Why SSDs Are Big And Cheap

[@femaves5321]

At this point LTT has so much footage that they don't need stock footage 😂

[@mannosblack7129]

(in epic voice) They have become the stock footage 😂😂

[@loganatori6117]

I do not need stock footage. I am the stock footage. A guy makes a video and pays for B role and you think that of me? No. I am the one who stocks

[@Hype7media]

Yeah there's alot channels that use stock footage that has nothing to do with the subject matter

[@hammerth1421]

Well, they still have the picture of an Intel CPU in an AM4 socket in there...

[@Nespax1]

Careful what you say or this will result in Luke start another new company for LMG

[@Valfaun]

"a mere 14 years later" bruh, 14 years is an eternity for electronics

[@death-by-ego]

Give them a break. They need to pump out content on several channels. We all know why consumer tech when new is more expensive than years down the line when the manufacturing etc process is refined

[@creounity]

Indeed! A zillion things have changed since then.

[@freedomgoddess]

@@creounity yet spelling on the internet is absolutely not one of them.

[@NitheshVG734]

@@freedomgoddess I thik that doesn’t come under those zillion thigs

[@Valfaun]

@@death-by-ego i didn't intend to give them shit for the video itself if it came across like that. just for that particular piece of wording i quoted

[@uss_04]

The price drop in NVMe SSDs almost makes up for the insane price increase in GPUs.

[@SamuraiGuy]

Maybe in percent difference, but definitely not in the exact dollar amount.

[@blackraven8841]

Not even close lol

[@venomlightYT]

you can store all of your games but you can't play them. what a deal

[@hinatashoyo2999]

No

[@doctoreighty452]

more like on overpriced mobos, -100 on ssd will cover +100 on mobo but not 2x times more on gpu lol

[@thedayb4tomorrow]

I don't think the explanation regarding longevity was very clear. The point is that in a single-bit cell, the charge held by the cell can change by almost 50 percent and the data will still be intact because as long as it's still in the right half of charge level, it can still be interpreted as the correct 1 or 0. A 5-bit cell will have to differentiate between 32 different charge levels so even a 3% fluctuation in charge stored in the cell will corrupt it.

[@s4shrish]

Wow, that actually explains it much better. Kudos!

[@paulstubbs7678]

Wow, put that tech on the 'do not buy' list

[@vk3fbab]

Right makes complete sense now. I was thinking I wouldn't expect that people would address a single bit on a drive so you'd expect 8 bits per cell to make the most sense aside from being able to resolve 256 values reliably.

[@zperdek]

What is now better? SLC or MLC acting like SLC?

[@songyani3992]

@@zperdek depends on what you mean by better. Was it Performance/Price ratio or simply better performance？Because “real” SLC theoretically still perform marginally better than MLC imitating SLC and considering SLC-imitating MLC requires software Algorithm to balance wear off sometimes it will get much worse. On the other hand, with proper algorithms and better manufacturing processes MLC can lower the cost significantly compare to proper SLC and restrict the performance difference into aforementioned “marginal” range.

[@Hybris51129]

At the end of the day it still seems like the best setup is to have a SSD for your boot drive, a SSD for games and other speed sensitive tasks, and one or more massive hard drives for bulk storage.

[@boulx]

1 m.2 for os and softwares / 2tb m.2 for lightroom catalog/buffer and files / and other files on massive hard drive

[@fafski1199]

Yep, spot on. Some people are trying make out that "Hard Drives are dead". However, you still can't beat a large capacity HDD or two when it come to bulk storage on a budget (most people). And let's face it, most people require a lot of bulk storage space these day's, due to the ever growing sizes with software (games and apps). HDD's won't die off, until SSD's become far more cost effective, when it comes to storing large amounts of data.

[@Len_M.]

I have 2 m.2’s in RAID 0 another for less frequently used stuff, then a NAS for storage. When doing Web related stuff I try to always be on a Virtual Machine.

[@ReZel80657]

@@fafski1199 HDD´s are not dead due to the simple fact that SSD´s above 8 TB cost more almost everyone can afford while you can get a 20/22 TB Seagate Exos for the around same price as some of the gen 4 four TB NVME drives, while i would love one of those 100 TB Exadrives SSD´s from Nimbus i dont have $40.000 lying around and even the 50 TB model is still $10.000 US

[@SnowyRVulpix]

Thats what i’ve done. One drive to boot, one drive for OBS recordings and games/apps that need the speed… and then a mass storage drive for games/apps and data that doesn’t need the speed

[@kalark]

I love the fact that spinning platter storage is still getting cheaper, picking up 10tb drives for 100-150 is great for home server usage!

[@441milachik]

Exactlly, you Can buy two of them one for offline backup, and the other for active usage.

[@user-eu5ol7mx8y]

Yeah. Hard drive are definitelyi still useful. Also, that nostalgic sound!

[@bitfenix90]

I'm still waiting for my baker's dozen of 36tbs... I'm pretty tired of juggling 22tb drives. Time to step up and give us REAL capacity upgrades.

[@classicrockonly]

Where? I’m seeing 8tb is still closer to $200 with some hanging around $150

[@restushlogic5794]

Hdd? Nope. I don't want 5MB transfer rate

[@threecubed3]

SSDs are so cheap now it's unreal

[@michaelprox1172]

same, i bought my 2tb m.2 nvme gen 3 ssd over 2 years ago, this prices feels unreal

[@MrFRNTIK]

Ya, I got a 500gb m.2 drive few years ago and I wish I just waited a while. It's was over $100 and for that price today I could probably get a 2tb drive for less.

[@SaHaRaSquad]

And HDDs. Just recently I bought a 20TB drive for like 300 bucks, amazing for backups.

[@CosmicCitiZenOfficial]

Cheap ssd are sus 😮

[@MrFRNTIK]

@CosmicCitiZen no it's not. They're just finally down on the prices. Even Samsung drives are cheaper than they use to be.

[@okaro6595]

I just googled prices and I was shocked. 2 TB Samsung EVO is 130 €. I paid 240 € for 1 TB in 2018.

[@poulette2937]

I paid 480 for 1tb in 2016 iirc

[@someoneelse5005]

kingston nv2 2tb is 80e and it's m2 form factor!

[@tbm7301]

now you can get a 2tb intel 670p nvme for like $70.

[@bluedinnerbox1370]

@@tbm7301 ⁠and for 10 bucks more you can even upgrade to an pcie 4 one

[@tekeagle2136]

I am surprised how much SSDs have dropped in price. And my mother still tells me that they are overpriced, probably because they are over $20.

[@tnargdonald]

My first SSD for work was $2500 and 24gb Worked perfect on XP as long as you trimmed every hundred hours or so of use. FWIW spinning disks were not an option in non pressurized Airplanes at altitude.

[@google_is_annoying_me_lots3440]

should have just had a better job that would have let you use cheaper storage

[@vannhantran547]

With same budget you could get a 500TB SSD

[@docferringer]

@@google_is_annoying_me_lots3440 It's not his or his employer's fault. The unpressurized sections of an airplane severely limit your storage options since hard drives need a cushion of air beneath the read/write heads to function. No air = head crash = bye bye data.

[@eeriemyxi]

@@vannhantran547 2001's 2500 dollars would be like 4500 dollars today, you can get a 14-15 TB SSD for that price.

[@FreeAimDog]

@@vannhantran547 it was probably in the late 90s to early 2000s. 24 gigs nowadays would not hold a pc game unless it was a 2D game. try to look at red dead redemption 2 and that 24gig SSD will say NO.

[@surferdude4487]

Yes, I have noticed the massively reduced boot time since I switched to SSD. But the main reason that I switched was to avoid damage to my HDD when moving my laptop. In any case, the increasing capacity while prices drop are a win for us consumers.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

Fallout 4 is why I bought a SATA SSD (and then later a faster M.2). I went from "OH GOD NO!" when accidentally opening a door in a building that lead outside, to "Whoops, wrong door". After that I played Skyrim and was amused at the loading screens flashing by.

[@davidgoodnow269]

For me, it was the much longer battery life on my laptop after upgrading to an SSD. Doubled the RAM, replaced the old battery with a new one, and replaced the factory hard drive with an SSD. That made for much faster boot and wake times, and roughly doubled battery life.

[@surferdude4487]

@@davidgoodnow269 I did the memory upgrade when I replaced my HDD with an SSD. I didn't bother with the battery because I was only trying to extend the life of a computer that's plugged in most of the time anyway by about a year or so. But, yes, that upgrade combo makes good sense.

[@surferdude4487]

@@BaronVonQuiply The only games I still play on my old laptop are The Sims 3 and Master of Orion 2. For Moo2, the HDD was already fast enough. For TS3, on the other hand, I don't know what they're doing when that game launches, but I haven't noticed any difference. Now that's ridiculous!

[@johngaltline9933]

The ssd has lots of benefits, but your main reason isn’t all that important. Laptops have had active hard drive protection using accelerometers to detect movement and park the heads to prevent damage for the last 20 years. The ssd might give peace of mind and is better for a host of other reasons, but hdds solved the problem of dropping a laptop long ago.

[@petertrex]

Recent dump of YMTC 232 layer NANDs has caused massive amount of price decrease in some countries. You can get 2TB 7000mb/s Gen4 drives for $90 when 2.5inch 2TB is still $80. (They are really cheap) They are TLC although DRAM less, they perform very close to 980s. (They lose on much larger file size but I personally had 200GB of game+MODs copied within 7sec between those drives, so I don't think there will be issue)

[@nahventure3873]

i finally got around to adding a 1TB SSD to my rig after years of wanting one, I grabbed a nv2 from kingston and honestly I consider myself a relatively heavy pc user, does fine, can't really tell a diff from the samsung 850 500gb drives I had before (2). Sold both of those and grabbed this one. I don't have windows on it since I had another SSD with windows (I was using 11 as main and had 10 on a 250gb ssd, but ended up dumping w11 with the 500gb ssd)

[@syarifairlangga4608]

Which brand use ymtc? How bad is it the write cycle?

[@VladimirJog]

Which brand/drive you are getting for 90$?

[@Slav4o911]

Where to buy them?

[@GoldSrc_]

Did you seriously mention 2.5 inch drives specifically, just to make your point? lol. 2TB hard drives are like $40, not $80. 4TB hard drives cost around $80. You don't have to be dishonest like that.

[@vonwux]

I still remember my Dad buying a 1gb (!) scsi drive for about £1200 (~$1500 with todays rate, much more back then) in the mid 90s. Obviously very different to modern drives but I always think back to that whenever looking at prices now, when you can buy getting on for 100tb of spinning rust at the same cost before inflation etc

[@reaganharder1480]

I was poking around in my parents' basement the other day and found an old drive my dad kept in hopes of recovering data from it, and I looked on the sticker and it was a 5GB capacity. It really was an interesting perspective, holding that big chonker that could store roughly 1/400th the data as the tiny little NVMe I put in my new build just a couple weeks earlier.

[@tekeagle2136]

I still have a 1GB flash drive from 2012, 1/4 full with a short stop-motion film on it. As for prices, finding a 1TB for $60 is amazing compared to years ago. I still don't see why my mother thinks that everything is overpriced. My 512GB Galaxy S20 Ultra for $500 is overpriced, but an iPhone 13 128GB for $750 isn't. A Galaxy Watch 5 for $200 is overpriced, but an Apple Watch 8 for $400+ isn't. Doesn't make sense, right? Maybe it is because I grew up in a slightly poor family who does monthly payments while I pay in full, or buys things for ridiculously cheap prices.

[@Slav4o911]

My first HDD was 4,3 GB. It's in 1999, not the greatest drive then... but even with that drive it was very hard to convince my parents to buy my first PC. I remember it was enough for Windows 98 and installing just a few games and some other programs, also then games ran from CDs so not the whole game was installed on the HDD. One of the first games I've played was Heroes of Might and Magic 2.

[@Gatorade69]

@@Slav4o911 Actually most games back then ran from the hard drive, the CD-rom was really just used as a piracy check. A simple no CD cracked exe was enough to play games without the disc.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

@@Slav4o911 I installed Magic: The Gathering on XP circa 2007 and had to force it because the installer wanted Win 95 and had no idea of XP. I either ended up poking around the CD and finding an installer to run directly, or I did what it was going to do and just copied the install folder to the hard drive. I think it was even too old to bother with checking which drive it was running from (basic CD-check). Around that same time I found the HDD from the PC my parents bought around 2001/2. 8 Gigs.. didn't even bother putting it in my PC (143 GB for comparison. 2005 Compaq w/AMD Semprom @ 1.8Ghz, 1 core. I upgraded it to the best CPU the socket would take - 1 core 2.2 Ghz Semprom. ~$330 w/box or $28 OEM. I bought OEM. It was 64-bit but my XP was 32 so it kept telling me I should upgrade windows to get the most out of the chip)

[@Spioszek]

In my opinion, TLC is such a golden mean between disk performance and its capacity ;)

[@llortaton2834]

Wouldn't use it for metadata because it dies fast (TBW) but great for reading from.

[@Spioszek]

@@llortaton2834 In general, for keeping important things, I recommend keeping copies on 3 different drives

[@akamemurasame4527]

@@Spioszek The 3-2-1 strategy basically

[@jrzamora6]

When TCL came out it was called terrible though. SLC is amazing, but not cost effective. I liked MLC and wish there were still options. SDDs makers should have tiers where we could choose which we want with our wallets, but unfortunately consumers aren't informed and just want the biggest drive for the cheapest price most of the time.

[@pyromethious]

I definitely avoided QLC from the moment I read up on it for sure

[@HeisenbergFam]

2:41 Riley's "I can do more coach, put me in" is so majestic I would put him in

[@yasashii_koe]

A good idea for the next video is to talk about HAMR, and how this will allow 32TB hard drives to soon hit the market. HDD are not dead yet, not even close.

[@ReZel80657]

32 TB HAMR would mean i could drop down from 8 HDD´s to a lower amount the only problem is price HAMR is probably not going to be cheap

[@Vertigon100]

HAMR (Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording) - allows data bits to become smaller and more densely packed than ever - to write new data, a small laser diode attached to each recording head momentarily heats a tiny spot on the disk, which enables the recording head to flip the magnetic polarity of a single bit at a time, enabling data to be written - is the storage technology innovation that increases the amount of data storage in the area available to store data - a.k.a.“areal density.”

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

I hope not. HDDs still have a ton of usefulness to them, albeit in more and more niche situations. I for one would not mind having a couple of cheap 20 TB disks in a NAS. Always good for backups at least.

[@fleurdewin7958]

When datacenters have not replaced all magnetic tape storage with hard drives, I don't see how hard drives are going extinct in many decades to come.

[@armorgeddon]

I have more trust in Toshiba's MAMR technology. The heat-assisted technology to me feels more challenging to achive high reliability. Both technologys are once again engineering marvels, that's for sure.

[@jeffhyche9839]

Something that people need to take into account when dealing with the longevity issue of SSD's. How long will you actually use that SSD. I'm a pretty heavy user of systems and I've also been buying SSD's since they first came out. I can't tell you how many I've bought, maybe 20 or so. Of those 20, I've only had 1 to actually go bad during use. I have shoe box full of them that other than being to small for my purpose are still perfectly good. I do have a 256GB in my nas that is almost 10 years old. I ran a check on it and the SMART says its fine. For general purpose users I, and others in my circle, have found that SSDs get obsolete long before they wear out. I just replaced a samsung 960 that I have used as my C: drive in my workstation since that model came out. If the Magician software is to be believed I'm half way through the lifespan of the nans on it. I only retired it because it was to small for my needs. One thing to take into account on the longevity of SSD's is they all have a system in then that will tell you when they are about to die. Most OSs will read this data and tell you this drive is going to join "the heavenly choir" soon and to replace your data. With HHD this warning is hit or miss but with SSD it's pretty much spot on. So, my advice on buying SSDS is buy a quality one and don't worry about longevity. Odds are the SSD will outlast the useful life of the computer.

[@reaganharder1480]

Logically, outside of a catastrophic failure of the controller which would most likely be caused by a power surge or something similar, one would expect an SSD to fail one cell at a time, which makes it very easy for a well designed monitoring system to accurately assess the health of the drive. If I'm not mistaken, I think my dad's PC has been running it's SSD for upwards of 10 years and has only shown any noticeable signs of possible degradation in the last two or three years.

[@atomicskull6405]

Even if they do wear out they don't actually die you can still read from them. That's the main selling point for me, reliability. My last platter drive was a 3TB toshiba purchased in 2018 and it started giving me a SMART warning within 4 years.

[@1IGG]

Exactly. I have a SSD with 128ish GB since over 10 years and no issues. HDD die a lot more often.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

​@@atomicskull6405 how ssds die and whether they die gracefully into RO depends largely on the controller. So a decent controller will let you read data, otherwise you might not be so lucky

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

My experience is same. I've buried a few hdds, whereas I still have none of the many ssds that have failed, even the cheaper ones, and a shoebox of smaller ones that are just not very practical to use any more

[@egorro]

Next video: Why SSDs aren't free?

[@d9zirable]

with the right effort anything is free

[@Knomlive]

lool

[@firdaus99031]

​@@d9zirable anything is free as long as you dont get caught

[@pankoza]

Meanwhile me who got 2 256GB SATA SSD's as a free gift from my cousin (one went in my Desktop PC and other in a old Asus Laptop I got from another cousin as a gift today)

[@egorro]

​@@pankoza It was free for you, but not for your cousin

[@ejonesss]

since ssd is smaller it means that they could use a rebound effect to increase the capacity and lifespans* rebound is like what happens when you are set on buying something and you have $100 and the item is on 50% sale so you may now buy 2 of the item since you have to only spend $50. so they could make the drive to the full 3.5 inch form factor and cram a bigger board in the enclosure.

[@SpiritmanProductions]

I remember paying £200 (£492 in today's money) for a puny 200MB HDD for my Amiga 1200 in 1995. At those prices, 8TB would cost £19.7million!

[@----.__]

$400 for 40MB in Australia circa 1990 in an AT clone. Storage was super pricey back in those days. I still have my A1200, A500 and C64 in my cupboard boxed away. Still the best computers in my opinion. There was more fun and comedy involved in computing back then and I miss it these days. If you pull apart an A500 you'll see they named all the chips and had them etched on the PCBs. Paula for sound, Denise for video etc etc.

[@SpiritmanProductions]

@@----.__ Indeed there was. And I didn't know that about the chips. lol

[@----.__]

@@SpiritmanProductions You'll love this then; the A500 chip responsible for RAM addressing and some video functions was called the Agnus (512KB). The later more powerful generation was the Fat Agnus (1MB), and the last most powerful generation was the Super Fat Agnus (2MB). That's what I mean about the fun and comedic angle they took back then, it's sorely missed these days. The Agnus naming convention was a lot more fun than the typical 3090, 4090 naming they use these days. Peace mate, nice to have met you. [edit: holy sh!t your channel is huge!! have another sub, gratis]

[@SpiritmanProductions]

@@----.__ Cheers. ;-)

[@DeSinc]

I bought my first 980 pro 2tb for over $650 my second 980 pro 2tb only cost $200... (au dollars)

[@jinzhonggu8276]

Currently, here in China, many emerging SSD use Yangtze Memory Technology Corp‘s storage cells. Their price is even more competitive, I got a 2TB SSD for just 80$. Sadly, that company seems to be banned by the US. :(

[@llih0074]

This week, 2TB NVME, 5000MB/s read/write speed, only costs $60, China's June, 18th e-commerce shopping festival.

[@stopthink9000]

Hey. 2024 here and we want the cheap prices back. Thaaaannnks.

[@churblefurbles]

Even dram, the kit I bought over a year ago costs the same now lol

[@GameCyborgCh]

if we ever get to 8 layer cells then wouldn't that counteract a lot of the downsides since the controller can write an entire byte to a cell rather than multiple bits. compared to a SLC ssd the controller wouldn't need get 8 bits from 8 different cells to create a requested byte, it could just read the byte from 1 cell

[@someoneelse5005]

wow I was thinking exactly this. This is also the reason booleans in programming languages are stored in 32/64bit words!

[@oienu]

Well, QLC is a safe point then, since you can put a nibble and only read 2 cells, but that still is lower than TLC where you need spread the data in multiple cells.

[@jedijackattack3594]

Not really as you never actually write just a byte to a harddrive. Most of the time you write a block which is either 512B or 4096B. So provided you can get some multiple of that you gain basically nothing. (Those are just 2 common block sizes YMMV in terms of what is actually going on)

[@oienu]

@@jedijackattack3594 That is on the file system, on hardware level isn't same, you can write a byte, the problem is you can't search for a byte, you need to know where is, that is why at file system you use blocks because are more easy to track and assign, you can lost a block to catalog the file name, and possitions of the blocks you need to access, that way you don't need track each byte.

[@shanent5793]

The controller already writes whole bytes to the flash chip, why would it matter how many bits are stored in a cell?

[@ragtop63]

I keep hearing about SSD lifespan. I still use a Samsung SATA SSD from over 10 years ago. It has not failed, does not show any signs of failing, and still has all of its original capacity.

[@asdbef3667]

Which samsung model?

[@Spurdospaerde692]

"Over 10 years"?? That's the 2010's! Practically brand new. If I couldn't still flawlessly read my Amiga HDDs, or floppies for that matter, from the late 80's, then I'd be severely disappointed in the poor quality of that media. Of course everything but a few no-name floppies is still fully readable.

[@bierrollerful]

1:17 I'm an electron science person man and I can confirm that electron leakage looks *exactly* like that.

[@joelcarson4602]

As slow as spinning HD are, at least the little noises that they emitted let you know that something was actually happening when file access occurred. One way or another.

[@TheJacklikesvideos]

i can tell when my internet drops first when my HDDs stop writing downloads instead of waiting for my stream buffer to run out :)

[@kanlu5199]

Fun fact: SMIC started to produce 232 layers of TLC Memory early this year, which is leading the world

[@johncalla2151]

In terms of storage, SSDs are the opposite of big and cheap. Capacities are stuck at anemic levels and the trend is for cheaper, lower quality NAND but still high prices.

[@TheOriginalFaxon]

I paid 800 bucks for my first 500 gig SSD. It was 100% SLC, and it lasted a long ass time for the amount of data I wrote to it, I think the controller or something else was actually what failed though because I wasn't exactly near the end of its NAND lifespan either (though I was getting there for sure, it had over 50tb written to it and had lost some of its buffer cells). Ironically the QLC drives that offer these ultra high capacities today would probably still last longer because I wouldn't have to constantly delete and write new data to a larger drive

[@kathleentoner211]

I'd pay a reasonable premium for SLC, or even larger MLC 😢

[@bluesteelbass]

@@kathleentoner211 Samsung enterprise or datacenter drives (PM, SM) got you covered.

[@kathleentoner211]

@@bluesteelbass I'll look into this, thanks

[@DripDripDrip69]

@@kathleentoner211 Samsung sz1735 with Z-NAND, competitor to Intel Optane. And Kioxia has XL-Flash, Micron has XTR SLC, all enterprise U.2 drives.

[@marcse7en]

My new WD Blue 2TB TLC SSD has an endurance rating of 900 TBW! 😲

[@Smarglenargle]

1 Terabyte is barely any space now. I just got a new desktop with 1 tb, 900 GB of usable room, just installing the Adobe collection, Blender, and 2 modern games, and I'm already at 400 GB left. When everything is 100 GB these days, 1 TB only really has room to install 10 things.

[@KellyWu04]

I thought DRAM cache is for caching the lookup table, and on DRAM-less NVMe, “host memory buffer” is used instead.

[@AlexSchendel]

If we're being pedantic, "NAND" generally refers to the logic gate rather than the flash. NAND flash is what actually stores data. NAND flash doesn't actually have anything to do with the logic gate. The only reason it is called "NAND" is because of the way the cells are arranged. In NAND flash, the cells are arranged in series between the source line and the contact. This is the same way that the transistors in a NAND gate are arranged. There is also NOR flash which actually predates NAND flash. This was called NOR flash because its cells are arranged similar to the way the transistors in a NOR gate are arranged (in parallel). However, this technology has largely been abandoned because it has a dramatically larger cell size (more than 2x). This is because the parallel nature of NOR flash requires every single cell to have its own connection to the contact and the source line versus NAND flash which just has one cell connect to the contact and one cell connect to the source line, with every single other cell just connected to each other in a line between the two end cells. As mentioned, PLC NAND will give more storage more cheaper, but it will absolutely obliterate endurance and performance. Every bit you add to store in a cell halves the voltage gaps between each bit value because you need a distinct voltage value for every possible value that can be represented by the cell. So SLC is easy, the cell either has no voltage (0) or maximum voltage (1). But then you get MLC where you need four possible levels, so 0V (00), 0.33Vcc (01), 0.67Vcc(10), 1Vcc(11) for example. Go to TLC and you need 8 different levels. Then with QLC you need 16 levels which is why the endurance is so bad on QLC drives because just a little bit of wear and they will start leaking enough charge to put them outside of their tiny 1/16thVcc voltage range and then you have a bit error. PLC will be even worse, requiring 32 different levels. Furthermore, since you're storing 5 bits per cell, you need to rewrite all five bits even if you only changed one bit. That's why performance is so bad on QLC NAND (once you fill the cache on any consumer drive), because you need to transfer 4 bits for every single operation even if not all the bits are needed. With PLC, that overhead just increases further. As such, PLC will be relegated to the cheapest, slowest, shortest-lived drives.

[@twocows360]

I have three SSDs and a large HDD in my computer. *Most* of my games go on the HDD with the exception of a few games that I basically never uninstall because I don't really stop playing them and a few games that just perform terribly on HDD.

[@----.__]

JFC, your username. I remember messing about on the tucows bbs in the early 90's. You just made me feel ancient. Thanks, I think :P Regardless, your strategy regarding storage is spot on. That implementation offers the best bang for buck while still having high performance for OS and favourite games. Stay well mate.

[@y_zass]

I remember shopping for SSDs and trying to find MLC drives in the large amount of TLC drives (inferior) that flooded the market. Now you can't even find MLC drives and are looking for TLC drives among the many QLC drives that are flooding the market. They are sacrificing performance and longevity for capacity and profits.

[@RatchetRorschach]

can u tell me which specific SSD model is MLC and which is TLC, how to detect them?

[@DivusMagus]

I was shocked when I was browsing amazon and saw how low they had gotten, just 3 years ago i paid $100 for a 2.5 inch 1tb ssd now you can get almost double that on nvme for the same price.

[@M0rn1n6St4r]

4:00 *Table displays on screen - with **_erroneous (percentage) analysis_** of "increase in capacity" and "increase in complexity"* In the table: 1. "States per cell" really means "charge-states per cell". The number of physical storage-cells does not increase. Only the number of charge-states increases: for MLC, TLC, QLC, and PLC. 2. "Increase in capacity" - contains _incorrect percentages_ - because they (should not) be relative to the previous type... 2a. they are relative _to the base-type_ - *SLC* - which, when corrected, looks like... 2a1. | SLC = 100% | MLC = +100% (200%) | TLC = +200% (300%) | QLC = +300% (400%) | PLC = +400% (500%) | 3. "Increase in complexity" - contains (one) _incorrect percentage_ (column-spanning the table-data cells)... 3a. the increase in complexity is defined by the _"states per cell"_ - which _doubles_ with each "bits per cell"... 3a1a. | SLC = 100% | MLC = +100% (200%) | TLC = +300% (400%) | QLC = +700% (800%) | PLC = +1,500% (1,600%) | 3a1a1. | SLC = 2 states | MLC = 4 states | TLC = 8 states | QLC = 16 states | PLC = 32 states | 3a1a1a. with SLC (2¹), two discreet and _well-separated_ *electrical* charges can be used ➔ *the **_least_** complex* 3a1a1b. with PLC (2⁵), *thirty-two* discreet and _poorly-separated_ *electrical* charges _must be used_ ➔ (by far) *the **_most_** complex* I look forward to the @Techquickie _correction_ video! (Who am I kidding? Even if I'm not _shadow-banned_ yet, surely this comment will do it. Comments are meant to be praise-only. No room for (constructive) criticism. Not without bending over backwards to be polite and respectful. Right? smh)

[@M0rn1n6St4r]

In case this is not obvious to some readers of my comment: "3a1a1a. with SLC (2¹)..." ➔ chance of read/write success = 1⁄2 and chance of read/write error = 1⁄2 "3a1a1b. with PLC (2⁵)..." ➔ chance of read/write success = 1⁄32 and chance of read/write error = 31⁄32 Those are oversimplifications, because there's probability distribution in each - with _far greater tolerance_ in SLC and _negligible tolerance_ in PLC. But, it's a good way to convey just how much more complex PLC is - compared to SLC. In reality, SLC (probably) looks more like... "3a1a1a. with SLC (2¹)..." ➔ chance of read/write success = 53⁄64 and chance of read/write error = 11⁄64 Another reason SLC is _least complex_ - the controller can just write to each cell. _All others_ require that the controller _read data_ before _writing data._ How does the controller know which charge-state to write, without (first) knowing which charge-state is already there? It doesn't. Using MLC as an example (enumerated binary-to-charge-state values): 0b00=0 0b01=1 0b10=2 0b11=3 If the instruction from the controller is "flip the rightmost bit" (i.e. 0➔1 or 1➔0), then it must _read that bit_ before it flips it. Not to mention - it _must preserve_ the leftmost bit (i.e. 1➔1 or 0➔0). Such that... Read state 0 ➔ Write state 1 == 0b00➔0b01 Read state 1 ➔ Write state 0 == 0b01➔0b00 Read state 2 ➔ Write state 3 == 0b10➔0b11 Read state 3 ➔ Write state 2 == 0b11➔0b10

[@dat_21]

@@M0rn1n6St4r It writes in 4k blocks regardless. If you need to change 1 bit it's going to rewrite a whole 4k block.

[@M0rn1n6St4r]

​@@dat_21 - You are thinking of the (default) block-size in the file system. What if I have formatted the partition, changing the (default) block-size from 4 KB to 256 KB? Then what? Does it write 256 KB? Even if my program is only writing 1 bit? I'm not saying you are wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if SSD manufacturers let the file system, users, and software wear-out the storage via excessive writes. But, if it works the way experts claim it works, the device's components (controller, driver, etc.) and the OS account for the HDD-based block-size. If it works the way it should¹, then - no - it _does not_ write 4 KB blocks, regardless. But, the file system "thinks" that it does. ¹ On the first system I used, with an SSD as primary storage, I installed all the software I had been using with HDD. When I tried to _secure-erase_ a bunch of sensitive files, using 7-pass DoD overwrite, the system popped up a notification. Something like, "This storage device does not [benefit from or support] secure-erase. Permanently deleting files, instead." (on a 2015 MacBook Air) I haven't tried it on any other system, so I don't really know. I can, however, report my current system's *S•M•A•R•T•* data: Available Spare: 100% Available Spare Threshold: 10% Percentage Used: 2% Data Units Read: 159,935,021 [81.8 TB] Data Units Written: 36,101,915 [18.4 TB] Host Read Commands: 637,603,941 Host Write Commands: 416,305,509 Controller Busy Time: 2,018 Power Cycles: 7,013 Power On Hours: 2,721 Why would a system protect me from myself, in regard to secure-erase, but not protect me from my file system's block-size? According to the data, my SSD has not been writing 4 KB blocks. Not unless it's necessary - to write 4 KB of data.

[@dat_21]

@@M0rn1n6St4rThe block maybe be different, but it still writes whole chunks even on very small changes. Controller will to do wear leveling so blocks will be shuffled around to not wear 1 cell too hard. And operating system will try to combine small writes into blocks.

[@M0rn1n6St4r]

​@@dat_21 - Yes. And doesn't wear-leveling evaluate how much of a block is "empty" - correlating those bits to other "empty" cells - to write as few bits as possible? Unless you're using btrfs or zfs. The copy-on-write "feature" sounds good, in theory. On spinning rust (HDD), it is good. On SSD, however, it leaves much to be desired. If I make a small (1 MB) change to a 100 GB file, it will write another 100 GB - while free space is available - to keep _both versions_ of the file. That's one way to wear-out the SSD - _fast!_ Great for rollback. Terrible for device performance¹, health, and longevity. For those file systems, in my opinion, the value of the data must be >> the value of the device + the value of the performance impact (i.e. the user's time). ¹ Ever see the performance difference between a Linux distro running on ext4 (or xfs) vs _the same distro_ running on btrfs? It is _shockingly_ bad. If I recall correctly, btrfs only performs (relatively) well, doing _large, sequential reads and writes_ - on PTS (Phoronix Test Suite). Because of the build-up of "many versions" - it performs (relatively) poorly - _even in the read categories._

[@geekinthehattech]

I enjoy Techquickie just because Riley is enjoyable to watch. The comical side of these videos is really good and on occasion I do learn something I didn't know.

[@leeknight9957]

I *love* the fact you said "dislike it if you disliked it", It's a great way to encourage people not to be apathetic and *actually* express an opinion.

[@teej_youtube]

This video aged bad lol prices are outrageous now

[@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER]

in 2007 i was interning at a video production company, and they got 7TB of hard drives, at the time, it was a crazy huge amount of storage, and took up most of the closet they were in. its crazy that these days, 7TB is pretty common and normal.

[@grdprojekt]

I wanted to get an external SSD for my Lightroom photo collection. My strategy is still the same, get an internal SSD and buy an enclosure, they're often only 1/2 the price as a dedicated external ones. I've been aiming for a SATA drive for the last 10 months, and couldn't believe my eyes to find an NVMe one on the same capacity for 3% more price just last week. And it's not like they're cheaping that much (on the surface at least) because they use stacked TLC, not QLC. Though longevity is still yet to be seen.

[@GoldSrc_]

Just remember that NVMe drives often disable SATA ports, so check your motherboard to make sure yours is not like that. In case you ever need more SATA ports and find out they don't work, because that happened to a friend lol.

[@Vittrich]

@@GoldSrc_ i had to learn this the hard way a few years ago because all my m.2 slots were bound to 2 sata ports, so 3 m.2 used all 6 sata boards and i was wondering where my other 4 ssds went.

[@myne00]

The simplest way to explain SLC, MLC etc is to grab a measuring jug. SLC has two states. Empty and full. 0,1 MLC is empty, quarter full, 75% full or full. 00,01,10,11 TLC breaks those levels down even further, adding 12.5%, 37.5%, 62.5% and 87.5%. The reason this works on SSDs is that they are similar to capacitors. Capacitors store charge similarly to a bucket. NAND moves electrons in and out of sealed cells via magic (quantum tunneling). So not exactly like a capacitor, but similar. If you can precisely manage the writes and reads, and still allow for the fact that, like a bucket evaporates, charge dissipates, you can get more levels of charge. So, basically, the last few years, the SSD makers have been selling us the same bucket over and over but with better management. In theory, you could upgrade the firmware on a 1tb SLC and have a 4tb QLC. They should be basically the same structurally with the same number of capacitors. Which also somewhat begs the question: Rather than die outright, why don't SSDs warn you to back them up, when they're approaching their write endurance for that level, and give you the option to convert thems to a drive of a lower capacity? QLC drops to TLC, which drops to MLC, and it's final life is as SLC of 1/4 the capacity. Theoretically it should be possible since the problem with write endurance is that the precision of the levels in the buckets get harder to manage over time. Reduce the precision, reduce the capacity, increase the life.

[@bigbenisdaman]

From personal experience, the super cheap ones limit out at less than hdd transfer speeds after a little bit...like the crucial P3's. But the Samsung's price has fallen drastically and 2tb m.2's was lil over $100 and perform at 100% all the time.

[@Lardzor]

I would like to see a drive that can start out as QLC, and when it's operation lifespan has been reached, it can be re-initialized and reformatted as MLC with a smaller capacity, but it would extend it's lifespan. Then after that, re-initialized again, and reformatted as SLC.

[@TheGlock30owner]

I never stopped using mechanical hard drives. I only use a small SSD for the operating systems.

[@WaschyNumber1]

Biggest problem with all ssd is that they loosing the data after time without of power, depending on the environment temperature and time without power, can be a couple weeks up to 2 years. Best still for backups is a good old hdd. Would be time for a ssd that don't wear after use and don't loose data with time.

[@RandoWisLuL]

I think a good practice is to have HDD backups or an HDD archive. Use SSDs of whatever flavor you like and use a nice 2tb laptop or even desktop drive and store weekly or bi-weekly backups to it and have it overwrite past 6 months, so you'll always have an OS image going back 6 months with weekly backup points. The HDD will only turn on during backups if you set it to go to sleep with no activity and will last years.

[@TrippOnPower]

This was exactly my thinking about this problem, HDDs are still incredibly cheap for storage, just incredibly slow. But they are still far more reliable than an SSD, so if you use SSDs for your everyday use and HDDs as a reliable backup system, you should have an effective storage solution.

[@RandoWisLuL]

@@TrippOnPower Actually just happened to me lol A cheap SSD dropped out so all i had to do was swap it out with a spare and use the installation thumb drive to restore an image from last week in no time. It was like nothing happened

[@MelvinAstrahan-b3f]

SSDs are still very expensive compared to spinning HDDs per byte, also "cheap" is a word, that means that something doesn't cost much, but also is a word that carries a negative connotation of the product or service being inferior, defective or shoddy.

[@Tanzu15]

I just wish ssds were immune to randomly dying.

[@kunka592]

Yep, HDDs are way less likely to suddenly die (3.5" ones, at least). Also, the magnetic recording of an HDD can probably keep data longer when a drive is not powered on.

[@RogerioPereiradaSilva77]

As someone who just had a 4 year old SSD die last week without any warning whatsoever, I wholeheartedly agree!!

[@Tanzu15]

@@RogerioPereiradaSilva77 yeah it’s disheartening. And these failures happen randomly with no time to back up your data.

[@RogerioPereiradaSilva77]

@@Tanzu15 So true! The only reason I didn't rip my hair out of desperation when it happened was because I backup my personal data onto my NAS on a daily basis on all my machines so I just need to replace the failed drive, reinstall the OS + apps and then restore my files and thus this whole situation went from a near tragedy down to a minor setback or inconvenience. Otherwise I would be foaming at the mouth screaming bloody murder!!

[@Tanzu15]

@@RogerioPereiradaSilva77 yeah I’d be raging too. I personally back up my important data. But failing SSDs, give no warning. They just die.

[@hugohemingway5862]

I think that slide is very misleading (the top arrow indicates correctly SLC is more expensive than QLC, but the bottom arrow is surely suggesting the opposite to what it should - ie it should be MORE writes per cell as you move further to the right)

[@Wlad1]

The bottom one doesn't mean "fewer writes per cell requied to store the data", no, it means "less longevity", "less endurance".

[@phatec]

This is where I get my bits of information

[@Nikioko]

My first SSD 12 years ago was a OCZ Vertex III with 128 GB and costed about 400 €. I installed my Windows 7 / Kubuntu dual boot system on it and had two 2 TB HHD on top for data storage and user directories.

[@SinanAkkoyun]

Just wait for "Delete me" to store and sell your data

[@Spurdospaerde692]

And to delete your account if you're reported for whatever is considered Wrongthink this week. Brave new world. You will own nothing, not even your own data, and you will be happy!

[@avapire2359]

I bought a 1tb Hynix platinum like 5 months ago for 170 because its the best gen 4 drive with no stops pulled for both speed and longevity. I checked like 2 days ago and its 80 bucks now. I feel like i bought bitcoin.

[@whahappa]

I recently bought the 2TB version of that SP SSD. Riley's right, fast as heck for the first 30 seconds then then it drops to USB 2.0 speeds for the rest...

[@Izmir_Stinger]

What did you mean about diminishing returns with storage? You said the 5 layer chips "only" increase capacity by 25%, but 5 is exactly 25% more than 4, so what diminished?

[@dat_21]

Diminishing return with regards to endurance. It's 25% more capacity, but 2x less endurance (or worse).

[@Izmir_Stinger]

@@dat_21 that makes sense

[@jasonjenkinson2049]

@@Izmir_Stinger is the most sane youtube commenter I have ever seen

[@PhrontDoor]

I like drives that don't die after being rewritten only 1000-4000 times. That's seriously a fisher-price technology.

[@dat_21]

And you think HDD would survive 4000 rewrite cycles? They die like flies sometimes for no reason at all.

[@PhrontDoor]

@@dat_21 Yes.. whiile HDDs can die before that, the majority will not. On the other hand, SSDs absolutely cannot make it to that point.

[@dat_21]

@@PhrontDoor While SSD can't endure thousands of rewrites, it scales with capacity. For your typical 2Tb TLC drive, that would be around 1200Tb written, which is a lot. Unless you are writing and rewriting live surveillance footage or something, I wouldn't worry about it. And they don't die of a sudden, they usually let you read the data, so it's possible to save the data.

[@jandraelune1]

Some of us have not left the mechanic drives yet, they are the cheapest option still if you want more then 4tb of space. And with how large games are gettign now, you need more space if you want more then 1 with mods.

[@LuficariusRatspeed]

Well this didn't age well...

[@vasiliyt8600]

In 2015 I paid for my _Samsung EVO 850 250GB_ around 120 Euro. These days, for the same amount of money you get a _2TB Samsung 980 Pro SSD NVMe drive._ The current SSD model with _250GB the Samsung EVO 870_ costs 27 Euro.

[@kornelobajdin5889]

Yup bought patriot blast 512gb for 50. Now its 25

[@antonisautos8704]

QLC is nice for write once read many applications. Like installing your entire game library on it and then never deleting them. Or storing photos and videos or movies and watching them. Setting up the drives in RAID will give you better performance overall if you're looking to have faster write speeds when files often exceed the single drives cache size.

[@MIchaelSybi]

QLC are very slow, judging from samsung ones. They are as slow as hdds.

[@PatalJunior]

@@MIchaelSybi Not even close, what are you on about ?

[@spankeyfish]

'write once read many applications. Like installing your entire game library' _Laughs in 160GB Modern Warfare update_

[@antonisautos8704]

@@spankeyfish you can buy 8TB nvme SSDs

[@dat_21]

Yeah, but difference between QLC and TLC is so insignificant, that you will rather pay for the extra speed and durability. If QLC was twice as cheap it would make sense, but in current markets it's like 15% cheaper.

[@Screaming-Trees]

What about store once and read forever kind of use cases? For example movie libraries that you only ever read once the disk is full etc etc. that kind of thing.

[@Wlad1]

It's called WORM and there are other (better than SSDs) technologies like "M-Disc" for this.

[@Screaming-Trees]

@@Wlad1 Okay but what's the maximum capacity of Mdiscs? 100GB? People have libraries that are many terabytes. Not to mention the mdiscs are probably best at archival use-cases rather than say always connected storage. Cheers.

[@Wlad1]

@@Screaming-Trees i use external HDDs for those purposes. "Hot data" for daily uses (programs and games etc) = very responsive and raliable SSDs (i have multiple Intel Optane SSDs). "Warm data" (downloads, videos, data for some projects etc) = slower SSDs (i have SATA-SSDs-Raid0 with 4x 4TB = 16TB). "Cold data" (Video archives etc) = NAS or external HDDs - these are connected, but "always-OFF". Switched on only if data access is needed.

[@Screaming-Trees]

@@Wlad1 I hear you. I am the same. I have a bunch of mechanical disks raided. There are downsides like noise for example and there is always the specter of bad sectors with mechanical drives. I'm flirting with the idea of SATA SSDs as a replacement. You can get 8TB sata SSDs now for almost reasonable prices. Silent, probably a little less risk as they don't exhibit the same weaknesses as mechanical drives etc. Maybe finally relegate mechanical drives into a backup role only.

[@denvera1g1]

As technology progresses, parts get more performance density while the MFG cost only goes up by a small fraction, meaning the cost per unit of spec, drops rapidly. The problem right now with GPUs is that NVidia has fixed cost for operations, they have purchasing contracts to fullfil so they cant just stop buying wafers. Normally this doesnt mean anything, but because most of the people who wanted GPUs got them from 2020 to late 2022, meaning most people wont need a GPU until 2025-2027, on top of that all the deamnd from mining has dried up because mining on GPUs is no longer profitable. So how in the world does Nvidia support itself, its costs have not gone down, but the number of sales have probably been cut by 2/3ds. Well, they take a card they would have priced at $379 and called a 4060TI(because it uses higher end memory than the $330 12GB 3060), and bump the price up to $900 and re-name it to 12GB 4080, the same is true for the card they probably would have called the 4050, or 4030, instead of $139-$200, re-name it to 4060TI and charge $399, add $20 worth of RAM to bump it up to 16GB and charge $499 for that version. Nvidia knew it must do this or operate in the red Theeeeeeeen AI bailed them out, and now, instead of looking at operating in the red for gaming and a possible overall wash by the end of the year being proped up on DC/HPC, they're now looking at cutting gaming production so they can double down and possible doubling revenue at the same operating costs.

[@moras6519]

NAND is not a "specific type of cell". It is logic gate, the build block that makes specific types of cells.

[@efuass]

My 1st SSD was Intel 80GB $300 in late 2009

[@Argedis]

I regretted not getting one of those instead. I got the Patriot Warp 64GB and the controller sucked. Random writes would freeze the system because it had a slow controller

[@Digmen1]

Its a wonder they can even hold an A4 page of data. The guys who invent these things are truly genius

[@Kennephone]

I wouldn't buy a PLC SSD, QLC already only has 1000 cycles at best, but often is only 300-500, I can't imagine how bad PLC would be. I do wish that they sold pSLC drives, which is basically treating TLC/QLC as if it were SLC, that way you could buy a 4TB QLC ssd, and get 1TB out of it, but have it be very durable and fast.

[@jer1776]

Hopefully theres never an HLC. You may as well just buy an SD card.

[@Argedis]

QLC is also already slower than modern HDD's once it maxes out it's cache. I've seen 50mbps transfer speed screenshots

[@jer1776]

@Valor_X Thats awful, Ive seen performance SD cards write faster.

[@greenockscatman]

I'm happy with the trade off. It's still miles faster than a mechanical drive, and it doesn't crap out immediately even in the worst case scenario. It just goes "read only" until you buy a new one.

[@johnsalamii]

ssd's are getting cheaper overall but inflation here is much grater so the prices doesn't change at all or even sometimes increase

[@DeepThinker193]

How do you hover from the side of the screen so effortlessly?

[@popinjayjunior7698]

Sadly this aged like milk

[@KokoroKatsura]

a n i m e n i m e

[@stormgear896]

2:59 So why is 'multiple cell' not called as 'double cell' like the rest of the other cells? (single, triple, quad, penta). Also Triple cell seems to be one cell short from its stack.

[@Prometheus208]

Because they had single cell, then invented 2 together and decided to call it multicell. Then invented 3, but they couldnt call it multi so went with triple, etc.

[@Friedbrain11]

I prefer speed and longevity. So slc/mlc seems to be where I need my ssd's to be at.

[@H3LLGHA5T]

I wish MLC drives were still more prevalent.

[@dat_21]

Yeah, nothing like paying 2Tb TLC price for a 256MLC version, that is barely more reliable (because reliability scales with capacity).

[@olhoTron]

Analog circuitry: "you couldn't live with your own lack of density, where did it bring you? Back to me"

[@johnwatrous3058]

I love my 10 terabyte hard drive. I use a 1 terabyte SSD for Windows. This combination works out well as all (mostly) my programs are run from the hard drive and reduce wear and tear on the SSD.

[@MrFRNTIK]

SSDs don't really wear out like HDDs. No moving parts. That said, I've had a hard drive for nearly 10 years and it still performs well. Was my original main drive and now it's just for storage.

[@Sal3600]

Lol splitting hairs

[@alexyuze3786]

Bruh, QLC is already slower than HDD drive once it runs out of cache. Cannot imagine how PLC will perform when it come out

[@hongluzhang7771]

the nand cells are important when crossing GB era into TB era, but the real reason they drop so rapidly especially in 2022-2023, is simply because competition has risen in ssd market, rather than when only a handful can manufacture their own nand flash, namely samsung micron wd intel etc., samsung took steps to even "accidentally" set fire to warehouses to raise the market price when it was partially monopoly in the market.

[@sport0182]

2009 I paid something like 600-700 CAD for a 120GB Intel x-25M... that SSD still works. The in-laws have it in a laptop for an HTPC

[@Killertamagotchi]

oh for my Steam library I still use a 16TB HDD which is boosted with 64GB Optane memory.

[@silvy7394]

Remember spending hundreds for a 128GB SSD back when I had my 1st gen i5. Now you can buy the same thing for the price of a happy meal.

[@CommodoreFan64]

Long term nand reliability is why I only use SSD on laptops where I'm not storing critical data, and my desktops as my boot drives with basic program storage, all my games, movies, photos, etc.. go onto large capacity HDD's that get backed up on the regular to external HDD's, and stuff I need to archive still get burned to dual layer DVD-R disc, and store in water resistant CD cases on a high shelf in my home office away from sunlight, and other things that could damage them.

[@Argedis]

^This guy data hoards. RIght on

[@valasdarkholme6255]

>> Go Back to Oldschool Mechanical Harddrives. Was I supposed to have gotten rid of them? I just buy another one every few years and expand my storage. I only replace them as they start to die. I've got one SSD (with windows on it), and then a bunch of chunky external HDDs (where I store all my games and documents and programs and writing and photoshop files and home videos and gopro footage and whatever else.).

[@johnnydied9563]

This dude capping hard fr fr. SSDs are not cheap.

[@TotalGeist]

They were cheap, but they've gone up again. It's unfortunate, but at the time, they were cheap.

[@L.Scott_Music]

Honestly, if SSD prices are going to be on the order of $35 a terabyte if a game drive lasts a year or two that's not bad.

[@Nion264]

Now again it isn't!

[@Izeart]

Solution: Have manufactures invest in U.2 Drives and have motherboards come with the connections standard. Faster than Sata drives and much greater capacity than M.2 drives. A happy middle that has some of the best of both worlds... and if we ever need bigger space.. the drives can come in a 3.5 form factor as well as a 2.5. Enterprise hardware will have to come to the mainstream sometime.

[@RolandJVyens]

Come to China, you can buy 2tb gen 4 TLC SSDs for as low as **70$**😂 Read speed is 7450/s and write speed is 6750/s, with **3600tbw & 5 years** of warranty, nothing could go wrong. ---from a happy Chinese

[@RolandJVyens]

if you are willing to add a couple few more dollars, you can also by higher performance DRAM equipped drives.

[@allenmoyers4458]

I'll keep a mechanical drive for bulk storage I think. I have a 4tb drive in my pc now, and still have the 40gb hdd from my first pc in an external enclosure and it still works fine almost 20 years later.

[@naono9715]

I have my 80gb hdd from my first laptop from 2009, and it's still works as well. HDD is great to keep for storage, I don't think ssd can ever replace that.

[@NayaRamlan-xo3di]

Aged like milk

[@memespeech]

People keep saying "ssds are now the same price as hdds", but they aren't the same value, to get the same longevity & reliability I wouldn't even consider buying a QLC ssd.

[@onepuchok5789]

the only reason why it is cheaper now is because China can produce it

[@epi2045]

In 2001 I was working with a solid state storage company which used RAM with a HD loader. 1 GB was $25,000 and 12 GB was $200,000. I bought my Samsung 980 pro 2TB for $200. Progress!! 😊

[@quickhakker]

I love LTT sometimes "cheap ssd" *shows a $422 SSD*, granted that is probibally cheaper than it was when it came out and expecially for the capacity but i still wouldnt call it cheap, using the ever so reliable pc part picker i found a HDD thats 8th for £122.90 with the cheapest SSD at the same capacity being £437.56, later being a samsung 870 QVO the former being a Seagate Barracuda Compute 5400RPM with a Seagate SkyHawk AI 7200 RPM 8TB HDD being £158

[@sapphyrus]

To be honest, SSDs are still following HDD capacities 10 year behind while game developers don't care about it. I paid the same money for a 1TB HDD in 2011 and in 2022, that's 11 years of capacity stagnation. I could keep installing and keeping the games for years back then, today I have to uninstall games often to make up space for new ones as game sizes went up like 10 times on average since then.

[@hunterlimu9385]

This video didn't age well.🙂

[@leoliu5472]

😂just checked, 2TB ssd is around 180

[@FooxTru]

It aged fine. Tf u mean?

[@GeneralS1mba]

​@@FooxTruSsds are currently decently priced but are set to incline.

[@marius0448]

​@@leoliu5472Wtf are you on about? Paying 50% more for a brand name on the ssd? You cqn find a 2tb mp44l from teamgroup for max 120$ and it's not even the cheapest good 2tb ssd. You are way overspending on ssd if you want a samsung name on it

[@davidponder1654]

@@GeneralS1mbathat sucks, bc i really need one. Rebuilding an old pc and the hdd is just shit in todays standards.

[@alsuzauddowla7210]

"Oh my Gosh! The video is over." - That dialogue cracked me up. 😂

[@stevenpike7857]

Is this accurate? Ever since I found out Linus was a cheap multi millionaire that wouldn't spend $100 bux to reshoot a video that was wrong, I sort of lost my respect.

[@MetaCake-]

You don’t become a multi millionaire by spending money

[@astrobotnautics5291]

Love videos like this, really informative for what to look for in an NAND ssd.

[@Reed-Publications]

Umm .... that's still really expensive. I'm sorry, but the prices have gone down at a snails pace over the last decade.

[@FinneasJedidiah]

2TB M.2 SSDs have dropped like 60% in the last year

[@RomvnlyPlays]

Lol no it’s not, SSDs are easily affordable.

[@RoundBaguette]

​@@RomvnlyPlays if you earn more than 20 USD a day lol, coz most of the world doesn't

[@WSZYSTKOKEJ]

@@FinneasJedidiah ram is also cheap. I got 32gb ddr4 3200mhz cl16 for 70$ new in europe.

[@stijnd5268]

You can buy a 1tb nvme for the same price of a 1tb HDD atm

[@mastershooter64]

Can't wait for liquid helium cooled quantum storage where we store 1 bit per electron (electron spin up is 1 and spin down is 0) (also there are around 10^24 - 10^25 electrons per gram of material) let's goooo 2134 samsung announcement!!