By: anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com), April 18, 2019 2:22 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
aaron spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on April 18, 2019 11:46 am wrote:
> anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on April 18, 2019 11:39 am wrote:
> > Unless I'm way off on the prices SSD+HDD is cheaper.
> > Unless for some reason they need >500 GB residing on an SSD at all
> > times SSD+HDD with higher quality NAND is objectively better.
> > So why go for SSD-only?
> >
>
> You are off on pricing.
I'm thinking the same about you.
> Yes, based on current trends, we'll see 500GB games next gen
Maybe one or two outliers towards the very end in 8 years. At launch? Definitely not. 2 years later? Still no.
> SSD+HDD is almost always worse than even QLC. Caching is complex.
> QLC NAND still has fairly good random read, esp compared to HDD.
>
"almost always"
Limited working set size seems like the best case for caching.
We're not comparing QLC with an HDD here.
> anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on April 18, 2019 11:39 am wrote:
> > Unless I'm way off on the prices SSD+HDD is cheaper.
> > Unless for some reason they need >500 GB residing on an SSD at all
> > times SSD+HDD with higher quality NAND is objectively better.
> > So why go for SSD-only?
> >
>
> You are off on pricing.
I'm thinking the same about you.
> Yes, based on current trends, we'll see 500GB games next gen
Maybe one or two outliers towards the very end in 8 years. At launch? Definitely not. 2 years later? Still no.
> SSD+HDD is almost always worse than even QLC. Caching is complex.
> QLC NAND still has fairly good random read, esp compared to HDD.
>
"almost always"
Limited working set size seems like the best case for caching.
We're not comparing QLC with an HDD here.