Crucial M500 drive significantly reduces SSD price per gigabyte
Summary: Get 960GB of solid state storage for "just" $599.99, significantly undercutting the $1-per-gigabyte threshold.
While we still don't have what you could really call a "bargain" solid-state drive that offers the capacity of a traditional hard drive for a similar price, Crucial has taken a, ahem, crucial step forward with its new M500 SSD line.

Though its smaller capacities hover around the $1 per gigabyte that we've come to expect in SSD pricing — the 120GB model coming in a little above ($130), the 240GB ($200), and the 480GB ($400) versions skirting just below — it's the 960GB flavor that is getting the attention. That's because its sticker price is $599.99, or about 60 cents per gigabyte.
No one interested in a cheap storage upgrade will be dropping $600 on an SSD, but enthusiasts with deeper pockets looking to combine solid-state performance with more capacity may jump on this drive. As you might expect, it won't necessarily provide the best performance via its 20nm MLC NAND flash, Marvell 88SS9187 controller, and customized firmware — for instance, AnandTech found it to be slower than Samsung's SSD 840 — but it gets points for power consumption and IO consistency.
We keep waiting for major price drops to really thrust solid state drives into the mainstream of the PC world (having already conquered the tablet market), and the 960GB M500 looks like it's one of those important progressions in that happening.
Is the per-gigabyte cost enticing enough for you to upgrade to Crucial's new drive? Let us know in the Talkback section below.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Just reduce the 256Gb/512Gb SSDs already!
In five years' time,
Strawman much?
On the flipside, SSDs have their own unique and unpredictable failure modes, but they too are getting better.
In the end, for the price of even the low cost SSDs, you could buy TWO HDs and use one as a backup for the other. To put this into perspective: a 1TB *laptop* drive (to keep the comparison fair) is $90 or 9c/GB, compared this 'bargain' SSD at 60c/GB. A 3TB desktop drive is $140 or around 4.6c/GB.
When the price of SSDs finally get within a few percent of the price of HDs, maybe this will become the norm, but right now - and for the foreseeable future, SSDs aren't going to be replacing HDs except in very specific cases, like tablets where speed and low power trump the price difference.
SSD will replace HDD faster
The new mainstream volume will be led by SSD devices (phones/tablets)
Yeah but will it hold up
What about reliability???
a five year warranty...
I'm still not trusting SSDs
But standard HDDs fail as well!
But standard HDDs fail as well!
But standard HDDs fail as well
You need to understand a little more about MTBF and what that really means for rotational drives. Plus, what part of your anatomy did you pick the 1,000 hour figure from?
Despite the hysteria surrounding SSDs (and MLC flash in general), it is an incredibly reliable form of storage. Factor in zero rotational parts and very power consumption (i.e. low heat dissipation) and you may begin to understand the whole picture a little better.
But standard HDDs fail as well - revision
It's SLC drives that are supposed to last
And there's still a lot of things you can't do on an SSD. Like Restore Points and hibernation which were disabled on my laptop when I first bought it.
No wonder you get a "Well duh".
Name me a drive that uses SLC?
SSDs using MLC flash are, for all practical purposes, just as reliable as conventional drives. Maybe even more so.
And you can re-enable restore points and hibernation if you want if you know how to do it. Personally, I disable restore on all my computers and not just those with SSD. Hibernate is a matter of choice and is perfectly compatible with a SSD. After all, you're not entering hibernate very often so what's the big deal. The page file is a bigger issue and can be disabled with negligible impact on performance.
I think the biggest problem with SSDs is not the reliability. It's the comments made by people that either don't have one or have never used one or those that don't know how to use them for best performance.
I know OCZ offers SLC drives
I don't know why anybody would disable Restore Points unless you are 100% sure any updates you get won't cause any issues. I usually delete them all except for the last two.
The biggest problem with SSDs are fanbuis who are ooooed & awed by their speed but don't take into account issues later down the road.
Do you guys make this up as you go along?
So, according to the OCZ web site, what "consumer" (or regular drives by another name) SSDs do they sell? Absolutely none, nada, zip, zilch.
http://ocz.com/consumer/ssd-guide/ssd-comparison
But when it comes to SSD/flash fan boys, have a read of this:
http://www.zdnet.com/ibm-doubles-down-on-flash-storage-will-invest-1-billion-r-and-d-7000013888/?s_cid=e540&ttag=e540
IBM may not be what they once were, but they know a shed load more than you and me.
In FACT ...
Oh ... and the MTBF of most mobile HDD's is SIGNIFICANTLY less than that for desktop drives because moving around an HDD while its metal disks are spinning rapidly DRAMATICALLY increases the likelihood of permanent drive damage.
Whatever your computer storage choices, be sure to backup important data on multiple redundant storage facilities.
Any disk can fail without warning!
Rick
USB Drives..
Wellll...
I've had two Seagates fail this way. I've never had a Western Digital fail this way.