Can't we have a consumer grade 10 or 12 TeraByte SSD like the Seagate HDD's?

[aromasn]

If we want hyper read and write speeds with high capacities ,can't we get a SSD or is there some hardware limitations?

[Enderman]

Consumers don't need 10TB of storage.

Also consumers do not want to pay $5000 for a storage drive.

[Guest]

At the volume and price a typical consumer buys, it's not happening for a while.

[aromasn]

Then maybe...uh....Prosumer...?

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Consumers don't need 10TB of storage.

hell im surprised they even need 1tb.

seems like most people i know only store photos on their phones and dont bother backing them up and loose them when they get a new phone or tablet. I cant imagine being that way

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, emosun said:

seems like most people i know only store photos on their phones and dont bother backing them up and loose them when they get a new phone or tablet. I cant imagine being that way

When you take a bajillion selfies a day, you can afford to lose some of them.

 

1 minute ago, emosun said:

hell im surprised they even need 1tb.

Unless they play games. I mean Ark: Survival Evolved can use up a terabyte by itself amirite?

 

6 minutes ago, Sourav Nandi said:

If we want hyper read and write speeds with high capacities ,can't we get a SSD or is there some hardware limitations?

If we extrapolate from the Samsung 850 Evo series that such a drive from a reputable company with decent NAND is ~80 USD per 250GB, such a drive would cost ~3220 USD for 10TB or or ~3860USD for 12TB, well outside what a consumer would deam feasible.

 

And that's ignoring the fact that you'd need a much beefier controller for such a drive, adding cost and design complexity.

[kb5zue]

With the right amount of money you can do just about anything you want these days but like one previous poster stated, the average user doesn't have 5 Grand lying around to use for a drive in his computer.  For that kind of money I would take my wife on a trip to Spain or a cruise somewhere.  I just found this with a google search for the largest SSD.  I sure as hell couldn't afford it and what would I do with all that space?  Try to copy the Library of Congress?

 

Seagate's 60TB SSD comes a year after Samsung's15TB SSD. Seagate has unveiled the world's largest SSD: a 60-terabyte monster. Pricing isn't available, but the company says the drive will provide "the lowest cost per gigabyte for flash" memory today.Aug 11, 2016

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=largest+ssd+you+can+buy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS789US789&oq=largest+SSD&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.7191j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Sourav Nandi said:

Then maybe...uh....Prosumer...?

Even prosumers don't need that much storage.

The cost and capacity of 2-4TB SSDs is high enough.

 

 

The people who need 10TB of SSDs are professionals that need it for their job.

Even professionals have budget limits, which is why linus has servers full of 10TB drives instead of 30TB SSDs.

This means the 16+ TB SSDs are only left for enterprise, and they are priced accordingly.

 

Your question is basically "why don't we have lambos priced like a prius"

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Sourav Nandi said:

If we want hyper read and write speeds with high capacities ,can't we get a SSD or is there some hardware limitations?

Aside from costs as people proposed, there's also one other thing: Even faster storage performance doesn't really matter for consumers.

 

There's always going to be a minimum amount of time "loading" an application because putting an application in RAM doesn't do anything. You still have to process it and initialize it to get it in a usable state. So loading time performance will start to level off after a certain storage speed point and at the moment, that appears to be SATA speeds. While switching from an HDD to SATA SSD may cut down say a Windows load time from 30 seconds to 10 seconds, NVMe will cut down maybe an additional second or so.

[Princess Luna]

Yeah if I'm going to pay 3 thousand dollars for a hardware might as well be the TITAN V.

[Guest The Viking]

you can get 4tb ssd if you want to?

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07864XY8B/ref=twister_B079P94LLX?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

 

though at 1300$, I would prefer spending that amount of money on hdds.

 

Most big SSDs are used in servers though.

[Blebekblebek]

When first time google launch Gmail and their 1GB storage for email, most reviewer says no one will ever need 1GB storage for email

When 1TB of storage was launch again most reviewer says that no one would ever need that much of storage.

 

I mean... when someone saying that something is impossible when the technology is going there just make them stupid.

it's like saying we will never reach moon.

 

Do you think 1TB 10 years ago cost the same as today? My first 1TB hdd cost me about $250 on 2008.

Give it a time...

[seagate_surfer]

As many users mention, it's technically possible but quite cost-prohibitive. There is also always competition to get a solid supply of NAND for SSDs. The world is exponentially creating more data than ever, and IDC did a study called Data Age 2025, which estimates that by the year 2025, the world will be producing 163 zettabytes of data. As amazing and fast SSD tech is, it's pretty clear we're not getting all of that on solid-state. For this and other reasons, innovations on new tech to make hard drives both with larger capacity and faster performance are always underway as well. We just demonstrated a new hard drive speed record of up to 480MB/s sustained throughput with our Mach.2 Multi-Actuator Tech at the OCP Summit.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 9:53 AM, The Viking said:

you can get 4tb ssd if you want to?

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07864XY8B/ref=twister_B079P94LLX?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

 

though at 1300$, I would prefer spending that amount of money on hdds.

 

Most big SSDs are used in servers though.

 

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:30 AM, Densetsu said:

At the volume and price a typical consumer buys, it's not happening for a while.

 

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:31 AM, emosun said:

hell im surprised they even need 1tb.

seems like most people i know only store photos on their phones and dont bother backing them up and loose them when they get a new phone or tablet. I cant imagine being that way

While it's true most people do not have a need for much storage space, that doesn't mean no one does. I currently have four 4TB SSDs in my desktop and will probably need another one by the end of the year. In my case, most of my storage will be used for my movies. Others may used large amounts of raw photo storage; even amateurs can rack up a lot of data. While HDDs are one "heckuvalot" cheaper, SSDs have a lot of advantages that some may feel are worth the extra cost, such as smaller size, less weight, lower power draw (and heat generated), and more speed (handy for huge data transfers). In my case, smaller size and less weight were the key reasons I went with all SSDs. I'm a handicapped senior citizen and lugging backup HDDs to and from my safe deposit box every month (or sooner) was killing me (since I use four backup drives—two onsite and two offsite—for each data drive in my computer so that would be eight backup drives each trip). SSDs have been a life saver. Of course, faster speed when updating backups was not unwelcome.

 

Because of their high price and the fact most consumers don't need much storage, large SSDs are not for most consumers but don't put down the few who do need or want them. To answer the OP's original question, demand for larger consumer SSDs is currently too low to justify the expense of R&D. The payback would be too long. Keep in mind these companies are in the business of making money so what they make has to be profitable.