AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
X570 Aorus master review
Cooler Master Silencio S600 review
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G review
ASUS RoG Swift PG35VQ Monitor review
SK Hynix Starts Mass-Producing World’s First 128-Layer 4D NAND
SK Hynix announces today that it has developed and starts mass-producing 128-Layer 1Tb (Terabit) TLC (Triple-Level Cell) 4D NAND Flash, which is eight months after the Company announced the 96-Layer 4D NAND Flash last year. They are also developing 176-Layer NAND already.
The 128-Layer 1Tb NAND chip offers the industry's highest vertical stacking with more than 360 billion NAND cells, each of which stores 3 bits, per one chip. To achieve this, SK hynix applied innovative technologies, such as “ultra-homogeneous vertical etching technology,” “high-reliability multi-layer thin-film cell formation technology,” and ultra-fast low-power circuit design, to its own 4D NAND technology.
The new product provides the industry's highest density of 1Tb for TLC NAND Flash. A number of companies including SK hynix have developed 1Tb QLC (Quad-Level Cell) NAND products, but SK hynix is the first to commercialize the 1Tb TLC NAND Flash. TLC accounts for more than 85% of the NAND Flash market with excellent performance and reliability. The small chip size, the biggest advantage of the Company’s 4D NAND, allowed SK hynix to realize ultra-high-density NAND Flash memory. The Company announced the innovative 4D NAND in October 2018, which combined 3D CTF (Charge Trap Flash) design with the PUC (Peri. Under Cell) technology.
With the same 4D platform and process optimization, SK hynix was able to reduce the total number of manufacturing processes by 5% while stacking 32 more layers on the existing 96-Layer NAND. As a result, the investment cost for the transition from 96-Layer to 128-Layer NAND has been reduced by 60% compared to the previous technology migration, significantly boosting investment efficiency. The 128-Layer 1Tb 4D NAND increases bit productivity per wafer by 40% compared to the Company’s 96-Layer 4D NAND. SK Hynix will start shipping the 128-Layer 4D NAND flash from the second half of this year, while continuing to roll out various solutions.
With its four-Plane architecture in a single chip, this product achieved a data transfer rate of 1,400Mbps (Megabits/sec) at 1.2V, enabling high-performance and low-power mobile solutions and enterprise SSD. SK Hynix plans to develop the next-generation UFS 3.1 product in the first half of next year for major flagship smartphone customers. With 128-Layer 1Tb NAND Flash, the number of NAND chips necessary for a 1TB (Terabyte) product, currently the largest capacity for a smart phone, will be reduced by half, compared to 512Gb NAND; it will provide customers with a mobile solution with 20% less power consumption in a 1mm-thin package. The Company also intends to start mass production of a 2TB client SSD with an in-house controller and software in the first half of next year. 16TB and 32TB Non-Volatile Memory express (NVMe) SSDs for cloud data centers will be released next year as well.
SK Hynix is developing the next-generation 176-Layer 4D NAND Flash, and will continue to strengthen the competitiveness of its NAND business through technological advantages.
SK hynix Launches Low-Power NVMe Enterprise SSD - 06/20/2019 08:17 AM
SK hynix announced today that it launched a new low-power Non-Volatile Memory express (NVMe) Enterprise SSD (eSSD) with the 72-layer TLC 3D NAND flash that offers best-in-class performance for power a...
SK Hynix publishes details first DDR5 chip - 02/22/2019 12:44 PM
SK Hynix is showing details on their first DDR5 chip. The standard is officially still under development by Jedec, but seems to make an appearance soon enough.....
SK Hynix: DDR5 by 2020 and Actively Developing DDR6 - 01/28/2019 09:50 AM
While motherboards and procs paired with DDR4 can reach amazing frequencies and latencies these days, SK Hynix is already talking about DDR6, and yes, DDR5 is poised to see a release in 2020....
SK Hynix Announces 1Ynm 16Gb DDR5 DRAM - 11/15/2018 01:52 PM
SK Hynix announced that it has developed 16 Gb DDR5 DRAM, the first DDR5 to meet the JEDEC standards. The same 1Ynm process technology used for the recently-developed 1Ynm 8Gb DDR4 DRAM was applied to...
SK Hynix Develops 10 nm-class 8 Gb DDR4 DRAM - 11/12/2018 09:40 AM
SK Hynix announced that it has developed 1Ynm 8Gb (Gigabits) DDR4 (Double Data Rate 4) DRAM. The productivity of this product is increased by 20% and the power consumption reduced by more than 15%, co...
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5684553 Posted on: 06/26/2019 01:07 PM
It's TLC, the endurance should be good. Not as good as MLC, of course, but still miles better than the crap QLC.
Sounds all nice and good but i i wou like to hear the endurance cycles on that one
It's TLC, the endurance should be good. Not as good as MLC, of course, but still miles better than the crap QLC.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9469
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9469
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5684559 Posted on: 06/26/2019 01:14 PM
At one TB drive, even QLC could be acceptable. But sadly QLC prices are too close to TLC. Therefore TLC is better investment.
At one TB drive, even QLC could be acceptable. But sadly QLC prices are too close to TLC. Therefore TLC is better investment.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5684607 Posted on: 06/26/2019 03:13 PM
Yup - it is worth pointing out that for typical at-home workloads, the larger your drive is, the less you have to worry about endurance.
I have a 1TB TLC SSD that I use solely for storing games, and despite being around 80% full, I think its life cycle is still around 98%. If QLC drives were available at the time, I'd have got one because at this rate, the drive's SATA interface is going to become an obscurity before it starts to noticeably degrade.
Slightly off-topic, if endurance really is enough of a concern, there are ways to go about improving it to the point of irrelevance, such as:
* Disable hibernation
* Don't have a paging file or swap partition
* Disable caches in programs like web browsers
* Disable pre/super fetching
* Run updates for everything manually once a month
* Use another hard drive or RAM drive as a "scratch disk" for temporary files
* Don't buy a crappy cheap SSD
At one TB drive, even QLC could be acceptable. But sadly QLC prices are too close to TLC. Therefore TLC is better investment.
Yup - it is worth pointing out that for typical at-home workloads, the larger your drive is, the less you have to worry about endurance.
I have a 1TB TLC SSD that I use solely for storing games, and despite being around 80% full, I think its life cycle is still around 98%. If QLC drives were available at the time, I'd have got one because at this rate, the drive's SATA interface is going to become an obscurity before it starts to noticeably degrade.
Slightly off-topic, if endurance really is enough of a concern, there are ways to go about improving it to the point of irrelevance, such as:
* Disable hibernation
* Don't have a paging file or swap partition
* Disable caches in programs like web browsers
* Disable pre/super fetching
* Run updates for everything manually once a month
* Use another hard drive or RAM drive as a "scratch disk" for temporary files
* Don't buy a crappy cheap SSD
Venix
Senior Member
Posts: 881
Joined: 2016-08-01
Senior Member
Posts: 881
Joined: 2016-08-01
#5684686 Posted on: 06/26/2019 07:55 PM
i thought the cycles drop also with the addition to layers my bad ...well if that's the case bigger cheaper mlc nand chips are great !
It's TLC, the endurance should be good. Not as good as MLC, of course, but still miles better than the crap QLC.
i thought the cycles drop also with the addition to layers my bad ...well if that's the case bigger cheaper mlc nand chips are great !
Mundosold
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 2012-10-04
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 2012-10-04
#5685055 Posted on: 06/27/2019 08:53 PM
When MLC came out, people debated why anyone would to buy it over SLC because MLC was 'shitty'
When TLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over MLC because TLC was 'shitty'
When QLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over TLC because QLC was 'shitty'
At a certain point, the endurance and performance drops you see at each bit-level become irrelevant in most use cases, but the lower cost and bigger size drives do not.
also I think people are way too paranoid about endurance. I still have a 60GB drive from like 2009 working well and a 120GB drive from 2011 at 1% wear level. Never seen a drive fail due to endurance in my life because most people do not write THAT much data to their drive. Drive failure because the controller randomly died or corrupt data because flash NANDs powered off for too long are much more common.
When MLC came out, people debated why anyone would to buy it over SLC because MLC was 'shitty'
When TLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over MLC because TLC was 'shitty'
When QLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over TLC because QLC was 'shitty'
At a certain point, the endurance and performance drops you see at each bit-level become irrelevant in most use cases, but the lower cost and bigger size drives do not.
also I think people are way too paranoid about endurance. I still have a 60GB drive from like 2009 working well and a 120GB drive from 2011 at 1% wear level. Never seen a drive fail due to endurance in my life because most people do not write THAT much data to their drive. Drive failure because the controller randomly died or corrupt data because flash NANDs powered off for too long are much more common.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5685309 Posted on: 06/28/2019 06:45 PM
When MLC came out, people debated why anyone would to buy it over SLC because MLC was 'shitty'
When TLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over MLC because TLC was 'shitty'
When QLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over TLC because QLC was 'shitty'
At a certain point, the endurance and performance drops you see at each bit-level become irrelevant in most use cases, but the lower cost and bigger size drives do not.
also I think people are way too paranoid about endurance. I still have a 60GB drive from like 2009 working well and a 120GB drive from 2011 at 1% wear level. Never seen a drive fail due to endurance in my life because most people do not write THAT much data to their drive. Drive failure because the controller randomly died or corrupt data because flash NANDs powered off for too long are much more common.
I've been using my Crucial MX100 for 4 years and 6 months now. It's an MLC SSD with 256Gb rated for 72TB of endurance. So far, I've used 7%. At this rate I'll kill the SSD in 14 years, it will probably die or be rendered not usable when enough cells stop working.
It all depends on what you do with the SSD, being big doesn't save them from the endurance problem. People who edit video (like me) and install big games on the drive, will eventually wear them out faster than casual users.
TLC is great, you gain allot of storage space at an affordable price, sacrificing some endurance. I'd say that for me, it's a well worth trade off.
As for QLC, you trade too much endurance for just a little bit of more storage, not worth it. And companies have taken notice of this, by investing more in layers and sticking with TLC for longer.
When MLC came out, people debated why anyone would to buy it over SLC because MLC was 'shitty'
When TLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over MLC because TLC was 'shitty'
When QLC came out, people debated why anyone would buy it over TLC because QLC was 'shitty'
At a certain point, the endurance and performance drops you see at each bit-level become irrelevant in most use cases, but the lower cost and bigger size drives do not.
also I think people are way too paranoid about endurance. I still have a 60GB drive from like 2009 working well and a 120GB drive from 2011 at 1% wear level. Never seen a drive fail due to endurance in my life because most people do not write THAT much data to their drive. Drive failure because the controller randomly died or corrupt data because flash NANDs powered off for too long are much more common.
I've been using my Crucial MX100 for 4 years and 6 months now. It's an MLC SSD with 256Gb rated for 72TB of endurance. So far, I've used 7%. At this rate I'll kill the SSD in 14 years, it will probably die or be rendered not usable when enough cells stop working.
It all depends on what you do with the SSD, being big doesn't save them from the endurance problem. People who edit video (like me) and install big games on the drive, will eventually wear them out faster than casual users.
TLC is great, you gain allot of storage space at an affordable price, sacrificing some endurance. I'd say that for me, it's a well worth trade off.
As for QLC, you trade too much endurance for just a little bit of more storage, not worth it. And companies have taken notice of this, by investing more in layers and sticking with TLC for longer.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 881
Joined: 2016-08-01
Sounds all nice and good but i i wou like to hear the endurance cycles on that one