology ramps up with demand and the price difference between HDD and SSD becomes negligible.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

South Korea rocked by Starcraft cheating scandal

Next Story

Google to make VP8 free, HTML5 to benefit

49 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

That model is just there for bragging rights anyway, no one with a clue would use a MLC drive of that size, to what purpose anyway? Store movies? Hell yea you absolutely need 250MB/s read speeds for this, do ya?
best use for SSDs in a consumer box are :
-small system+apps drive (SLC 64Gb, these are random I/O beasts)
-games drive (MLC 100+Gb, will still write faster than your DVD drive can install the games, and read about as fast as SLCs)

These ******* are just money hungry. I am sure mechanical drives cost a lot more to manufacture.
*checks savings account...

Anyone who thinks RAID0 - or any RAID comes anywhere near SSD performance has obviously never had the opportunity to sit at a computer with both and observed.

Here's an idea - you can get a quality high performance 64 GB SSD for around $200. Next time you're thinking of an upgrade for your computer forget faster CPU - forget extra RAM (unless needed) and get a 2nd generation SSD.

The best bang for Buck you can get

Install your OS - preferably one with autotrim support - and shift all your data to your existing mechanical drive and watch your computer fly.

PS - it wasn't that long ago a 40 GB hard drive was the standard inclusion in a new PC so a 64 GB drive for the OS and programs is acceptable when you shift your user folders to a 2nd mechanical drive.

Well plus side, at least it can be made. Now just have to wait until price pr GB comes down to something not apocalyptic. I bought an 60gb SSD cheap for my OS and I'm never going to use an HDD for it again.

Forgive me for being Frank... But $4000.00 - £2602.24 for a SSD is just ****ing stupendous. I realise there are people out there which will pay this for a SSD. but you can buy a car for this, do up your house... Go on a really nice holiday. But to pay this you would need to book an appointment with your shrink and ask him, you are off your rocker, so to speak.

****, if I knew this would be considered "news" I would have posted something over a month ago when I saw it on Newegg.

I still dont see the appeal to this SSD. Correct me if I am wrong but arent you limited to amount of times you can right data on the drive with SSDs? Personally I would rather take my chances with another drive because I can always back up stuff.

Gotenks98 said,
I still dont see the appeal to this SSD. Correct me if I am wrong but arent you limited to amount of times you can right data on the drive with SSDs? Personally I would rather take my chances with another drive because I can always back up stuff.
The average write-cycles on a SSD is well over 5 years worth, in fact, Intel guarentees its SSDs will last 5 years with something like 100GB of data written to them a DAY.

Normal usage is likely to be a fraction of that, which means the drives should easily last 10+ years.

Now, that is just with Intel drives, but still, life expectancy is not as much of an issue as everyone claims it is. Any halfway decent SSD will last as long as a HDD will.

Gotenks98 said,
Correct me if I am wrong but arent you limited to amount of times you can right data on the drive with SSDs?

Correct.

SSDs are "new" (they have been around a LONG time but are NOW actually reaching some mainstream attention) so the tech still has alot to improve.

Magnetic HDDs FTW.

Which HDD do you have in your PC that's 5yrs old right now? Find one and then get back to me. Nobody keeps a HDD around for 5yrs, hell 2yrs is pushing it (unless it's an external one just for backups). So don't go giving me the, "SSDs have limit lifetime" thing as if HDDs don't, they are somewhat even more limited as they have a easier chance to die! Laptops especially since they are more mobile!

SHoTTa35 said,
Which HDD do you have in your PC that's 5yrs old right now? Find one and then get back to me. Nobody keeps a HDD around for 5yrs, hell 2yrs is pushing it (unless it's an external one just for backups). So don't go giving me the, "SSDs have limit lifetime" thing as if HDDs don't, they are somewhat even more limited as they have a easier chance to die! Laptops especially since they are more mobile!
I have a 300GB Maxtor MaxLine III HDD that I bought from Newegg in 2005 (
12/29/2005, right at the end, so lets consider it 2006).

So, in short, I have a HDD right now sitting in my computer that is over 4 years old......it shows no signs of dying any time soon through S.M.A.R.T, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have a quick mechanical failure at some point in the near future.

But, I do agree with you in that the lifetime of SSDs is high enough compared to standard HDDs, that its not really a factor. Sure they have limited writes, but chances are they are going to live longer than a HDD anyway, so why worry about the limited writes?

Gotenks98 said,
I still dont see the appeal to this SSD. Correct me if I am wrong but arent you limited to amount of times you can right data on the drive with SSDs? Personally I would rather take my chances with another drive because I can always back up stuff.

Your mechanical drive will fail before a SSD will... but even mechanical drives have a max write amount also before they start to get bad sectors

Gotenks98 said,
I still dont see the appeal to this SSD. Correct me if I am wrong but arent you limited to amount of times you can right data on the drive with SSDs? Personally I would rather take my chances with another drive because I can always back up stuff.

This is true, but the drive just becomes read only after it reaches the limit, not like an HDD that crashes and burns when it fails. And the limit is something that normal users will take years to reach. HDD is the bottleneck on every system, SSD is the best single upgrade you can get. Even if it's just a smaller one for OS and Apps, then having a larger HDD for storage.

SHoTTa35 said,
Which HDD do you have in your PC that's 5yrs old right now? Find one and then get back to me. Nobody keeps a HDD around for 5yrs, hell 2yrs is pushing it (unless it's an external one just for backups). So don't go giving me the, "SSDs have limit lifetime" thing as if HDDs don't, they are somewhat even more limited as they have a easier chance to die! Laptops especially since they are more mobile!

I bought my hard drive in 2004 and it still works fine. Five years for a hard drive is nothing.

Ok, so we have 2 out of 58? How many people indeed. The vast majority of people don't even keep a PC that long much less. There are a few people that keep old PCs laying around but doesn't mean they are actively being used.

There are a few exceptions tho obviously. Even same GFs dad i mentioned above has a PC with Windows 95 on there (for his small shop). It has all his data since back then and works just fine. The other day he was asking me what it would take to upgrade it to Windows 98. I'm like, this thing doesn't even have USB ports on it, it would cost you more time and headache than just buying a $80 Pentium 4 machine and put Windows XP or 7 on it.

SHoTTa35 said,
Ok, so we have 2 out of 58? How many people indeed. The vast majority of people don't even keep a PC that long much less. There are a few people that keep old PCs laying around but doesn't mean they are actively being used.
90% of the people I do computer upgrades for, including myself and other family, keep the same HDD while upgrading the motherboard, CPU, RAM and GPU.....in all honesty from my own experience, its quite rare for a HDD to be thrown out or gotten rid of as often as other parts of the computer.

Still using a 10GB Hard drive for my Pentium 1, which is used for Dos games. Also was using a 6 year old Hard drive in my Server before it got replaced, which just ran the OS.

SHoTTa35 said,
Which HDD do you have in your PC that's 5yrs old right now? Find one and then get back to me. Nobody keeps a HDD around for 5yrs, hell 2yrs is pushing it (unless it's an external one just for backups). So don't go giving me the, "SSDs have limit lifetime" thing as if HDDs don't, they are somewhat even more limited as they have a easier chance to die! Laptops especially since they are more mobile!

Actually I have a couple of drives that are almost 6 years old and running just fine. I have also had drives die in less than a year. It just depends on the quality of the dive at the time it was built.

I just bought a Qosmio X505-880 laptop that came with a SSD as the primary and a HDD as the secondary. I have to admit, the SSD realy makes the laptop boot up fast and the OS really flies. I was skeptical about having an SSD but this one has really changed my opinion.

I thought that too when i saw it, made me chuckle but it was a nice lil gag

Wallets, :snickering like a 12yr old school girl:

But in 3-5 years, all desktop HDD will be 10,000RPM, and will offer3-5TB of storage. Probably even shrink to 2.5" leaving behind the 3.5" form factor. Who knows....

Spinning disk will stay with us for a long time, maybe not as boot device, but for massive data storage.

You are right to say mechanical HDDs will stay with us for a while but how many people these days need more than 1TB? My GF seems to soak HDDs up with her hi-res pics and she takes TONS of pictures whenever she travel (came back with 8GB of pics last time! 2 4GB SD cards full!) but i doubt she'll ever need more than 1TB (for the next few years). Her 500GB drive still doing great. She takes videos too with her camera so definitely she's more than the average girl to say the least.

Also, HDDs have been kinda stuck at 2TB now for a while (about 15 months) and while i expect them to certainly reach 3TB soon, i don't think we'll be at 5TB ever on HDDs. I think the 10,000RPM drives too are gonna be relegated to the smaller drives cuz if you have 4TB, the aerial density of that drive alone will allow it to push tons of data off it's platters, no need for 10,000RPM. People doing video editing will have a working drive and a storage SAN for their setup and HDD speeds wont matter that much then.

Edited by Roger H., Apr 13 2010, 6:17pm :

SHoTTa35 said,
You are right to say mechanical HDDs will stay with us for a while but how many people these days need more than 1TB? My GF seems to soak HDDs up with her hi-res pics and she takes TONS of pictures whenever she travel (came back with 8GB of pics last time! 2 4GB SD cards full!) but i doubt she'll ever need more than 1TB (for the next few years). Her 500GB drive still doing great. She takes videos too with her camera so definitely she's more than the average girl to say the least.

Also, HDDs have been kinda stuck at 2TB now for a while (about 15 months) and while i expect them to certainly reach 3TB soon, i don't think we'll be at 5TB ever on HDDs. I think the 10,000RPM drives too are gonna be relegated to the smaller drives cuz if you have 4TB, the aerial density of that drive alone will allow it to push tons of data off it's platters, no need for 10,000RPM. People doing video editing will have a working drive and a storage SAN for their setup and HDD speeds wont matter that much then.


+1.
The only easiest way to fill a TB Hard Drive is ripping Blu-Rays, or having many DVDs ripped, or maybe having all your favorite series in HD.

TruckWEB said,
But in 3-5 years, all desktop HDD will be 10,000RPM, and will offer3-5TB of storage. Probably even shrink to 2.5" leaving behind the 3.5" form factor. Who knows....

Spinning disk will stay with us for a long time, maybe not as boot device, but for massive data storage.

HDDs are not on the verge of becoming 10,000 RPM. Drive response time has a lot more to do with platter size and the number of platters than most people realize. Certainly, the faster the platter spins--the faster that the pin can get to the data. However, it also leads to shorter drive lifespans (another win for most SSDs). The density in most modern 5,400 RPM disks leads to faster speeds than most older 7,200 RPM disks. Obviously other things come into play, such as the speed of the on-disk controller, but those are rarely going to be the bottleneck.

In desktops, I would still generally go towards 7,200 RPMs and 5,400 RPMs in laptops.

SHoTTa35 said,
how many people these days need more than 1TB?

I do, thank you very much. Just had to upgrade my Raid-5 to five 2Tb drives at home.

SHoTTa35 said,
how many people these days need more than 1TB?

I know I do! With all the video, pictures, music and software that I use on my home network, currently I have 22 TB online. (3 Workstations with 2 TB each, Two workstations with 4 TB each, Home Server with 4 TB and a HTPC with 4 TB.) Although the drives are far from full, it gives me plenty of storace and workspace when I need it. And in the circle of people I work with, this is not as unusual as you might think,

SHoTTa3 said,

how many people these days need more than 1TB?.

Seeing as I currently have over 8TB (and need to buy another 2TB this weekend as I've only got 200GB left), the answer would be me. Every single DVD I buy, I shove the ISO onto my media servers, and store my discs away, as to prevent clutter, and ease of access to films in my home. I would love to move all my DVDs over to digital media, but currently can't afford to buy all the disks in one go, as currently I own over 2,000 DVDs (including boxsets).

Wow $4k! Can't wait for the prices to drop in a year or two..so something like 250gb sdd would cost $100.

$4000....hrmmm well that means that in 10 years timeframe we'll see a non-business type affordable TB SSD. Until then 7200 rpm owns all.

Un4given said,
Until then 7200 rpm owns all.
Only in price per GB. In terms of speed, mechanical drives cannot compare to SSDs.

Need high-speed drive? SSD
Need mass-storage drive? HDD

Nagisan said,
Only in price per GB. In terms of speed, mechanical drives cannot compare to SSDs.

Need high-speed drive? SSD
Need mass-storage drive? HDD

I'm sure I can deal with the 13 nanosecond delay from my HDD for a 40x savings on the price.

Edited by LogicalApex, Apr 13 2010, 6:36pm :

Frazell Thomas said,

I'm sure I can deal with the 13 nanosecond delay from my HDD for a 40x savings on the price.

You're missing the point.

And no, its not nanosecond delays, the fastest HDD have around 2ms access times (standard 7200rpm drives have around 9ms), standard SSDs have less than 0.1ms, thats nearly a 200 nanosecond difference if you wish to go down to that scale. On top of that, SSDs read and write data much faster than typical HDDs.

Besides, as I said above, if you want optimal performance, SSD, if you are looking for mass storage, HDD. Just because you can deal with the performance difference between SSD and HDD, doesn't mean the difference is irrelevant.

Edited by Nagisan, Apr 13 2010, 6:38pm :

Frazell Thomas said,

I'm sure I can deal with the 13 nanosecond delay from my HDD for a 40x savings on the price.


Nanoseconds? SSDs read and write data at several times the speed of regular HDDs. As Nagisan has also said, their access time is 20x faster too.

For right now, an SSD is really only economical for smaller drives to have your OS and several of your most used programs and games. Photoshop and newer games will have insane performance increases.

I honestly don't see the big need for an SSD. And it really isn't that much noticeably quicker than 2 drives in Raid0. Sure, perhaps if you work with a gigantic photoshop project over a few gigs, uncompressed, then maybe it's worth it. For the average Joe, I don't think it matters, especially for that price. I also like space.

Billus said,
I honestly don't see the big need for an SSD. And it really isn't that much noticeably quicker than 2 drives in Raid0. Sure, perhaps if you work with a gigantic photoshop project over a few gigs, uncompressed, then maybe it's worth it. For the average Joe, I don't think it matters, especially for that price. I also like space.
Which is why SSD tend to target higher-end users not the "average Joe's".

In terms of speed though, you are comparing a SSD to 2 drives in RAID. The SSD will still have MUCH lower access times with roughly the same if not higher read/write performance (I have seen a benchmark comparing a SSD to 2x VelociRaptor drives in raid, they were roughly the same throughput). Put 2 SSDs in raid and your going to stomp all over that 2x HDD in raid in both access times and read/write.

As I originally stated above. If you need the best performance possible: SSD, if you need mass storage: HDD.

And SSDs affect more than opening large photoshop files. Catia - a 3D CAD program designed for aerospace, automotive and other industry design work. On a standard HDD, a cold-boot of Catia (that is, Catia has not been started since last computer reboot) takes around 60-90 seconds on a high-end machine. Use the same setup with a SSD and that startup time takes 20-30 seconds.

Now, that is just one limited example, but for any large programs that use lots of files, a SSD is going to offer noticeable higher performance than a HDD, even compared to 2x HDDs in raid due to their seek times.

Billus said,
I honestly don't see the big need for an SSD. And it really isn't that much noticeably quicker than 2 drives in Raid0. Sure, perhaps if you work with a gigantic photoshop project over a few gigs, uncompressed, then maybe it's worth it. For the average Joe, I don't think it matters, especially for that price. I also like space.

Err, SSD is considerable faster than RAID0. H/D access time os 9ms means you've got to get 2 drives to that position, no matter HOW many spinning drives you have, there will STILL be a 9MS delay for the seek. Plus you need to have a fast RAID controller too, the el-cheapo ones around are rubbish in terms of speed compared to PERC, etc.
Plus RAID0 is just daft, no redundancy.