SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the beats-a-string-around-your-finger dept.
Samsung recently announced its fourth generation of 3D/vertical NAND, with 64 layers and a capacity of 512Gb (64GB) per die. Now SK Hynix is announcing its plans for 512 Gb V-NAND dies with 72 layers:
Later this year SK Hynix intends to start volume production of 72-layer 3D TLC NAND (3D-V4) memory and this is where things start to get interesting. Initially, SK Hynix intends to produce 256 Gb 3D TLC ICs and these are going to be available already in Q2 2017, according to the company's product catalog. Later on, sometimes in Q4, the company plans to introduce 512 Gb 3D TLC ICs (64 GB), which will help it to significantly increase capacities of SSDs and other devices featuring NAND flash.
What is important about SK Hynix's fourth-gen 3D NAND is that it will feature block size of 13.5 MB, which will increase the performance of such ICs compared to 3D-V3 and 3D-V2 that have a block size of 9 MB. At this point, we do not know whether SK Hynix intends to increase interface speed of its 512 Gb 3D-V4 ICs to compensate lower parallelism in lower-capacity SSDs, like Samsung did with its high-capacity 64-layer 3D V-NAND chips. What we do know is that SK Hynix's catalog already includes NAND multi-chip packages of 8192 Gb capacity (1 TB) that will enable high-capacity SSDs in smaller form-factors (e.g., [2 TB] single-sided M.2). Meanwhile, 64 GB NAND flash chips may force SK Hynix and its partners to abandon low-capacity SSDs (i.e., 120/128 GB) unless there is sufficient demand.
The article also talks about the company's plans for 18nm DRAM and fabrication facility expansion.
Related: Toshiba and SanDisk Announce 48-Layer 256 Gb 3D NAND
Toshiba Teasing QLC 3D NAND and TSV for More Layers
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 30 2017, @12:01PM
"abandon low-capacity SSDs (i.e., 120/128 GB) unless there is sufficient demand."
Performance parameters and cost being anywhere near equal, WTF would demand the smaller capacity drive? My current main machine is the FIRST machine that I've ever owned that actually has "enough" storage. That is, after more than two years of continuous use, I still haven't used more than half the storage. There is room to grow for a long, long time to come.
Price will be the deciding factor, and if they discontinue the smaller capacity drives, they will have motivation to price the newer drives low enough to satisfy the market.
I'm waiting to see TB drives in telephones, tablets, and other small form factor devices. I've not yet seen a telephone with nearly enough storage.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 30 2017, @12:52PM
Yeah, idk. There is some inefficiency in slapping ONLY 2 dies into a 2.5" SSD form factor. That form factor can fit many, many more than 2 dies. I'm not sure how many, but here's a comparison [wikipedia.org]:
The 3.5 TB (excuse the fact that 5x16x48 is 3840, since the extra capacity could be for overprovisioning) device mentioned is basically "pack of gum" sized. And that has 80 dies in it. With 512 Gb (64 GB) dies, you could make the same thing with smaller or less packages.
The only reasons to continue making 64-128 GB SSDs is to either use up existing lower-capacity NAND production, which will eventually be repurposed to make 256, 384, 512 Gb, etc. dies, or to put that amount of storage in increasingly small form factors [wikipedia.org].
If 64-128 GB capacity is going to stick around for long, they would have to make smaller individual dies. Like a quarter the size of a normal one or smaller. For perspective, we've already got 200 GB [tomshardware.com] and 256 GB microSD cards [soylentnews.org] (reports of 512 GB are exaggerated).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @07:39PM
because the Chinese intend to flood the bottom end of the market soon.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:11AM
They are purposefully limiting storage on phones and removing SD to charge a premium for the extra GB that costs them pennies on the dollar. Have a look at the google pixel. 32GB or 128GB of storage. The 128GB costs an additional $100. Doubtful the actual flash parts are anywhere near $100. A brand name 128GB SD card on amazon goes for $40. And look at that storage gap, 96GB. So of course people are going to spring for the 128GB, it sounds better to them. And whats even more infuriating is they used to offer 32, 64 and 128 GB options for the Nexus 6. Not so for the pixel. And it's not just google either.
Plus, you also have companies like Google and Apple who are pushing cloud storage and services. SD cards make people buy less/cheaper phones and negate the need for cloud crap.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:12AM
Just a dumb tax honestly. 16 GB phones are mostly gone, with the 32 GB and 128 GB options you mentioned being common, and 256 GB or more is around or coming. Meanwhile, you can always find a half-priced obscure smartphone brand like BLU or whatever with a decent octo-core chip and a removable SD slot. Won't be as polished as a Samsung Galaxy S8 or iPhone 7, but it will probably be a jump if you took years to upgrade.
Is there anything so great about Galaxy, iPhone, Pixel, etc. that can't be matched by a BLU, OnePlus, Oppo, Huawei, HTC, or whatever? Carrier restrictions could be a problem, but there may be a solution for you involving unlocking, pay-as-you-go, and Wi-Fi. Or straight up breaking into that Xfinity Wi-Fi network or using unpaid "unSIMs" as one troll likes to remind us.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]