Slashdot Mirror


Planar NAND Development Ends After 26 Years

Lucas123 writes: The non-volatile memory used in thumb drives, SSDs, smartphones and any other mobile device today has at last hit an engineering wall. The major developers of planar NAND this week said now that they've reached 15 or 16 nanometer process technology, they no longer expect to shrink their lithography process any further, as the capacity and economic benefits no longer make sense. Toshiba, which produced the first NAND flash chip in 1989, SanDisk, Intel and Micron said they will turn their engineering efforts to 3D flash trap NAND, 3D resistive RAM and other vertically-stacked non-volatile memories that offer a much longer road map. The manufacturers all said they'll continue to produce planar NAND while developing 3D NAND, which has already doubled previous capacities while also offering two to 10 times the erase-writes of previous non-volatile memories and twice the write performance. Intel and Micron are also producing a 3D NAND, based on floating gate, and a ReRAM that the companies say will increase performance and endurance 1,000 time over planar NAND. Toshiba and SanDisk have come out with a 48-layer 3D NAND that could allow them to produce 400GB microSD cards next year.

23 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. IPhone 7 still 32 and 64GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite these advances, IPhone 7's will still be just 32 or 64GB, with a ridiculous upcharge for the 64GB version...

    1. Re:IPhone 7 still 32 and 64GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's nothing compared to the cost of RAM upgrades for the 2014 Mac mini. And you can't even upgrade the damn RAM yourself either, so this makes their "entry-level Mac" extremely expensive unless you agree to buy something with inadequate RAM. And when you need more RAM, you need another computer. That's the complete opposite of being a green company.

    2. Re:IPhone 7 still 32 and 64GB by sremick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple anti-consumer design of their phones has now infected their desktops and laptops as well. Apple has given the middle-finger to 30+ years of standard personal computer design practice. Want to upgrade anything? Buy a whole new computer. Any part breaks? Buy a whole new computer.

      Any single reason they give for it is utter BS. Anyone who buys into it is a gullible blind sheep. I'm sorry, but I've seen too many companies do exactly what Apple says they can't for me to give an ounce of credibility to their pathetic excuses. Computers smaller and thinner than Apple devices, with removable/upgradable components. Epoxied-in batteries, that are made part of the chassis along with they keyboard? Soldered-in RAM and SSD storage in computers twice as thick as other devices I own where the RAM and SSD are removable (and expandable). Keyboard spill = $360 part + tons of labor. At the end of the day, Apple does it for one reason and one reason alone: it gets more of their brainwashed cult of customers to buy more overpriced shiny devices more frequently.

    3. Re:IPhone 7 still 32 and 64GB by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Computers smaller and thinner than Apple devices, with removable/upgradable components.

      Could you please provide a link to these mythical devices?

    4. Re:IPhone 7 still 32 and 64GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple anti-consumer design of their phones has now infected their desktops and laptops as well.

      I think you mean anti-power user. The average Apple consumer is quite happy with the arrangement.

    5. Re:IPhone 7 still 32 and 64GB by laffer1 · · Score: 2

      You're not even accounting for the fact it's slower than the 2012 Mac Mini quad core. The cut CPU performance significantly with the new model and then made it non upgradable to boot.

      After test driving several Macs, I realized that I was better off putting a SSD in my 2012 mini rather than buy a new one. It was going to cost 1800 to buy a mac that was faster in CPU today (I paid ~ $1000 in dec 2012) and I had to get an iMac or top of the line Macbook Pro to match it.

      Apple has lost their minds on pricing at this point. Computers should not get slower.

  2. SDXC patent by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know how slow they'll be, but every one of them will incur royalty payments to Microsoft because the SD spec requires all cards larger than 32 GB to be formatted in Microsoft's patented exFAT file system.

    1. Re:SDXC patent by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      Personally, I don't know why FAT is even used on SD cards in the first place. Lots of other file systems out there. For example some that are specific to flash

      FAT has r/w support on every OS you can reasonably expect to encounter.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:SDXC patent by tepples · · Score: 2

      I don't know why FAT is even used on SD cards in the first place.

      Because the SD Card Association has made a business decision to require exFAT in all SDXC certified devices. According to this page, reformatting a card to any other file system makes it no longer SDXC compliant.

  3. Limits of storage / human perception by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was just thinking to myself how awesome it would be to have a 1 petabyte micro SD card, but then realized, "What could I possibly use that much storage for?" Yes, I know, the supposed "640k is enough for anyone" fallacy. Well, there really is a limit to what a normal human being needs to store. Why aren't MP3 files today 100 times larger than they were 15 years ago? Because the normal human's audio perception cannot tell the difference between a 5 MB MP3 and a 500 MB MP3. So the space required to store 1,000 songs is pretty much the same as 10 years ago, for most people.

    In the last few years, we've reached the limits of human perception when it comes to image resolution. The display on my phone and my ultrabook are both so high resolution that I cannot see individual pixels without a magnifying glass. How high of a resolution does a photograph need to be to print it out 8x10 with pixels so small that they cannot be seen? We've already surpassed that resolution a long time ago.

    Why don't computer monitors and image formats use 64 bit colors instead of 32 bit color that we've had for 15 years? Because the normal human cannot distinguish shades of color beyond 32 bit RGB.

    When everything is in 4k video, why would we need higher resolution (unless people are regularly projecting things on screens as wide as their house)?

    The amount of storage we need has already plateaued when it comes to certain kinds of media, and it will soon plateau in the others (video, etc) as well. At that point it's just a matter of quantity. What good would it do me to be able to store 1 million songs, or 1 million pictures on my phone? I certainly cannot produce that many myself, and I cannot even consume them either.

    For normal consumers, there will be a limit to the amount of storage we need and thus will pay for. When that occurs, research will slow down as the profit to be gained from selling petabyte of storage vs an exabyte will no longer justify the research. We are quickly reaching the point where speed and longevity are more important than capacity, so I expect, within 5 years, the emphasis will switch from mainly quantity to quality.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're making (at least) two assumptions.

      1: The majority of storage space will be spent on multimedia that is to be consumed by humans.
      2: The kinds of multimedia being used will not change.

      1 could easily be violated if it's not humans, but the computer, that's making use of the data. Our AI research hasn't really made any progress towards sentience, but computers are getting damn good at processing large amounts of data and then answering questions about it.

      2 could be violated with increased demand for true 3D media (not in the 3D movies sense, in the 3D videogame sense, in that you have control of the position and angle of the camera). There's certainly a lot of hype around VR headsets, that particular form of entertainment might finally start to take off in the next few years.

    2. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Because the normal human cannot distinguish shades of color beyond 32 bit RGB.

      Really? I see color banding all the time in games. When color banding is no longer an issue, then the color depth will be enough. A quick google returns some answers saying the usage of the term "color" is ambiguous in most cases or miss-understood. If you define "color" as how a layman would use, we can see closer to 100 million colors. Most usages of the term "color" does not include luminosity.

    3. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      When everything is in 4k video, why would we need higher resolution (unless people are regularly projecting things on screens as wide as their house)?

      If I'm watching a movie on my phone, I don't need 4k. If I'm watching a movie on my 80" TV across the rec room, I want 4k. In the future when I want to watch my 4K3D holographic movie, I'm going to want that petabyte microsd card.

      I'd also love that petabyte microsd card to put into my home theater PC/server. I don't necessarily need SSD speeds for movie storage, but I'd love to have massive amounts of storage that require almost no energy consumption while idling and have no mechanical parts. I'd love to be able to eliminate my 4U rack of storage and be able to store the equivalent in a mini-ITX case or even better, something like a Raspberry Pi case.

    4. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by bobaferret · · Score: 2

      You obviously haven't see The Final Cut. Imagine a world where everything we see is recorded all of the time until we die. Just video everything all the time.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_31

    5. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by ZuilSerip · · Score: 2

      I think you are underestimating the memory needs of future applications. When text and spreadsheets were all we used computers for, then a gigabyte seemed like overkill, but that of course proved grossly inadequate when photos, audio and video came along.

      What will be these new storage hungry applications? Well, obviously no one knows for sure (this will only become clear when the technology is cheap enough to enable it). But here are a couple ideas:
      - Immersive video (allows you to look in any direction you want) would be at least an order of magnitude more costly than regular video at any given resolution.
      - Life-logging. Capturing video, sound, GPS position, vital-signs, etc of every second of your life (awake or not) so that you can revisit any time at will, have smart algorithms figure out trends, etc. (Dash cams are a dramatically limited early version of this)
      - World-logging. Take life-logging from a person to a city (or larger) and grow the existing network of security cameras by an order of magnitude (and improve their resolution). Now broaden the video to also include audio and other environmental signals (temperature, humidity, pollution, seismic, etc.) and you have unlimited appetite for storage.

    6. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if space is unlimited and free, transmission will still take time. Data compression isn't going to go away unless someone solves the bandwidth problem too.

      =Smidge=

    7. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 4, Funny

      to have a 1 petabyte micro SD card, but then realized, "What could I possibly use that much storage for?"

      blah blah blah ..... porn.

    8. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can also turn your head and move around. You may not need to keep the entire thing in your field of view all at once. Sometimes you want the big picture, sometimes you want to drill down.

      You can emulate that in software, but there are kinaesthetic senses you can take advantage of. If you're looking at a large map, for example, it's very intuitive to move your face in to read names, and then away to see where that fits into the whole. It's faster and more effective for me to switch from a debugger window on screen B and my running program on screen A.

      I don't know what the limits are; the GP suggested 8K and that sounds about right to me. But I think that assuming a single, fixed head position for the user can be unnecessarily limiting, and miss out on one kind of gesture to enable smoother interaction.

    9. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

      MP3 has some limitations, especially for time resolution. Percussive sounds will be wrong no matter what, though we would need to find or create some test files and compare them to find out how it sounds like at 320 kbps. (there are some examples at lower bitrate)
      Ironically, 320 kbps or 384 kpbs MP2 would not have the same problem.

      What's really bunk is higher-than-CD resolution, CD quality is the absolute best quality or to stretch things you can have 24bit/48KHz as the absolute best for music listening.
      If 96KHz or vinyl etc. sound differently it's wholly deliberate (or in case of vinyl the sound has to be tailored for limitations of the medium, e.g. loudness war has to be tamed slightly so the needle doesn't jump out of the groove or something)

    10. Re:Limits of storage / human perception by paulpach · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am a game developer.

      Indeed many games have color banding, so do many jpeg images. But this has nothing to do with the color depth.

      When a game bundles an image, it is normally compressed in a lossy format such as DXT5 or ETC1 (depends on your platform) . These formats are typically much smaller than say a PNG, and are sent compressed to the video card. The video card has hardware that can get a pixel when needed from these images without having to decompress it. This saves a lot of video card memory which can be used for more polygons and whatnot.

      These formats like jpeg, do modify the image a little bit if it helps makes them smaller. A somewhat oversimplified explanation is this: suppose there are 5 pixels that are almost the same color, for example: (red, red+1, red-1, red + 2, red +1), the algorithm will change them to be the same color: (red, red, red, red, red), then instead of saving each individual pixel, it will just store: (5 red), which takes a lot less space. A particularly bad effect of this is that gradients end up being not so smooth so you see banding. Reality is a lot more complex than this, but you get the idea.

      In addition, when a texture is rendered at a distance, the hardware actually chooses a scaled down version of the image. The farther the texture, the less precision is used until there is only 1 pixel. This is called mipmap. Depending on the algorithm used for blending mipmaps, it can also generate banding.

      You could use 128 bit RGBA color depth, and you would still see the same banding due to these optimizations.

  4. Device support and partition table by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But seriously, UDF already fills the role perfectly.

    Except for lack of support on devices other than desktop and laptop computers. If it is mandatory for SDXC certified devices to use exFAT, a lot of lazy device makers won't test anything else. Besides, some operating systems recognize UDF only on a drive that has a partition table, others only without a partition table. (Source)

    1. Re:Device support and partition table by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except for lack of support on devices other than desktop and laptop computers.

      I think you misunderstood my point. exFat wasn't put on any devices until MS paid to have it baked into some standard. UDF filled the role perfetly at the time exFAT was chosen, despite being superior in every way, royalty free and supported by every major operating system already.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Device support and partition table by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Windows XP without UDF write support was still in "extended support" (that is, eligible for security updates).

      Note security updates, not feature updates, yet it got the exFAT feature update anyway. It could have just as easily got write support for UDF as for exFAT.

      In addition, operating systems still disagreed on whether or not UDF on a non-optical storage medium required a partition table.

      Yes, but ultimately that doesn't matter, because you can set up a disk that works on OSX and Windows (naturally Linux supports every conceivable variant already):

      http://answers.microsoft.com/e...

      The thing is:
      1. UDF already existed.
      2. UDF is standardised.
      3. UDF support was better than exFAT at the time exFAT was chosen
      4. It's basically impossible to find a PC in any kind of use that wasn't at least able to support UDF reading.
      5. UDF has better features than exFAT
      5. Microsoft doesn't get to cream off money due to dubious patents while making life hard for open source operating systems.

      Spot the odd one out.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.