Why are so few SSD 3.5 inches?

24

2

I was looking around for a cheaper SSD on Newegg and the time I'm writing this they have almost 300 2.5-inch SSD but only 12 3.5-inch ones, 9 of which are sold out. Why are there so few 3.5-inch SSD? Is it just that the demand for these drives is mostly in laptops? Why should I have to pay more for a (physically) smaller drive and then have to pay more again for a mounting piece to stick it in my computer?

Psycho_Penguin

Posted 2012-03-08T18:53:23.650

Reputation: 454

Question was closed 2012-03-08T22:37:36.023

2There's no need for a larger form factor - the storage density is good enough for most people. Also, most manufacturers provide a 2.5-3.5" mounting adapter for free, and nearly every computer case that's manufactured now includes support for 2.5" SSDs. – Breakthrough – 2012-03-08T19:09:11.473

Answers

35

I think it comes from a handful of factors:

  • Demand. For the last few years, laptops have been outselling desktops. Want to make a product appeal to the largest possible audience? Make it work with a laptop.
  • Compatibility. Since mounting kit adapters exist and are relatively inexpensive, making the drives 2.5" allows for the most users.
  • Many new desktop and server case designs have at least 1 native 2.5" drive mount. In some cases it's to allow for SSD usage, in others it's simply a matter of density -- you can fit quite a few more 2.5" drives in the same space as 3.5" drives. You see this more in server cases than desktop cases though.
  • Physical Space. Part of the reason that 3.5" hard drives still exist (besides inertia) is that they allow for larger platters, which allow for higher capacity drives. A large enough SSD to require a 3.5" design would be prohibitively expensive.
  • Manufacturing. It costs less to build 1 enclosure design than it does 2.

There's probably a few other things, but those all come to mind off the top of my head.

Finally, since an SSD doesn't have any moving parts, it's not prone to moving around inside a desktop system. Unless your system uses a tool-less mounting system that requires 3.5" SATA drives with the power and data connectors in the appropriate place (e.g. Mac Pro, Dell OptiPlexes, etc.), you can just use a piece of velcro, a plastic wire tie, double-sided tape, or any other solution you can think of to keep the drive from moving very far.

For the few desktop systems I deploy that have SSDs, I just leave the drive sitting at the bottom of the case if there's no other way to mount them properly. It's far cheaper than buying additional kit just to mount them "nicely". Those systems have plenty of thermal headroom such that heat simply isn't an issue.

afrazier

Posted 2012-03-08T18:53:23.650

Reputation: 21 316

Do you have a pic of many 2.5" drives in a 3.5" bay? – barlop – 2015-10-09T12:01:09.667

@barlop: That is slightly confusingly worded. What I was referring to are storage servers with multiple drive bays. e.g. In a 2U rackmount enclosure, it's possible to fit more 2.5" drives than 3.5" drives. That said, products like the Icy Dock MB082SP allow for installing two 9.5mm 2.5" drives into a single 3.5" half-height bay. That was simply the first product I found on Google, not an endorsement for that particular item.

– afrazier – 2015-10-09T15:05:42.053

I can really transition my 7-bay NAS to 3.5" SSDs. Can you fit 4TB of current SSD tech cheaply enough into a 3.5" housing? Given general move to phones/tablets/ultra-thin laptops and distrust/cost of clouds SOHO NASes are too soon to write-off. I would love more reliable, faster, and bigger storage plugged into my existing infrastructure. Adapters seem to be a half measure. – Vlad Didenko – 2016-09-07T21:40:57.883

@VladDidenko: Cheaply? No. With a 2-in-1 adapter like I mentioned earlier, you could get 2 Crucial MX300 2TB drives for $550 ea. But that's 2 SATA ports being used, which you aren't necessarily going to have more of in your NAS. The Samsung 850 EVO 4 TB is $1,450. Bulk storage is still the realm of HDDs for the time being. – afrazier – 2016-09-08T02:14:33.887

@afrazier, sorry was not clear. What I mean it that vendors can populate 3.5" housing with plenty of SSD chips, and have those maybe in two layers. Granted, per TB it still will be more expensive than spinning platters, but for small size installs where SSD is not abused and speed is not paramount, like some SOHO environments, I would go with 3.5" populated SSDs. May be I am not lucky, but this years out of total 12 HDDs I replaced 4 Seagate 3TB HDDs - 4-year-olds. I think SSD would be more reliable. Yet I have no idea on how SSDs will behave in the RAID6 setup which keeps saving my data. – Vlad Didenko – 2016-09-08T02:53:06.003

@VladDidenko: Enough flash for multiple TB of SSD storage is still prohibitively expensive. It doesn't matter if you're putting it into a 2.5" or 3.5" form factor, or one or many drives. – afrazier – 2016-09-08T12:46:50.513

@afrazier, I hear your point that SSD at this time is significantly pricier than HDD. However, I start from a different perspective. When I compare cost, I compare it not with HDDs but with 2.5" SSDs. Each SATA port and each slot certainly has a "real estate" cost to it. Having higher SSD density per SATA port and per in-NAS-volume does sound appealing to me, even if the SSD silicon/controllers are not top-notch speed. – Vlad Didenko – 2016-09-08T15:56:35.830

Upvoted - nice concise and well thought out answer, thank you – markc – 2017-09-18T16:38:09.670

1Plus brackets are $2. – surfasb – 2012-03-08T21:08:00.940

Very well answered and comprehensively explained. – Prasad – 2013-02-01T18:34:17.727