Slashdot Mirror
NAND Flash Shrinks To 15/16nm Process, Further Driving Prices Down
Lucas123 writes: Both Micron and Toshiba are producing NAND flash memory based on 15 and 16 nanometer process technology, which reduces die area over a 16GB MLC chip by 28% compared with previous die technology. Additionally, Micron announced its upcoming consumer USB flash drives and internal SSDs will also use triple-level cell NAND flash (a technology expected to soon dominate the market) storing three bits instead of two for the first time and further reducing production cost. The advancement in NAND flash density has been driving SSD pricing down dramatically over the past few years. In fact, over the last year, the average price for 128GB and 256GB SSDs have dropped to $50 and $90, respectively, for system manufacturers, according to DRAMeXchange. And prices for consumers have dropped to an average of $91.55 for a 128GB SSD and $164.34 for a 256GB SSD.
Whadayamean, "for the first time"? We've had three bits per cell for a while.
Note how the prices sink while the fabs get ever more expensive. Can't be much margin left in that game. Also note that the number of available cycles per cell drops with the process density AND with the number of bits per cell. You can try and paper over it with ever more clever wear leveling tricks, but the basic problem remains the same: It's not good for data longevity.
I just picked up a Samsung 850 EVO 500GB for $149, and prices could be driven down further in the coming months as 32-layer and 48-layer chips show up.
It's getting harder to justify spinning disks at home, especially as the traditional data hogs (backups, videos) are largely moving to 'the cloud'.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Call me when prices reach $90 for 2TB+
I thought - where the heck have I been that we've gotten down to sub-nanometer processes? Then I read the summary.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
FTFS: "prices for consumers have dropped to an average of $91.55 for a 128GB SSD and $164.34 for a 256GB SSD"
Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would an additional 256 GB flash cost $300 and an additional 768 GB cost $800 when you buy a 15" MacBook Pro? Or perhaps there's a boardroom in Cupertino where they're laughing and shoveling money the whole day :D
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Well, the drive only needs to work the time needed for you cannot demand your money back.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
I can get, at very low volumes from Silicon Power, 120GB for $47 and 240GB for $77. The "average" price on newegg out of the 500 or so SSDs I bought there in 2014 was $60 and $105.
It's getting harder to justify spinning disks at home, especially as the traditional data hogs (backups, videos) are largely moving to 'the cloud'.
This is true so long as your home Internet connection either lacks a monthly cap or has a cap so high you're never likely to run into it. For example, people who don't torrent or stream HD video to multiple devices are unlikely to hit cable's 300 GB/mo cap. But people who rely on satellite, cellular, or Iowa DSL have to pinch their megabytes.
Each of my daughter's school performance videos is a 30-50GB file, and they quickly add up.
Is that a copy for watching or for editing? An extended DVD is 8 GiB, and it uses an obsolete codec (MPEG-2). I'll grant that video production needs more disk space, but I imagine that "most" people won't be doing that. Besides, I was under the impression that external interfaces (USB 3, eSATA, Thunderbolt) have become fast enough to support editing video, so you could leave the SSD inside the case and plug in the HDD only when needed.