Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on April 18, 2019 3:41 pm wrote:
> anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on April 18, 2019 3:32 pm wrote:
> > Same argument with HAMR and other advancements and multi-year contracts for HDDs.
> >
> HAMR et al only slightly prolong the use of HDD is pseudo offline
> capability. For everything else, it is all going SSD.
>

Well I disagree.

> > I can buy a 3-4 TB HDD for 80$ right now easily. HDDs beat your best case scenario
> > with current pricing and no multi-year contract. So unless Sony manages to pay
> > more than I'd have to HDDs are still definitely cheaper than QLC.
> >
> Any 3-4 TB HDD you can buy, will have at best 1/10th the performance of a QLC SSD.
>

That's what the caching is for?
Stop moving the goalposts. "QLC is always cheaper than HDD+SSD and better in read heavy scenarios" suddenly turns into "well QLC is always faster than a lone HDD".

> > I'm pretty sure you wrote datacenter.
> >
> Not WRT Caching. WRT QLC pushing out HDD from nearline.
>
> > Name 3 games >100 GB on the PS4. Then look at how many are under 70 or even under 50 GB.
> > Yes, some ridiculous things exist. No, they are not the norm.
> >
> Why limit to PS4. There are multiple games out there at ~100GB: RDR2, Atlas, Kingdom Come, etc. Hell, there
> are games out now on steam where the 4k texture pack DLC alone is 50+ GB on top of a 50GB+ base game.
>

Because if you're not expecting to run on a capacity limited console you can do some insane things. If you include all those then 100 GB games existed many years earlier and the size didn't actually increase.