Comments Locked

12 Comments

Back to Article

  • phoenix_rizzen - Saturday, January 28, 2017 - link

    8192 Gb doesn't equal 1 TB. ;)

    That should be 1 GB.
  • edzieba - Saturday, January 28, 2017 - link

    8192Gb / 8 = 1024 GB = 1 TB.
  • bill.rookard - Saturday, January 28, 2017 - link

    That's what I got too. Yes, it looks a bit odd at first, but the math is correct...
  • Laststop311 - Saturday, January 28, 2017 - link

    I swore I read someone is already making or close to making 768gb IC's. So 512 isnt that breaking of news
  • Laststop311 - Saturday, January 28, 2017 - link

    Yup micron currently manufactures 768Gb Nand flash die. So sk hynix won't even make it to 512gb die till almost a full year. Wow micron/intel collab is rly speeding them along. I assuming samsung can manufacture 768gb die or are close to doing it as well correct?

    So good job sk hynix ur in last place in nand flash density.
  • Lolimaster - Sunday, January 29, 2017 - link

    Sadly, micro-intel chips are the worst you can get.
  • rems - Sunday, January 29, 2017 - link

    why?
  • close - Sunday, January 29, 2017 - link

    I guess he talks about the really tiny intel chips. Micro-intel. You can't really use those on account of being so tiny :).

    Trolling aside there's nothing wrong with Micron flash. And Crucial SSDs are pretty solid packages.
  • BurntMyBacon - Monday, January 30, 2017 - link

    Intel/Micron still use floating gate for their 3D-NAND. They other major players are using Charge Trap. Consequently, Intel/Micron 3D-NAND isn't getting the associated reliability benefits that come with Charge Trap. While the reliability differences between Charge Trap and Floating Gate are not yet fully understood, it's pretty clear from the endurance ratings of the end products that manufacturers are less confident in the long term reliability of Floating Gate 3D-NAND than Charge Trap NAND.

    That said, Intel/Micron had reasons to stick with Floating Gate. Floating Gate is more well understood, giving them the ability to catch up to and pass Samsung (who had a two year head start) in capacity. Floating Gate is easier, allowing them to keep costs lower and/or add layers more quickly. Intel/Micron seems to think that the endurance of their flash is good enough for now, so it makes little sense to them to trade off these benefits for more endurance. That said, I suspect that this is a transitional technology and they will eventually need to move to Charge Trap like the others. Now that they are no longer playing second fiddle to Samsung (at least in capacity), it wouldn't surprise me if Charge Trap based 3D-NAND is already in R&D at IMFT.
  • MrSpadge - Sunday, January 29, 2017 - link

    You're mixing up NAND chips and consumer SSDs built upon them. Take a look at the Intel and Micron data center SSDs. Definitely not the worst!
  • MrSpadge - Sunday, January 29, 2017 - link

    A high capacity per die doesn't mean that much without a die size. Both are needed to judge density. They could easily build 800 mm² monster dies with monster capacity, but the sweet spot for cost is around 150 mm² (e.g. due to arranging the dies on a circular 300 mm wafer).
  • Anato - Wednesday, February 1, 2017 - link

    I suspect cartel in action.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now