Discussion ITT: We predict how low the price floor on 120GB/128GB SSD drops

[cbn]

I wonder which is more reliable, Micron 3D TLC, or the SK Hynix 14nm planar (TLC)?

That is a good question.

According to the following chart Micron 3D TLC NAND is rated at 500 P/E cycles (BCH) and 1500 P/E cycles (LDPC) :

Does anyone know how many P/E cycles the current 16nm SK Hynix TLC is rated at?

 

[cbn]

Another thing I wonder about concerning SK Hynix 14nm NAND is the number of planes per die compared to 16nm?

1.) Does SK Hynix keep the number of planes the same relative to capacity? (This would keep parallelism the same as 16nm for any given 14nm SSD capacity)

2.) Does SK Hynix halve the number of planes relative to capacity? (This would reduce parallelism by 50% for any given 14nm SSD capacity compared to 16nm)

#2 is less expensive to produce compared to #1, but it will lower write performance. This would be especially noticeable for any low capacity SSD without SLC cache (which typically are the MLC drives).

 

[hojnikb]

Do you know what capacity NAND die Intel 540s, ADATA SP550 and AMD R3 use?

I know they use SK Hynix 16nm planar NAND. I also know looking back at the SMI production tool you posted in #37 for Hectron X1 that there is a 128 Gbit MLC die.

So If Intel, ADATA and/or AMD use that 128 Gbit (16GB) MLC as 192Gbit (24GB) TLC that means the 120GB SSDs use an odd number of dies (eg, 120GB Intel 540s would use five 192Gbit (24GB) TLC dies).

Maybe this also explains why the Intel 540s offers better performance when configured as 180GB (eight 192Gbit (24GB) TLC dies with 12GB overprovisioning) rather than 120GB (five 192Gbit (24GB) TLC dies with no overprovisioning) :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10432/the-intel-ssd-540s-480gb-review

Not necessarily. They could have a special die just for TLC, so it can be a smaller, 128gbit die or a bigger, 256Gbit die (some review suggest the latter, bu i think thats just the package size, not die size)

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

I wonder which is more reliable, Micron 3D TLC, or the SK Hynix 14nm planar (TLC)?

In terms of preventing voltage drift at least then the fact that Micron's 3D TLC NAND uses a much larger litography (40+nm) than Sk Hynix's 14nm 2D TLC NAND should have a huge advantage in preventing it from becoming an issue and is less likely to be relying as much on ECC in general (as SK Hynix's 14nm 2D TLC NAND).

SK Hynix's 16nm TLC NAND does display some issues with voltage drift so even if litography is not the only factor I wouldn't feel certain that one using an even smaller litography would perform better in that regard.

Of course the first generation of 3D NAND of both Toshiba/SanDisk and Samsung were skipped due to them not being pleased with the result and decided to not release their 3D NAND until the second generation. Toshiba/SanDisk have yet to finish their second generation 3D NAND though.
Only time will tell if Micron should have done the same however.

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

Does anyone know how many P/E cycles the current 16nm SK Hynix TLC is rated at?

Saw some figures recently on P/E cycles for a few SSDs at Nordichardware.

They calculated that the 16nm SK Hynix TLC in the SP550 has around 1000 (exact number calculated at 963) while Intel 540s has around 600-700 (exact number calculated at 643).
Don't know if the difference is due to binning or sample variance or some other reason.

The 16nm Micron TLC in the BX200 is around 900-1000 (exact number calculated at 888).

And the 16nm Samsung TLC in the 750 EVO has a mere 400-500 (exact number calculated at 431).

Don't know if the numbers for the ones using SM2256/2258 factor in NANDXtend however.

 

[Beer4Me]

Just like with mechanical HDDs, I believe that the min size cap on SSD's will go up. It's getting harder and harder to find 3.5" SATA HDD's below 1 TB these days that are reasonably priced. It's already started with SSD's where 60/64 GB used to be the norm for OS install drives, but now those are all but gone. 120 GB is the new "60", but with their price also goes demand, which has been steadily declining. I believe we will see by Q4 2016 that >250 GB is the new "standard" capacity for all SSD with prices starting at $44.99. Hell, it may even happen much sooner than Q4 given how cheap TLC NAND is/has become, and TLC is driving all entry-tier SSD prices through the floor. It's a glorious time to be a PC enthusiast.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I believe we will see by Q4 2016 that >250 GB is the new "standard" capacity for all SSD with prices starting at $44.99. Hell, it may even happen much sooner than Q4 given how cheap TLC NAND is/has become

Well, planar TLC has been driving prices down, but my hope is that you are correct, and with the mainstream introduction of 3D TLC NAND, that prices will in fact go down further, and capacity at the low end will increase.

So far, I've seen a 240GB TLC SSD For $49.99 so far, so we're not that far away. (Silicon Power S55 TLC 240GB SSD, at NeweggFlash during their sale, for $49.99.)

 

[cbn]

Not necessarily. They could have a special die just for TLC, so it can be a smaller, 128gbit die or a bigger, 256Gbit die (some review suggest the latter, bu i think thats just the package size, not die size)

You are right, according to the Anandtech Intel 540s article the 480GB version has sixteen packages (with two SK Hynix 16nm 128 Gbit TLC dies per package):

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10432/the-intel-ssd-540s-480gb-review

Our 480GB sample had 16 packages each with two dies of the SK Hynix TLC.

So I wonder what the 180GB and 360GB versions use for dies/packaging?

Six packages with two 128 Gbit TLC dies each for 180GB?

Twelve packages with two 128 Gbit TLC dies each for 360GB?

versus.....

Four packages with two 192 Gbit TLC dies each for the 180GB? (using 128 Gbit MLC dies converted to TLC)

Eight packages with two 192 Gbit TLC dies each for the 360GB? (using 128 Gbit MLC dies converted to TLC)

 

[cbn]

Just like with mechanical HDDs, I believe that the min size cap on SSD's will go up. It's getting harder and harder to find 3.5" SATA HDD's below 1 TB these days that are reasonably priced. It's already started with SSD's where 60/64 GB used to be the norm for OS install drives, but now those are all but gone. 120 GB is the new "60", but with their price also goes demand, which has been steadily declining. I believe we will see by Q4 2016 that >250 GB is the new "standard" capacity for all SSD with prices starting at $44.99. Hell, it may even happen much sooner than Q4 given how cheap TLC NAND is/has become, and TLC is driving all entry-tier SSD prices through the floor. It's a glorious time to be a PC enthusiast.

It is true that the minimum size of an SSD is dictated by the capacity of the NAND die and the packaging.

With Samsung, for example, the minimum die size for TLC NAND is 128 Gbit (ie, 16GB) and each package has eight dies.

So for a Samsung planar TLC SSD with one package (using eight 128Gbit/16GB dies) the minimum capacity would be 128GB.

However, not all packaging systems have eight dies per package (though I wonder if this will change in the near future).

P.S. Perhaps something that could disrupt the minimum SSD size (assuming a high number of NAND dies per package becomes normal) would be BGA SSD. (re: since the controller and NAND are in one package, less than the usual number of dies could be used...since the packaging (due to the placement of the controller) has to be custom anyway.) Here is a good article on BGA SSD for anyone interested (for those that don't like the idea of storage soldered on a motherboard, the BGA SSD can be soldered on a M.2 thereby making a replaceable form of storage)

 

[VirtualLarry]

You are right, according to the Anandtech Intel 540s article the 480GB version has sixteen packages (with two SK Hynix 16nm 128 Gbit TLC dies per package):
So I wonder what the 180GB and 360GB versions use for dies/packaging?

Six packages with two 128 Gbit TLC dies each for 180GB?

Twelve packages with two 128 Gbit TLC dies each for 360GB?

versus.....

Four packages with two 192 Gbit TLC dies each for the 180GB? (using 128 Gbit MLC dies converted to TLC)

Eight packages with two 192 Gbit TLC dies each for the 360GB? (using 128 Gbit MLC dies converted to TLC)

Speaking of which... too bad SSD mfg's don't offer "alternate firmware", that allows you to "NAND clean", and then treat the entire drive as MLC rather than TLC.

DD-WRT for SSDs, anyone?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I noticed that there is a button on that tool, "Gen Linux bin". Does that mean that SSDs run Linux internally? And that we are entitled, as a matter of the GPL, to the relevant source code to the SSD controller firmware?

Regarding my post in another thread, re: "DD-WRT for SSDs" - could this possibly happen? And we could buy cheap TLC SSDs, and run them as MLC or even SLC, if we were willing to take the loss of capacity that would result?

 

[hojnikb]

I noticed that there is a button on that tool, "Gen Linux bin". Does that mean that SSDs run Linux internally? And that we are entitled, as a matter of the GPL, to the relevant source code to the SSD controller firmware?

Regarding my post in another thread, re: "DD-WRT for SSDs" - could this possibly happen? And we could buy cheap TLC SSDs, and run them as MLC or even SLC, if we were willing to take the loss of capacity that would result?

You could in theory already dod that. Those MPtools allow adjusting SLC cache (on the 2256 and 2258 anyway). But i never actually tried this though, so if someone is willing to try ..

 

[VirtualLarry]

Adata SP550 120GB (has DRAM cache, according to box):


Amused that this scores higher than my V300 240GB MLC drive, which, at 240MB/sec 4K QD32 read and write, wasn't too shabby to begin with.

Edit: Here's the Silicon Power S55 120GB TLC:


These TLC drives seem to benchmark quite well. Then again, I'm only using the 1GB benchmark, which may fall inside their SLC cache.

 

[cbn]

Just got my Hectron x1

Bench

Uses sm2246xt as expected (4 channel version) and hynix 16nm flash.

Firing up SMI mass production tool yield some interesting stuff to tweak

Anyone with a 2246xt drive brave enough to tweak it ?

My Hectron X1 60GB in SATA6G on H110:
(Edit: My Gloway Fervent 60GB has a nearly identical benchmark. Same controller?)

Here are my Hectron X1 120GB results:

 

[hojnikb]

Those are much better results (even for a x2 capacity). Mind opening up the thing and looking at the NAND and controller ?

 

[cbn]

Those are much better results (even for a x2 capacity). Mind opening up the thing and looking at the NAND and controller ?

SM2256, Nanya DRAM, SK Hynix NAND.

The pcb says kingston on it.

 

[hojnikb]

this explains the better performance. But i wonder if it's mlc or TLC flash... sm2256 is usually used with tlc.

 

[cbn]

this explains the better performance. But i wonder if it's mlc or TLC flash... sm2256 is usually used with tlc.

The NAND chips are marked H27QDG8M2M5R.

Three chinese references I found during an internet search claim this is TLC.

Also, if you look at the Hectron X1 ebay product listings only the 60GB drives have the term "MLC" in the title.

 

[VirtualLarry]

In keeping with the thread topic, the cheapest that I've now seen new 120GB SSDs, is $31.99 for TLC. Also have seen refurb Intel 320 Series 160 GB (MLC, Sata2) for $31.99, and Corsair Force LS MLC Sata6G 120GB for $29.99.

Recent 240GB TLC new SSDs have been as low as $50.99 no-rebate, for OCZ Trion 150 model.

 

[SnooSnoo]

Inspired by this thread, I bought one of those 120GB Hectrons ($33.49). I'l either install it into my C2D laptop, or give it to family members...Shipped quite fast as well.

Anyway, here are my CrystalDiskMark scores compared to my work Samsung 850 EVO(256GB):

http://imgur.com/a/8rhRb

 

[hojnikb]

Inspired by this thread, I bought one of those 120GB Hectrons ($33.49). I'l either install it into my C2D laptop, or give it to family members...Shipped quite fast as well.

Anyway, here are my CrystalDiskMark scores compared to my work Samsung 850 EVO(256GB):

http://imgur.com/a/8rhRb

can you test with a bigger testfile (10GB)?

 

[SnooSnoo]

can you test with a bigger testfile (10GB)?

Sure, will see tomorrow if I can spare some time.

EDIT:
Here are my results after cloning the drive:

In my work haswell pc:
http://imgur.com/H7ZE35o

And in my C2D laptop:
http://imgur.com/03bs9XE

 

[VirtualLarry]

Is it my imagination, or are SSD prices trending UPWARDS on ebay?

Sure, Newegg more or less has the same sort of sales on SSDs on their ebay store, but I could have sworn that you could get X25-M G2 and Intel 320 80GB SSDs in qty for no more than $25 shipped each.

Now, it seems like they're $35 or more.

The prices of the (Chinese) SSDs mentioned in this thread went up too.

Edit: Could this somehow be related to DRAM prices bottoming out and rising too? Do NAND and DRAM track each other, or are they inverse?

Edit: Here's a Crucial / Micron M500 240GB mfg refurb SSD, in qty. SAME EXACT LISTING was $49.99 a little while ago, now it's $52.50.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Crucial-M50...096126?hash=item25bfb4effe:g:nzsAAOSwKfVXK6CW

IMHO, SSD prices are drifting UPWARDS for some reason.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Is it my imagination, or are SSD prices trending UPWARDS on ebay?

Sure, Newegg more or less has the same sort of sales on SSDs on their ebay store, but I could have sworn that you could get X25-M G2 and Intel 320 80GB SSDs in qty for no more than $25 shipped each.

Now, it seems like they're $35 or more.

The prices of the (Chinese) SSDs mentioned in this thread went up too.

Edit: Could this somehow be related to DRAM prices bottoming out and rising too? Do NAND and DRAM track each other, or are they inverse?

Prices of increasingly rare used equipment are a crappy barometer, and changes in NAND/DRAM prices will have little impact on them, since very few people are actually shopping for drives that small anyway. (80GB? Yipes.)

You want to know what SSD prices look like, check the $/GB for 120/128GB class drives on pcpartpicker every week or two.

 

[cbn]

Windows 7 full updated with Microsoft Security Essentials installed takes up 30GB.

And with a 120GB SSD having 111GB of space available that leaves 81GB free. Assuming the person leaves 20% capacity free to keep performance consistency up that would leave 58.8 GB available (111 x .8 = 88.8 GB. 88.8 GB - 30GB for Windows 7 installation leaves 58.8 GB available).

58.8 GB free capacity available is not bad for an office PC.

In contrast a 60GB SSD has 56GB available and with 20% capacity reserved to keep performance consistency up only leaves 14.8GB available after OS installation (56 x .8 = 44.8 GB. 44.8GB - 30GB for Windows 7 leaves 14.8 GB available).

For this reason I think we will see 120GB viewed as a practical capacity and mostly likely see the price floor drop more than what we saw with 60GB.

As a point of comparison to info above, Windows 10 Pro (which already includes MS Defender) fully updated uses up 17 GB of space after disk clean-up.

So with Windows 10, 60/64GB SSD (and by extension 60/64 GB eMMC) become more viable for office use.

P.S. Regarding my calculations, I did notice looking back at Anandtech articles that 25% was the number used for free space (and this was based on the total capacity of the NAND, not the advertised capacity or capacity left after formating). So that means for either a 60GB or 64GB SSD, 48 GB would be available if 25% spare area (ie, 16GB) was desired . Likewise, for either a 120GB or 128GB SSD, 96GB would be available if 25% spare area (ie, 32GB) was desired.