24

I want an SSD SATAIII because to me it represents the best combination of quietest & fastest. But there doesn't seem to be much choice relative to 2.5" variants or non-SSD 3.5".

I feel like there's something I'm not aware of. Why are desktop SSD drives not commonplace?

Improve this question
2
  • 4
    My SSD came with an adapter to put it in a standard 3.5" slot. I assumed this was standard.
    – Brendan Long
    Jul 18, 2012 at 20:41
  • Brendan, it certainly is not. My current Samsung (last year's model) came without an adapter.
    – Urs Reupke
    Jul 19, 2012 at 8:21

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
42

It is cheaper to produce just one version, instead of two. 2.5" variants can be used in laptops and desktop computers which makes them more flexible. The 3.5" versions could only be used in desktop computers.

The technology easily fits into a 2.5" case. There is no need to “artifically” produce a bigger case than necessary.

Improve this answer
7
  • 10
    +1 for “The technology easily fits into a 2.5" case. There is no need to artificially produce a bigger case than necessary.“. Brief yet to the point
    – Hennes
    Jul 18, 2012 at 14:23
  • 2
    @Ramhound tool-less models always look over-engineered compared to the alternative which can just be a piece of sheet metal with two 90* bends, 4 holes on the outside to secure to the case, and 4 holes on the bottom to hold the drive.
    – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight
    Jul 18, 2012 at 15:09
  • 2
    If the "technology easily fits into 2,5 inch", why can't I buy a 8 TB SSD? It seems to me as if it doesn't fit...
    – Thomas Weller
    Oct 8, 2015 at 9:06
  • 3
    Whatever the capacity is, a 3,5" should be available in much higher capacity, due to the physical volume which can be filled.
    – Thomas Weller
    Oct 8, 2015 at 9:36
  • 2
    @marco - seems to me (as Thomas also says) that they could fit a good chunk of chips into a 3.5" form factor and have a 20TB "desktop" SSD available. Except for lifespan, which is being upped by tech advances, I for one would prefer a large capacity 3.5" SSD (maybe using cheaper chips?) over a smaller capacity slim drive for my NAS server. Seems 4-10 times as many regular (older) MLC NAND (not 3D or even TLC) crammed into a 5-10TB drive at a 3.5" form factor, parallelized to increase speed, and maybe even some mirroring, could compete with HDDs in every category right now(?)
    – Code Jockey
    Feb 12, 2016 at 19:34
23

There are 3.5" SSDs available, but they are not common:

enter image description here

The 2.5" form factor presents a lot of benefits when compared to 3.5" ones: they are smaller, lighter and cheaper (require less materials to manufacture such as aluminum and plastic). Even though, 2.5" generally offers the same features such as speed and data capacity like the 3.5" ones.

Also, thinking of HDDs (this does not apply to SSDs), it also has increased energy efficiency (less power consumption):

enter image description here

So regarding costs and benefits, there are no reasons to keep SSDs (even HDDs) in a default 3.5" form factor, but if you really want to install a 2.5" SSD or HDD into your desktop, you could just use an 3.5" adapter such as this:

enter image description here

Improve this answer
4
  • 4
    Reminds me when I would try to keep around the 3.5"-to-5.25" brackets just in case I wanted to put a HDD in a CD-ROM drive bay. Guess you could cascade two adapters if you wanted to put a 2.5" in a 5.25" bay.
    – LawrenceC
    Jul 18, 2012 at 13:33
  • 5
    You are comparing apples to oranges in the power consumption comparison. Considering the higher motor speed as well as increased turbulence, I wouldn't be surprised if that alone accounts for most of the power usage difference between the two drives you compare (MBF2600RC 10krpm 2.5", 7.1W; MBA3147RC 15krpm 3.5", 12.4W). Sure, the larger platters are going to need a somewhat stronger motor, which translates to more power used, but at least make a reasonable comparison. Comparing a 2.5" 10krpm drive to a 3.5" 15krpm one isn't, if you want to make a point about power usage in 2.5" vs 3.5".
    – user
    Jul 19, 2012 at 11:00
  • @MichaelKjörling I agree, but it was the only comparision that I found to post here.
    – Diogo
    Jul 19, 2012 at 11:50
  • 1
    I am thinking once SSD come in bigger sizes, the components required may be too big to fit in a 2.5" form factor. Perhaps a 8TB SSD may require a 3.5" form factor.
    – Sun
    Sep 16, 2014 at 17:07
4

As @Marco already mentioned, it a simple design choice. If it fits in a 2.5" case, why make it bigger?

Even for desktops, smaller is better: Using an adapter, you can easily fit two 2.5" SDDs in a 3.5" slot.

That being said, there are some 3.5" SSDs. For example, 3.5" SATA III OCZ and 3.5" SATA II OCZ.

Improve this answer
3
  • The smaller drive may even allow more air flow/cooling in a case than a 3.5" one would.
    – Joe
    Jul 24, 2012 at 20:39
  • Dennis - I was thinking of the whole box, not the drive in particular.
    – Joe
    Jul 25, 2012 at 21:58
  • Doesn't that adapter require two connectors/cables? And that prevents you from maximizing the storage capacity?
    – d-b
    Aug 11, 2020 at 23:31
0

@Dennis

But having to have no alternatives meaning two half sized devices with more casing surfaces instead of a single one with fewer casing surfaces, makes its capacity smaller and the price of the two a LOT higher instead of having one 3.5" drive, although you might see the few rare 3.5" ssd's prices on the same level or even higher is due to the fact that there aren't many of them and there are way way more 2.5" ones. We (ordinary people - gamers) always wanted 3.5" SSDs when they were about to be released and as we normally expected them cause of these reasons, and were confused why the hell companies decided to aim towards portability as a vast majority of gamers play on desktops and non-mobile devices such as consoles. We like to get the bang for the buck both in terms of speed and capacity, and reliability and endurance. companies only made these 2.5" crappers just to leech more money in the short term. that's why I stick to the 3.5" hdd's

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .