Comments Locked

41 Comments

Back to Article

  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    If they only need that big a circuit board, you have to wonder if it'd be better just to cut the case in half!

    Also... I know you're working from releases for pipeline stories, but is it truly necessary to note that "it's noteworthy", or "important to point out"? If a particular fact wasn't truly notable or important, presumably you just wouldn't mention it at all? Picky, I know, but it bugs me. :-/
  • s.yu - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    If we pack a 2.5" form factor full of flash memory it should far exceed 10TB.
  • raywin - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    and your budget
  • FunBunny2 - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    good point. I've always wondered why, at least Enterprise, SSD don't do that. there are sufficient address lines, and power shouldn't be an issue, after all if you load chassis with a dozen or so SSD, you'll draw about the same power.
  • Jorgp2 - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    The idea is that with insane capacities on a SATA interface, is that your per GB bw goes way down
  • soresu - Monday, December 16, 2019 - link

    128 TB just on the last generation alone (92 layers).
  • 29a - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    If they cut the case size in half it wouldn't be compliant with the 2.5" hdd form factor.
  • Valantar - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    Yeah, that would make laptop use near impossible. Even mounting in most desktop brackets would be loose and weird.
  • beginner99 - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    Laptop yes is a problem but desktop? I mean you don't even need a mounting spot you can just tape the 2.5 drives somewhere. it's not like ssds need decoupling or need to be mounted especially secure.
  • Azurael - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    The OEM market seems to consist almost exclusively of m.2 drives now, whether SATA or NVMe. Of the remaining market for 2.5" SATA SSDs, how many do you think end up in desktops? I'd hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of 2.5" SATA SSDs sold in 2019 are retrofitted into older notebooks which came with HDDs and require a standard full length 2.5"/9.5mm height form factor. Samsung isn't going to make a different version of the drive to fulfill the wishes of a tiny proportion of the market for the device. If you need one, you could always design and 3D print your own.
  • sing_electric - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    I'm REALLY not sure that that's the case - the vast majority of cheap notebooks are purchased by people who wouldn't think of upgrading no matter what - and mid-to-high end notebooks have been SSD based for many years now (and in the past 5-ish years, many low-end notebooks like Chromebooks came with eMMC, not a HDD). On the business side, many companies that have repair contracts (which would specify a like-for-like replacement of a broken component), and the ones that don't are probably equally loathe to spend extra cash on an older machine (for a probably junior-level employee).

    My bet is that most 2.5" SATA drives go in desktops BY FAR, since they've got the space and a lot of SSDs come with 2.5"-3.5" adapters. If you're making a system to look decent on a spec sheet, "500GB SSD" is cheaper to do if its a 2.5" SATA drive than if its a m2 one, and if you're building a higher-end system, 2.5" drives are a great way to add secondary, slower storage (e.g. for media) while the OS and apps reside on faster, NVME storage.
  • Lolimaster - Monday, August 19, 2019 - link

    They could a cheapo plastic filler. Fot me ssds drives should be cut in half for below 4Tb, you dont need to screw rhem anyways, case manufactures could include a pair of hole closer to each other so theyre compliant with the new sizes for people who want to secure their drives.
  • someotheruser - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    See here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14711/toshiba-intro...
  • austinsguitar - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    i mean if they make 6 terabyte and 4 terabyte ssd's for around 200-250 dollars then we are talkin. but right now i dont see that happening
  • Valantar - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    So until technology reaches your pie-in-the-sky targets you're holding off entirely? Or are you just annoyed by technological development generally being evolutionary rather than revolutionary?
  • azfacea - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    this is a revolution. he is just b8ing dude
  • regsEx - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    Revolution is when Optane would be financially accessible.
  • stephenbrooks - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    That's my approach. I've had a 1TB HDD for 6 years. Only recently has it become economical to upgrade to a 2TB SSD, which I'll probably do with a new PC build. I wasn't going to "upgrade" to a smaller drive. Programs tend to dump their files on the Windows drive so it runs out of space fast, making having two drives quite awkward.
  • Zhentar - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    ... are you seriously claiming that someone could be so hung up on the number of bytes in their storage that they'd knowingly accept the god awful miserable terrible-by-multiple-orders-of-magnitude response time of spinning rust for *six years* while simultaneously being satisfied by just one single terabyte of storage? It's just too absurd, I refuse to accept it.
  • close - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    Yeah, who knew storage devices provide more than one useful metric (capacity). If performance was you target you should have bought a "performance device". A hybrid solution (fast SSD + large HDD) is also out of the question - it's all in one or nothing. [/s]
  • SirPerro - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    God I rather use a 64GB SSD and format windows every week than using a spinning HDD.

    People can't understand the incredible difference an SSD makes, no matter the size. It's the single biggest upgrade anyone can purchase, and the unchallenged winner, by some orders or magnitude, in the perceived improvement/dollar ratio.
  • DyneCorp - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    I've been using a 256GB SSD for years and have had no issues with space using it as the C drive. You are silly.
  • Alistair - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    2TB SSD's for $200 aren't cheap enough? I don't use anything except flash.
  • ikjadoon - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    I'm hopeful the 8 TB / 10 TB capacities for an eventual 136-layer triple-stacked QLC SSDs can break the $50 / TB barrier. I realize their costs only went down 20%...but maybe competition can bring them down even lower ;)

    NAS-rated HDDs are at $32 / TB right now...and we're looking for 16 TB to really spread the cost out over a few years.

    $500 for HDDs today vs $1800 for QLC SSDs today. I can't stomach it (yet).
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    "Cost went down only 20%" - that comes just from the die area. There's of course also the question of yield and the tighter process control, probably longer running etching process and/or more expensive tools. I would expect a new wafer to at least initially cost more than V5.
  • name99 - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    What is your complaint?
    It’s innovations like this that, one step at a time, get us from today’s prices to the prices you want.
  • FreckledTrout - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    "136-layer V-NAND" Seriously how many layers are they going to be able to make for consumer grade products?
  • name99 - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    Don’t forget the 670 million (let alone 930 million!) holes.
    People forget how insanely magical these devices are! And people are upset that they cost a few dollars more!!!

    Insert Louis CK cell phone reference...
  • danielfranklin - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    Please dont stop producing MLC V-NAND. Samsung, you are our only hope.
  • Techtree101 - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    What's the expected upper limit going to be in capacity? Are we finally going to see drives at semi-reasonable prices beyond 4TB? I personally want an 8TB+ archive drive that's not mechanical at consumer level pricing... even if it's slow by SSD standards.
  • Kjella - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    Capacity is whatever they like, Samsung has a 30TB SSD in a 2.5" inch form factor. They scale almost linearly though, you can have 2x the capacity for 2x the price so there's really no advantage of buying in bulk, an 8TB SSD will be price of four 2TB SSDs.
  • wanderer66 - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    As long as the Cloud revolution continues, it will be a long time before prices take a dive. Demand has outstripped capacity for some time now, and will continue to keep prices relatively higher for some time to come.
  • rpg1966 - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    There's a massive advantage, i.e. how much capacity you can physically fit into your PC/NAS/pocket/etc.
  • close - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    The cost may increase quasi-linearly but the price usually doesn't. You pay a premium for the larger SSD simply because if you want to load up on storage you have to go for larger instead or more. Samsung (and not only) also knows.
  • danielfranklin - Tuesday, August 6, 2019 - link

    Thats where QLC will shine.
    Though personally i cant see why you wouldnt use a HDD for "archive" data, though that means different things to different people.
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    Depends on your definition of semi-reasonable ;)
  • brakdoo - Wednesday, August 7, 2019 - link

    Anton, come on: these are 136 physical layers, NOT memory layers.

    You are forgetting about the dummy layers and the selectors. This would bring them much closer to the 128 mem layers everyone else is doing (and yes, those have those additional layers too, like every 3D NAND chip).

    It could be even less than 128 like the chip they shown at ISSCC : https://thememoryguy.com/memory-sightings-at-isscc...

    That's the reason Samsung is calling it 100+ layers or 1xx layers, not 136 layers: https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronic...
  • Guspaz - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    Now if only Samsung didn't charge 2.5x as much as Intel for their same-size entry-level NVMe drives...
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, August 8, 2019 - link

    "It is noteworthy that the new 256 Gb 136-layer V-NAND devices use 670 million holes, down from 930 million holes with the previous generation, which means that the new chips need fewer process steps and are easier to manufacture."

    Anton, this number does not refer to the number of process steps, but rather to the number of holes etched into each 256 Gbit die, with each hole housing 100+ memory cells in the end. Cost decreases due to more dies per wafer, if higher processing cost don't outweight this (in which case they would not have started mass production).
  • uibo - Saturday, August 17, 2019 - link

    "Initially, Samsung will offer 256 Gb 3D TLC 136-layer V-NAND devices that will first be used for Samsung’s 250 GB SSDs"

    Seriously? 250 GB 2.5'' SSD-s like the one on the picture? Haven't we moved past that capacity yet?
  • tooto - Sunday, January 12, 2020 - link

    It's 128-layer V-NAND, not 136-layer one. Data from Samsung Newsroom supports the assumption that 5th gen. features 92 layers and 6th gen. features 128 layers.
    Also, “an electrically conductive mold stack comprised of 136 layers” doesn't necessarily mean 'an 136-layer CTF structure'

    ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ##########
    9x:1xx=6.7:9.3 ~0.72 // 92:128 ~0.72 // 92:136 ~0.68 // 96:128 ~0.75 // 96:136 ~0.71

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now