Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:13 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:42 am 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
830 vs. 840 comparo
830 vs. 840 Pro comparo


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:19 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5461
Ah, the pros and cons of TLC NAND. I'm just wondering how the now 1000 or so write cycle life span will affect SSDs from here on out.

I'm not entirely convinced that flash memory is the way to go to replace HDDs. Flash memory is the only thing I've found in technology that actually gets worse when you apply Moore's Law to it.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:01 am 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
Hmmm, just like fashion everything comes full circle. How long then until we are back to tape drives?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:14 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5461
I don't think you get what I'm saying here. Flash memory has no future. The endurance and reliability of flash memory decreases as the size of the transistor used to create it shrinks. And it makes sense: you're actively changing the properties of the silicon with high voltages. Less matter = less life span.

Hard drives still have a future. Optical disks as well depending on how they're made, considering they're way more useful for archival purposes than anything else we have.

I'm just waiting for memristors to finally take off.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:35 am 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
No I hear ya! Just attempting to be my smartass self. You make a good point, couple that with Samsung latest push of TLC NAND. As you know it has the endurance that's a fraction of MLC. And its pretty obvious they try to fool people when they call the MLC for Pro. Instead of calling the TLC for Value or something.

Couple that with the fact that the savings in terms of 830 vs 840 is minimal for a massively reduced product. Only 10% price difference for something with 1/4th the lifespan, twice the latency and slower. TLC NAND is also only 67% the cost of MLC, I guess Samsung increased its margins.

Yet in practicality I can think of millions of users where TLC NAND is perfect, like 90% of the consumer market who does little more than browses the internet, uses ebay and writes the occasional letter would be perfect. Enterprise uses where everything is stored on the server and the most taxing write is the monthly Windows updates would also be ideal. There is nothing wrong with the concept of TLC NAND, it just has to be applied to the right usage model. Chances are this won't be power uses who browse this forum.

Didn't mean to crap on Samsung or the 840 but their new engineered product will only strengthen your point and reduce the lifespan of the ssd. To your point, further hindering it as a long term storage solution.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:06 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5461
As long as you apply the WORM idea for Flash as much as possible, it's great technology.

I think we should just stop at 25-20nm and size it up to 3.5 SSDs. I mean, sure, smaller size = more capacity in a smaller package. But again, it also means it's rated for 5 years assuming 7GB/day of writing.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:54 am 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
LatiosXT wrote:
...we should just stop at 25-20nm and size it up to 3.5 SSDs.


Genius! Now we'd get somewhere. The storage possibilities and performance would be mind numbing.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:28 pm 
Boy in Black
Boy in Black
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:40 pm
Posts: 24345
Location: South of heaven
I think you're both missing what TLC is aimed toward. SLC was for the hardcore while MLC (which I always thought was a wrong name) let us hobbyists have SSD's in our mits while in our budgets. MLC has evolved and made it quite clear any computer worth it's salt is affordable...enter TLC: For Everyone.

TLC is to make it dirt fucking cheap; not a competitor to MLC or SLC. It's to have an SSD in every computer out there and make it even more easy to have capacities comparable to spindle drives. People are still stuck that you can buy a 1TB spindle for $100 yet 120Gb is $80. It's just too complicated for the average buyer, I'm sorry but they're mostly stupid, and TLC can bring 1TB SSD's for $150 pretty quickly.

Single, Double [sic], Triple...cheap is what we're talking about. You can really now have a shit controller on a shit chip and have the capacity to compete with spindles STILL trying to recover from a flood years ago.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:03 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5461
SLCs were for the hardcore, but they no longer exist. If MLCs are going to go the same route once TLCs are the new standard, then I really don't want to do anything with SSDs. Silly sounding yes, but as I said, flash memory is one of the things that gets worse with Moore's Law.

I would consider it a viable solution if we change how we use RAM. Make 16GB standard, stop expecting a page file, and have it so all temp files reside in RAM without creating a RAM disk.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:25 pm 
Boy in Black
Boy in Black
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:40 pm
Posts: 24345
Location: South of heaven
Oh, that's my sentiments currently and exact LatiosXT; but that's just the here and now really. I fear TLC will take over, but at the same time I really feel enthusiasts will push hard to keep MLC (DLC) moving with better controllers. TLC may be shit now, but there's nothing logical saying that they can't graduate to SLC levels of performance given controller work.

Maybe I'm stuck thinking about Intel's 3D circuits and how everyone in the industry should grow up and not out, but TLC just makes sense. I'm breaking Moore's law with this thought, or I'm tweaking it...but each level of circuitry can grow on it's own (I re-read, that only makes sense in my head, but going with it). If we compare early SLC's with top end MLC's today, I really feel the MLC class has driven the demand for SLC's out and not that SLC's just died on the vine because they're too expensive. They WERE expensive and MLC's were tweaked enough to make them grandpas in the SSD game. TLC has promise, but enthusiasts need to push it and not allow them just to be laptop replacements.

Any SSD will trump a spindle on performance and longevity. TLC offers a parallel move, but nothing more currently. Let's just hope they can pipe the TLC with some new controllers. I only have my doubts as the controller market dwindles and is swooped up by the monsters. What are there, 4 real controller designers now? Three if Intel uses 3rd party...


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 830 vs 840
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:52 pm 
Clawhammer
Clawhammer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:22 pm
Posts: 4406
Location: In the closet
Did you hear that two Samsung 840 Pro review samples received by Anandtech have failed. And they have updated the review conclusion. Looks like the drive reliably list should look a little like this....

Samsung 830 (27nm Toggle-mode MLC NAND) "rock solid, proven and reliable"
Samsung 840 Pro (21nm 2bpc MLC NAND) Not so good
Samsung 840 (Samsung's 21nm 3-bit-per-cell MLC (aka TLC NAND) a cheap value

As they continue to shrink Nand, it looks like they are reducing lifespan, reducing reliability all for the sake of reducing cost. I guess the older mature 25nm/27nm NAND SSD's are the way to go. Read the updated conclusion...

Image


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

© 2014 Future US, Inc. All rights reserved.