347
SSD prices predicted to skyrocket throughout 2024 — TrendForce market report projects a 50% price hike | Tom's Hardware (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 54 points 2 years ago (7 children)

yeah i thought 4TB would be like $50 now. whatever happened to moore's law

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 50 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Unregulated capitalism some would say, I say cheap production costs with little to no consequence whatsoever for them doing this kind of thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Unless this is a matter of price collusion (which I doubt as it appears more as a supply demand issue) I don't think this unregulated capitalism is bad. Last I checked making any kind of products involving semiconductors isn't cheap or easy. Maybe it is once you figure out how to, but the R&D costs involved are insane.

    We as consumers want prices as low as possible. Suppliers want prices as high as possible. Samsung (and the like) clearly aren't willing to make more of a product at the price that it is currently at (which is a mistake to begin with). There are plentu of other players making ssds, and the prices are all very similar. Something tells me that they're not gonna price things for cheaper because they can't survive that way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Moore's law has been dead for a long long time.

    E: if you're downvoting this it's because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Moore's law was the observation that transistor density would double every ~2 years. That's not happening and hasn't for a long time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No need to downvote this. It's an insidery technically correct statement. We've redefined how we measure Moore's law several times to make it "keep working" and some people designing chips, not selling them, think it's not only outlined it's usefulness but also not true anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In my experience, a lot of people incorrectly conflate Moore's Law with "computers get faster"

    So when you say Moore's Law is dead and it's unrealistic to expect it not to be, they get upset and jump to the conclusion that you're defending tech companies for giving paltry upgrades, which obviously isn't what I'm doing.

    There are other things to PCs getting faster in a post Moore's Law world. Architecture improvements, hardware acceleration, advanced packaging such as AMD's chiplet technology, etc - these are all commonplace and have replaced the idea of "let's just double transistor counts every two years"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    We've gone through die size, clock speed, instructions and operations, the transistors count. All are stand-ins for "complexity" which is why some people question if the law ever existed.

    That said, regardless of the "real" law, until recently the colloquial usage has always been a stand in for how "quick" a processor is. In that sense, you really need to do some hand waving around core counts and even then it doesn't really work.

    Maybe more importantly, one of the most important processor markets are mobile and servers which are largely focused on less complex more efficient processors like arm.

    So outside of marketing, it's very easy to see why a lot of people think Moore's law is dead and we're all better for it. We can continually make better processors without trying to meet some arbitrary metric that didn't really mean anything useful to start with.

    E: aggressively agreeing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Moore's law hasn't died, if you mean number of transistors per area. Linear scaling to transistor counts has.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I thought Moore's law was only for CPUs/chip density?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles about every two years. Moore's law is an observation and projection of a historical trend.

    It is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    It's about the shrinking in integrated circuit feature size, hence increase in IC element densities, so it applies to memories which are integrated circuits such as flash memory and the various kinds of RAM, but not to magnetic storage such as in HDDs as they're something else altogether.

    That said, I believe (but am not absolutelly sure) that IC feature size has been shrinking slower than Moore's Law predicts for maybe a decade as the size of the features becomes so small that quantum-level effects start becoming a problem (think stuff like signal leaks due to quantum tunnelling).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Moore's law makes no comments about the cost of each transistor in an advanced process. And believe me, they ain't cheap. It's not a coincidence we're up to PLC flash... why go for 32 levels when TLC is likely already a pain?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent