• Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Because we don’t have to pack it in too much. It’d be higher capacities for cheaper for consumers

    Also cooling

    • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not the packaging that costs money or limits us, it’s the chips themselves. If we crammed a 3.5” form factor full of flash storage, it would be far outside the budgets of mortals.

        • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Nope. Larger chips, lower yields in the fab, more expensive. This is why we have chiplets in our CPUs nowadays. Production cost of chips is superlinear to size.

            • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Not economical. Storage is already done on far larger fab nodes than CPUs and other components. This is a case where higher density actually can be cheaper. ”Mature” nodes are most likely cheaper than the ”ancient” process nodes simply due to age and efficiency. (See also the disaster in the auto industry during covid. Car makers stopped ordering parts made on ancient process nodes, so the nodes were shut down permanently due to cost. After covid, fun times for automakers that had to modernise.)

              Go compare prices, new NVMe M.2 will most likely be cheaper than SATA 2.5” per TB. The extra plastic shell, extra shipping volume and SATA-controller is that difference. 3.5” would make it even worse. In the datacenter, we are moving towards ”rulers” with 61TB available now, probably 120TB soon. Now, these are expensive, but the cost per TB is actually not that horrible when compared to consumer drives.