Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung's Fastest Phone Memory Ever Goes Into Production at 512GB (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

Samsung today said it's started mass producing 512GB mobile-focused flash memory with over twice the read speed and 1.5 times the write speed of the previous leader, the 1TB module announced last month at CES. From a report: The V-NAND (PDF) memory is based on its embedded Universal Flash Storage (eUFS) 3.0 spec -- the 1TB is eUFS 2.1. Samsung says the 512GB memory can hit read speeds up to 2,100 megabytes per second compared with 1,000MB/sec of the 1TB flash; sequential write can hit 410MB/sec versus 260MB/sec. The eUFS 3.0 1TB memory is slated to arrive in the second half of 2019.

44 comments

  1. Price? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    No mention of price, but I would imagine around 350 USD?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Price? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      apple will change $1250 for an upgrade

    2. Re:Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dur dur dur!!! Teh Appl3!!!11!!!!!
       
      Hasn't anyone changed your diapers today? Is that why you're crying like a faggot bitch?

    3. Re: Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound like you are the apple faggot.

    4. Re:Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking apple whiners are the worst.

  2. Now we can charge $14,500 per phone, excerrent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because having 512 GIGABYTES of PHONE RAM is really what the consumer needs. Can you make it fold and come in pink? I'll take out a mortgage, must have the new shiny whizbang!

    1. Re:Now we can charge $14,500 per phone, excerrent! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because having 512 GIGABYTES of PHONE RAM is really what the consumer needs.

      Unfortunately . . . 256 GB will be pre-filled with bloatware.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Now we can charge $14,500 per phone, excerrent! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Not so much for iOS, but for Android phones, I find they fill up much faster.
      I am not trying to Troll. it is probably because you can do more custom stuff on Android phones, that they get filled up faster. While Apple Walled Garden approach to Apps makes storage much smaller first by reducing what you can possible use, and often rejecting apps that use a lot of resources (even it for a purpose) and also forcing apps to follow UI Policies, so there is more shared resources.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Now we can charge $14,500 per phone, excerrent! by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      but.... it will be FAST bloatware!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  3. They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It stands for Unix File System, it doesn't stand for "Cheap shitty phone-related stupid-shit". Unless it comes per-initialized with UFS, then Samsung, here's a big middle finger for putting more noise and chaos into google searches. Yes, I saw the lower-case "e" in there two. Learn how to create an acronym rather than how to copy Steve Jobs (and even he would know better than to use "UFS").

    1. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by plague911 · · Score: 1

      This actually has been problem for Google. I have seen them muddy the water with reused names/acronyms more often than what I would intuit as their fair share.

    2. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The two most popular phone OS's are Android and iOS.
      Android is based off of Linux, while not Unix, was designed with many of the Unix principals in mind.
      iOS is based off of a Unix kernel.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Personally, *nix represents smart people doing cool things whereas smartphones represent retards running into walls and having nervous breakdowns. The fact vendors horked a few bits of code does not make them Unix operating systems, not even fucking close.

    4. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It stands for Unix File System, it doesn't stand for "Cheap shitty phone-related stupid-shit". Unless it comes per-initialized with UFS, then Samsung, here's a big middle finger for putting more noise and chaos into google searches. Yes, I saw the lower-case "e" in there two. Learn how to create an acronym rather than how to copy Steve Jobs (and even he would know better than to use "UFS").

      Sorry, blame JEDEC for that - UFS is the next-generation flash interface, which is what is done at the physical connection level. Flash memory comes in several interfaces, the previous one is eMMC, based on MMC specifications. The current generation is UFS which allows for much faster data transfer. Another interface is NVMe, which is what Apple uses internally to get their crazy fast iPhone flash speeds.

      UFS as a hardware interface is established for years now. Heck, does anyone use the Unix File System anymore? Everyone's used ideas from that for form their own filesystems by now.

    5. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are able to express the intelligence and ability based on the Operating System they are working on?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, UFS was a decent idea back in the '80s, but filesystems have advanced a lot since then. Find an OS with UFS support and try it out. You'll find it's slow and handles power failures poorly.

    7. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      I'm not able to express the intelligence of the sentence you wrote, that's for sure. Are you sure it's English?

    8. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Actually I support thousands of machines using UFS. I can debug the filesystem code and have done so many times. So, yeah, I'm quite familiar with it. It's absolutely still in use in many many places (mostly legacy Solaris machines or on new NetBSD and/or FreeBSD boxes with low memory). Just because *you* don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Sure there are better file systems with more modern ideas incorporated into them like btrees, journaling or logging, and many other items like pseudo-volume-management like ZFS does. However, I'd point out that FAT is still in pretty wide use today and it's inferior to UFS in almost every way. So, the ever-lame "OMG that's so old" is just an ignorant and tiresome reaction like some scene from Idiocracy "Water... like from the toilet?". Water is "old" too. UFS is quite fast compared with FAT file systems (and beats ext2 quite handily most of the time, too depending on the workload). It's also easily tuned for prefetch caching on most systems that support it and it's ability to handle power failures is going to depend greatly on how much write-back caching is being used (and if it's battery backed or not). UFS in FreeBSD and NetBSD support logging quite nicely and handle power failures just fine, thanks (MUCH better than, say, ext4 which in my lab tests a few years ago performed the worst in power failure testing).

      The point (besides you have no idea WTF you are talking about concerning UFS) is that manufacturers will start re-using acronyms that have been heavily used by others in the past and it pollutes search results for the unrelated items. Your judgment about UFS's lifecycle (besides being mostly wrong) just sounds like the view of an igmo who really doesn't know better and thinks he knows everything because he once built a gaming PC.

    9. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, UFS is better than FAT, but that's not hard to do. Just about anything's better than FAT in terms of performance and functionality. The one advantage FAT has is that it's dead simple and easy to implement. A high school student could probably implement FAT.

      The BSDs kind of cheat by doing write-ahead logging for entire partitions. It's not that the filesystem supports it, it's that the OS storage layer wraps it around the filesystem. Unlike the journaling in newer incarnations of ext and HFS it protects data consistency in addition to directory structure integrity. But you can use that feature equally well with FAT or anything else on BSD.

      My objection to UFS isn't just that it's old. It's that there are filesystems that are better at just about everything. XFS handles concurrent access better; directory access is a lot faster with HFS+; ZFS has data integrity features baked right in. UFS had its day, but technology has moved on. There are better filesystems for just about any application.

    10. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      There are tons of filesystems and many are purpose built for specific instances. They perform well at those jobs. So what? I never said UFS was the best filesystem for all purposes. I pointed out FAT because it's of an age with UFS and still used widely despite being "old". BTW, there is no "cheating" with filesystems. You perform well with the workload or you go away whining about "cheating". Cache safety is completely tunable and comes with very reasonable defaults on any BSD boxes I've used. UFS is still one of the best choice for BSD systems with small memory footprints. That's why it's still in wide use on embedded systems. Then again, that's nuance that you naysayers seem to lack. Sure, ZFS is better in lots of ways. It also came along MUCH later and it's a huge memory hog and shouldn't be used on systems with less than 4GB of RAM. UFS didn't "have it's day". It's still in use for all kind of purposes by folks smart enough to know when to use the right tool for the job. Again, just because a few Linux-children didn't see it on their new Ubuntu laptop doesn't really mean anything besides "they haven't seen much of the world." It also *still* doesn't mean Samsung should have re-used the acronym, which was the original point you've fallen so far away from in your efforts to bash UFS.

    11. Re:They don't deserve to use the UFS acronym by _merlin · · Score: 1

      It's not Samsung, it's good old JEDEC. The official JEDEC name for this storage interface is Universal Flash Storage, abbreviated to UFS. Initialisms are always going to be overloaded unless they're made excessively long and convoluted (hello PCMCIA). I mean, take SMBC: it's Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Sydney Missionary and Bible College, and (webcomic) Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

  4. Not memory it's storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Doesn't anyone care about the distinction between "memory" and "storage". Why are they being used interchangeably?

    1. Re:Not memory it's storage by pgmrdlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was wondering the same thing. And the truly sad part about this. You are the only one that pointed it out. Isn't this a geek site? Shouldn't we all know the difference????

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    2. Re:Not memory it's storage by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Doesn't anyone care about the distinction between "memory" and "storage". Why are they being used interchangeably?

      Because an entire generation of smart phone idiots dont know how much memory they have, or even that memory is a thing.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Not memory it's storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the truly sad part about this. You are the only one that pointed it out.

      I noticed this too (sure I'm not alone) but saw that it was already noted. Should I repost this just to get an arbitrary count of people repeating what's already been said?

    4. Re:Not memory it's storage by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it is still Memory, and it is still RAM (Random Access Memory). The difference is that this product is Non-Volatile RAM that data will not go away after its power is turned off and what you call Memory is Volatile RAM, which will go away after power is lost.
      However both is Memory and RAM. As it hold data given to it for later retrieval. And they are Random Access meaning you don't need to sift threw a blocks of data you don't need until you happen to get to your useful memory spot.

      Historically Storage wasn't Random Access, It was read sequentially from Cards, to Tape. The Disk magnetic storage still had to reference data in the time, however it can take shortcuts, by moving to different sectors of the disk and reads a block of data.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Not memory it's storage by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Quick off the top of your head what is the Bus transfer rate of your motherboard?

      The thing is, sometime technology reaches a good enough state, that for normal use, knowing how much you have isn't a big deal anymore.

      Mobile devices are not well designed for heavy multi-tasking like your desktop is. And with rather fast storage of state when you switch apps, Having dozens of Gigs of Volatile Ram isn't as needed on such a device.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Not memory it's storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It use to be a geek site years ago. Now it's a frat boy site where dudes circle jerk about what kind of hardware they own and suck big brother's dick.

    7. Re:Not memory it's storage by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

      The product is a memory, the application is storage.

      So yeah, Samsung is producing a 512GB memory chip.

      Note: I work in semiconductor manufacturing

    8. Re:Not memory it's storage by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      . And the truly sad part about this. You are the only one that pointed it out.

      No he isn't. Not only is he not the only one, he wasn't even the first.

    9. Re:Not memory it's storage by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      Nope, Flash can't be accessed randomly, only by a block of the whole page. And even worse, those blocks need then to be erased in large groups. Actual memory not only is byte addressable, but also has around 4 orders of magnitude better access time than the flash disks in the article. As for non-volatile memory, it's 2-3 orders of magnitude faster than this fancy flash.

      Per your definition, a spinning disk would also count as memory, as you don't need to read it sequentially but can seek to a given sector.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    10. Re:Not memory it's storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disk and tape ARE memory you silly little shit, so shut the fuck up cunt!

    11. Re:Not memory it's storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps you might want to look up the definition of memory. Storage is simply non-volatile memory.

    12. Re:Not memory it's storage by gravewax · · Score: 1

      It is memory, Storage is one class or use of memory, usually non-volatile.

    13. Re:Not memory it's storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't anyone care about the distinction between "memory" and "storage". Why are they being used interchangeably?

      If you're really going to be picky, the technical term (aka used in papers and academy in general) for what we call "storage" really is "secondary memory", whilst "primary memory" being RAM. In fact, we may very well see a blur on those definitions as NAND memory approaches the speed of SDRAM arrays, like Intel is promising with XPoint.

  5. Insane by labnet · · Score: 1

    I look at my server raid array using 512G SSDs, and think wow, all those drives could now sit on a stick of gum with the same performance.... well maybe not write endurance... but
    What time we live in!

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Insane by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Chances are you SSD's arn't really that big, A good portion of it is protective casing, and connectors spreading out so they can be clipped in, and even spacing for anything that will need a human to be able to solder together. The big point about RAID, is if one fails, you can replace the failed component with a new one. Having an embedded RAID device the size of a stick of Gum would be counter productive.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Insane by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Have you seen inside a 2.5" SSD? Here's the inside of the 1TB SSD I have: https://images.anandtech.com/d...

  6. "Faster Ever" ? We are not idiot fanboys ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeebus, do Slashdot Editors think we are SO STUPID ?!

    Of course their new memory is "the fastest ever" - memories get faster YEAR ON YEAR ON YEAR ON YEAR.

    It was a ridiculous way to describe new technology when Steve Jobs did it and only idiot fanboys fell for it.

    BUT WHY DO YOU THINK SLASHDOT READERS ARE ALSO THAT STUPID ?!

  7. Makes me want to sing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My butthoal brings David Boies to the bard,
    and your mom is uh effin tard,
    and your mom is uh effin tard.
    I could do you but your butt is large.

  8. Virtual memory by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    How do they handle the heat? Many nvnm desktop solid state storage have heat sinks and they are bigger too.

    As for memory versus storage this used to be a continuum . Old computers leaned heavily on virtual memory page swaps. And newer ones have a continuum of speeds for memory caches and dram and memory backing the ssd and then ssd fused with spinning disk.

    On cellphones Apple initially only let one app be active at a time in memory .

    And future designs show even more memory types . Many core machines have "near memory" managed by a cpu and far away memory that has to sent over a bus to another cpu

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. Things that can be measured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it can read twice as fast, does than mean it reads half as slow?

  10. IOPS by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

    It would be good to know the IOPS for the new chips. The pdf suggests it should be significantly higher with random read time dropping from 49us to 35us.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."