>Samsung says it has started production on 4-bit quad-level NAND cells (QLC), w
>Stack enough of those together (1Tb), and you can get a lot of storage in the standard 2.5-inch SSD form factor at lower costs.
>Samsung expects mass production to start around the end of the year.
>thanks to a 3-bit controller and “TurboWrite” technology. TurboWrite runs a small portion of the SSD in as cache to speed up drive performance. Overall, Samsung claims sequential read speed of 540 MB/s and a sequential write speed of 520 MB/s in 4-bit SSDs.
>Consumers will have the option of picking up the new Samsung SSDs in 1, 2, and 4TB capacities.
>Samsung is also planning to use its 4-bit V-NAND chip in microSD cards. It’s planning a 128GB card that would offer better performance than current products.
>New M.2 SSDs with the QLC technology are also in the works
Will Samsung fix the SSD and finally kill HDD?
> QLC
to the it goes, enjoy your 300-500 write cycles.
It's acktually ~1k for 64L parts and that's still overkill for client shit.
What matters is data retention.
why isn't Samsung the most valuable company on the planet?
And why would they sell it for less than current ssds?
Competition.
64L 3D NAND and SM controllers are widely available.
Competition against their own products?
No, competition against the likes of IMFT (well, not anymore, but you got the memo) that too have 64L 1Tb QLC part.
lol no
what they will do is demand the same price as TLC drives because QLC sounds nicer
maybe once Micron makes qlc and puts it in something like .. an M600 we might get better prices.
this
the same thing happened when they changed from MLC to TLC, prices remained the same and you can still buy a MLC ssd for around the same price
Micron is shipping QLC drives (5210 ION) already.
>in something like an m600
the m500 is currently the go-to for price/perf
ill pull a unicorn out of my ass and say the same will be true once they release m600
The reason SSD prices went down has been that the memory they used became cheaper from the suppliers, or perhaps I am mistaken about htis.
Anyway, about the technmology change. Seeing as they do not offer anything below 1 TB with the new technology does that mean
1. They will keep charging the same prices as the TLC 1 TB and we are effectively limited in lower-storage options and have to buy this big expensive one or
2. they will sell the 1 TB SSD at a price like the current 500GB-tier? Frankly 1. is more believable.
1k writes only for expensive models.
Does it mean I should wait until next year to buy cheaper SSD?
t. poorfag living in 3rd world cunt
QLC doesn't at all mean that SSDs are going to get cheaper
>poorfag living in 3rd world cunt
get an hdd.
buy no ssds before 2020 superpower
Then it's basically sameshit? I'll get the SSD this year then.
I'm not a currynigger.
It's gonna be called BX500 or BX600 desu.
All remotely modern controllers use pretty nuclear LDPC ECC.
You'll get your ~1k cycles.
>I'm not a currynigger.
sucks for you.
#2020superpower
No ty. Nothing can compare to HDDs in terms of life expectancy. Speed is nothing if you can't rely on the storage. SSDs are still a meme. Xpoint was supposed to be almost as good as HDD but no one is talking about it so I guess it wasn't that good.
If I want the best SSD for data retention, which should I get? Or should I get an HDD?
HDD
Micron and Intel is dissolving their partnership in Xpoint so that doesn't look good.
Depends. I had two Seagate 500GB HDDs die on me within a year when I got the Barrecuda 7200.11 models.
Now I would recommend you to always get two if you want to have safe data retention.
This ain't the '90s. Moore's Law is dead. And SSDs still have an order of magnitude to drop in price before they're at parity with HDDs - from $200-something a terabyte to $20-something a terabyte.
I would very much like it to happen. But I'm not optimistic, and if it does happen, it won't be happening soon.
>seagate
try WD blacks next time
>QLC
>literally dividing the number of years your SSD will last by 4, compared to TLC
>more prone to errors and worse data retention
>negligible price difference
No thanks. Unless those will be more than 3 times cheaper nobody should give a shit.
Any recent SSD is good.
>buying American
Buy Toshiba
the BX series kinda suck tho
I value my data
You do backups like any sane person do faggot
Seriously, price and capacity has nothing to do with consumers trust in SSDs. It's the shitty 2 year lifespan that's still preventing many from "upgrading". I'm editing videos and photos for local studio and we had an option to change anything in PCs and no one, I mean no one used an SSD in their machine.
Both BX100 and BX300 were excellent drives.
So no.
>I value my data
>so I use a backdoored HDD
samsung tlc is better than shit tier mlc
its qlc will be much better than shit tier tlc
Nice source. And even if it's going straight to NSA I don't care as long as I also have my data. SO NOT AN ARGUMENT
NAND fucks Moore's Law sideways by going 3D.
CTF structures and string stacking allows it to scale to silly digrees.
To the point that flash will never die.
My MX100 is >4 y.o. at this point and it's still alive and kicking.
my M4 is 7~ years old and still going strong
>3D is better than 2D
Fighting words.
You're not using it then. You're basically an Apple user in disguise
?
NAND just tends to be pretty durable.
Ever since Seagate bought up Maxtor, LaCie and Samsung. (there were ones bought up by these too) and we reached a number of 221 defunct HDD brands with now just three primary ones being:
* Western Digital (owns HGST)
* Seagate
* Toshiba
It is clear that HDD is dying, hell, this news story about WD closing a factory to make SSD's just proves the reality of HDD's.
Personally I got a Samsung 64 GB sd card for 19 dollars and I am amazed at how it writes at 60MB/s and reads at 100MB/s with 10 years limited warranty.
It's only dead for the CPUs. GPUs and memory keep on growing fast.
Shrinking? Certainly. Going away? Not until you fix that 10x price disparity.
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
Lmao kys
Can't you just buy Toshiba instead of the Murican HDD brands?
Problem solved?
Seagate is really trying to keep it alive. They about to go the way of the dinosaur in a few years.
I'd personally still find value in HDDs, I mean a corrupted Hard Disk can be salvaged unlike SSDs.
They will never lower the price, they'll just increase their profit margins.
Lowering the price means canibalizing their higher end SSDs as the regular user doesn't know the difference between MLC and QLC
>Lowering the price means canibalizing their higher end SSDs as the regular user doesn't know the difference between MLC and QLC
Which is the point.
Either you do it yourself or the competition does it for you.
>QLC
no thanks
SSD retail prices have been diving the last couple of weeks.
Guess we now know why.
?
There's just NAND oversupply due to lower phone demand and 64L 3D NAND being everywhere.
playing the long game
Because their phones failed massively
HDDs are already replaced with SSDs, at least for the boot disk in most machines. But for secondary storage? Hell no, I want muh spinning rust. SSDs are great for day to day use but they can't be left unplugged for 6 months to a year. I want HDDs that I can leave unplugged for 4-5 years in a cool dry place and come back to without worrying about bitrot. They're easier to use for medium length storage than tapes, and they offer a lot more writes than tapes do. Some of the backup disks I have get written to once every year or so with financial and other records. With tapes I'd basically have to buy a new one every time to ensure their integrity. With SSDs? Forget about it.
>QLC
>SSD now lasts 3 months before it's permanently dead
How is that "fixing"?
>Raises profit margins
>Comparable product undercuts them
>Sells fewer units
>Lowers price in order to compete
It's still ~1k P/E cycles on average.
Pretty much overkill for client workloads.
I want to buy 860 EVO 250GB for my laptop. Am I doing good, Jow Forums?
>bitrot
this fucking meme just wont die will it
Convince me not to buy one of these for the equivalent of 50 USD in the near future.
Whoah, turned out Seagate purchased Samsung in 2011, didn't know. That explain how my twelve years old Samsung hdd is still alive and well.
>samsung invents cheap nand the very moment chinks flood market with their own cheap flash
Really makes you think
Micron started shipping 64L QLC before Samshit.
1k cycles for 1TB is 1,000 TB which is a lot more than I use on my servers even. is there a way to see overall data written with SMART or anything?
>SSDs can lose data in as little as 7 days without power
Time to move my mbr to hdd.
>only 520MB/s
literally dead on arrival
i have 4x2TB nvme SSDs with 3300MB/s each
>samsung and micron invents cheap nand the very moment chinks flood market with their own cheap flash
Really makes you think
>is there a way to see overall data written with SMART or anything?
Yes, most controllers dumb the P/E cycles number into SMART data.
No
Removing the cheap entry level product draws customers to the competition
Chinks are ~three years away from flooding the market with anything remotely comparable to current 64L NAND.
But is it actually going to be cheaper for consumers, though? Or just cheaper for Samsung to manufacture.
It's fine for sata which is still suitable for almost any task.
christ almighty this place is fucking filled with brainlets isnt it
Untill SSDs offer me 8TB for the same price as a HDD with the same reliability I will use HDDs for storage. Speed doesn't matter at all when all you need is long term reliable storage.
>HDD
>reliable
Heh.
It's good enough for chink companies to buy in bulk, use in raid and throw away at first signs of errors, which was entire point of developing it in the first place and it'll allow them to mature. You say that they're 3 years behind which means that in 3 years they will roughly match modern ssds and modern ssds are pretty much perfect for almost any use anyway.
literally who cares about 520MB/s? it's too slow for any practical purpose
you're the only brainlet here
If you need a SSD, do it.
There's no point in sitting around waiting for technology to get better, it's never going to stop.
>any practical purpose
Like?
yfw shitty 550mb/s ssd and your m2 meme show same results in games, so the only point in m2 is if you do rendering
>4x2TB nvme
That cost-to-storage ratio is completely unsuitable for mass storage. Normal home users aren't going to dump $10k on NVME drives for their anime and porn that don't even benefit from the r/w rates and datacenters mostly care about power efficiency (which SSDs win) and the initial hardware costs (which NVMEs lose by an order of magnitude).
You'll have 128L NAND from major vendors in 3 years that will offer significantly more bits per wafer.
Chinks will have to try really hard to be interesting on international market.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, "cheaper" they're gonna sell the 4TB variant for 2k$.
Pretty sure there's been news that due to overproduction, the price of solid state memory will drop significantly.
How much cheaper are we talking?
Yes, expect 10% cheaper NAND H2 2018.
running an ethereum, bitcoin, litecoin, and monero node
Try playing a game made this decade and the load time improvements are extremely noticeable, senpai.
>Chinks will have to try really hard to be interesting on international market
They're not really interested in internetional market, they had to develop internal ssds because they were fucked by foreign companies(cartels). Their own market is huge. Also, who the fuck cares about bits per wafers when they're selling ssds at half price of evo right fucking now?
>he only buys shit brands that fail instantly
You only got yourself to blame.
And why would you do that? Is mining even remotely profitabe to even pay for nvme ssd to justify its purchasing?
>They're not really interested in internetional market
Then they don't influence shit.
>Also, who the fuck cares about bits per wafers when they're selling ssds at half price of evo right fucking now?
More bits per wafer == cheaper SSDs.
Much cheaper.
NVME is basically good for a big cache, there aren't very many applications that require sustained multi-gigabit speeds.
You're right, there's no reason to store media on expensive solid state, since any hard drive made this millennium can give the 4MB/s required to play HD video.
i don't mine, i maintain the nodes for archival purposes + a monetized api server
bruh, name me one(1) game that use more than one cpu thread to process game resources from disk and you will realize why m2 for gaming is a meme
>Then they don't influence shit.
They're influencing international market by having foreign companies to compete on chinese market with local manufacturers which also can trickle down to any other international market.
>More bits per wafer == cheaper SSDs.
>Much cheaper.
And it's still the cheapes ssds are chink ones. When samsung will offer 128L ssds, chinks will offer 64L ssds at half of its price anyway.
>paying double price for same results as garbage ssd's
what are you on about nigga
throughput of a single i7 8770k core is 20GB/s
And for every of you there is tens of thousands of people who don't need nvme. Can you namve any common task that requires nvme raid?