Why dont ((they)) make a 3.5 ssd?

Why dont ((they)) make a 3.5 ssd?

because then you could only use them in desktop pcs

Why bother? If you have a desktop you have multiple SATA ports anyway.

Data density, price, audience : We already have big ssds in 2.5 inch form. An ssd that has so many chips that wouldn't fit in a 2.5 body would be so expensive no consumer would buy it. And companies don't care about big ssd's anyway.

Logistics : bigger drive = bigger box = less items shipped per batch = more expensive

Compatibiltiy : 2.5inch is universal, 3.5 is not.

Because m.2 is the future. Hopefully we can get rid of cables all together.

Next up is the dumb way psus deliver power to the system.

You can't afford it.

Seagate build 40 TB SSD 3.5.
Single chip Samsung ssd begin 1TB
M.2 stick could go 4TB
2.5 ssd will go 16TB

>Why dont ((they)) make a 3.5 ssd?
Very simple. By only offering a 2.5" drive they don't have to tool their factories for both formats, saving manufacturing overhead costs. Keep in mind SSD's are relatively new only coming into play affordably with the Intel SSD's back in 2010.

Viking tech has got you covered. Well, if you're a data center anyway.

>dumb way PSUs deliver power

Well, I could see reducing the power delivery to just one single cable that provides power to the entire system, including GPUs. Those PCI-E slots would need to be beefed up to deliver 200+ watts though.

>50TB

That thing must costs more than my car

So they can charge you $10 for a metal bracket

Because there's no reason to
SSDs are small
Why make a 3.5 in one just to have it be mostly empty space?

Pic related is just an m2 vs a 2.5in

Additionally, SATA is obsolete and slow compared to M2

Well yeah, much more. Companies that want something very very highly performing can put up more money than you did for your car.

There's just no need for it physically. The only reason you would need a bigger SSD would be to have more chips on it (which means bigger capacity.)

It would be like having a 4 core processor that is the size of your fist.

My cousin (she's 19 qt3.14 petite)'s fist make my dick look huge, a CPU the size of her fists probably already exists.

>Because m.2 is the future
Even terminators use it.

If you open a normal 250GB SSD drive, you will find that it's mostly empty.

Why would I do that?

but you could have more memory modules on a bigger board.

You CS cucks have no fucking clue how electricity works.

Someone said it's $0.4 per GB so that 50TB one will cost $20k.

Multiple companies make datacenter ssds in 3.5. They're huge, durable, and expensive.

To find that it is mostly empty.

You told me, I don't need to.

The real question is why don't they make 5 1/4 cheaper ones.

same reasoun they don't make flash drives in the shape of floppies

Because they don't even fill out the 2.5 case

Why can't they use a bunch of cheap shitty flash chips instead of a few good ones?

because cheap flash chips are slow as fuck and not event that much cheaper

Because then they can't make lot of profit.

Imagine trying to sell 50 TB 3.5 SSD. You won't be able to sell any more SSD after that.

Now instead, if you sell 64 GB/ 128GB SSD, people will buy it every year.

>thermal throttling is the future
It really isn't.

Servers will continue to use 2.5"
Consumer gear will eventually lose slots/ports altogether and everything will be soldered.

So you wouldn't take a 50-1000 TB 3.5 SSD over a 128GB m.2?

>lol who needs xyz

If you knew physics, you'd realize 99.99% of everything physical is empty space. What we feel as "physical" is merely properties of electromagnetism.

Not if you can't afford $50k for the 50TB SSD and the $1m for the 1000TB one...

Empty space isn't empty due to quantum fluctuation. Hehe, gotcha.

PCI-E 4.0 is supposed to be able to deliver up to 400 watts apparently.

lolno

Science isn't superstitious, they said

because then ((( they ))) couldn't sell you an adapter bracket

Everything has a price. And that price is the reason, not form factor.

Well, fuck. Looks like shitty journalism has struck again. So, you can only get 75 watts from the slot still.

Thank you based black science man.

It's obvious when you realize how much power would have to be going over tiny board traces on chinkshit motherboards.

the ssd is going to be the same size regardless of formfactor you dumbass

So the same products works for laptops, desktops and mini-desktops.

You mean those cheap pieces of plastic that you can buy for a dollar and change each?

Yup, it's a jew conspiracy. You figured it out goyim.

I just want cheaper 2.5" HDDs for mass storage.

Consider you can put 4TB right now on m.2
Consider how many m.2 drives could fit in 3.5"
Consider how much that would cost.

You've arrived at the cost + add a niche product tax.

You could get this.
4x M.2 in 3.5" form factor

If it had 4x SATA-Express connector, that'd be pretty neat.
As it is meh.

That's fucking awesome

>Why can't they use a bunch of cheap shitty flash chips
they already do

I assume this is for sata m.2 only?

M2 goes way fucking higher than 128gb

m.2 pci ssds dont cost a whole lot more than sata ssds

Obviously I would take the 50-1000TB one, assuming I was given it for free, because that would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars

>m2 reduced to sata speed

we star trek isolinear chips nao

protip: not all m.2 drives are PCIe

>m2 reduced to sata speeds
>no noticeable difference because all the actual software can't handle IO at those speeds anyways

maybe you missed out on the news that sata SSD's actually have faster boot times than nvme drives

NVME is a meme. It's pointless unless it becomes cheaper than regular SATA, which it won't because of price fixing/market collusion

The ones that are worth it are

boy I sure hate being able to fit my SSD inside my laptop

>maybe you missed out on the news that sata SSD's actually have faster boot times than nvme drives
Where is this news?

There already are 4 TB 2.5" SSDs, and even a 60 TB one, so size clearly isn't the limiting factor in capacity, but price is.

Sorry I'm retarded, the 60 TB one is 3.5", but my point still stands.

are the materials really that expensive or are the jews jewing again?

protip: more chips (even shitty/defective ones) are more expensive than fewer chips

I think the expensive part is the manufacturing process, and not the materials.

The PCB would only use up a fraction of the space so from a manufacturing standpoint it makes little sense.

>He thinks m2 is a delivery method like SATA.

The state of Sup Forums

M2 can use sata or pcie.

The only reason 3.5 was ever used was that we needed the space for drive motors and various mechanical parts which took up vertical space. SSDs are almost a 2D plane, until there are chips that stick up off the PCB more than a few millimeters the 2.5 factor is more than enough. If anything it seems SSDs are going even smaller now with the M2 form factor.

How many 3.5in drives are pci-e?
That's the point he was making