Intel, Micron Introduce 25nm Flash Memory

[lowguppy]

And apple will continue to charge $100 for an 8gb upgrade on the iPad

 

[back_by_demand]

Should also reduce power requirements.

See the battery on mobile devices last longer as a result.

 

[necronic]

I think that the minituarization aspect of dev at this point is somewhat over rated. While it is important, and a ~30% increase in useable size (65 to 45 nm) is huge, once we hit the limit its not like dev will stop. There is so much room for architectural advancements, and once we do hit the wall we will start seeing massive leaps and bounds in that as well.

 

[hannibal]

Well the only thing that will bring prices down is competition, so we need more companies with 22-25nm manufacturing technology untill we will see "real bargain" sdds'
But most propably it will not take long until we have several companies that are near 20nm production soon enough. But it will take some years more until these are "market" stuff. But this may be one of the fist years when normal customers can buy 64Gb ssd without taking bank loan and even 128Gb may be possible this year if you have 150-300$ for hard drive.

 

[back_by_demand]

With that kind of capacity, if you have a 3.5" form factor, I wonder how many TB you could get in a single SSD?

 

[hannibal]

Well in 2.5 inch they have put 512 Gb with older technology, so it will be something like 1.5 to 2.5 TeraByte that you can put to 3.5" form factor... at least.
The problem is, who would like to pay 50000$ for it ;-)

http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/02/ocz-intros-3-5-inch-colossus-ssd-at-computex/

http://www.slashgear.com/a-data-xpg-dual-ssd-35-inch-raid-enclosure-0128445/

 

[JonathanDeane]

[citation][nom]hannibal[/nom]Well in 2.5 inch they have put 512 Gb with older technology, so it will be something like 1.5 to 2.5 TeraByte that you can put to 3.5" form factor... at least.The problem is, who would like to pay 50000$ for it ;-)http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/02 [...] -computex/http://www.slashgear.com/a-data-xp [...] e-0128445/[/citation]

At that kind of price what I would want is a 3.5 inch drive that is RAM with a built in rechargeable battery that is constantly recharged from the PS, the battery would be for power outages and ideally would last a week or two, of course a drive like this would have to be teamed up with a normal hard drive for back up in case the computer is with out power for an extended period.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]hannibal[/nom]Well in 2.5 inch they have put 512 Gb with older technology, so it will be something like 1.5 to 2.5 TeraByte that you can put to 3.5" form factor... at least.The problem is, who would like to pay 50000$ for it ;-)http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/02 [...] -computex/http://www.slashgear.com/a-data-xp [...] e-0128445/[/citation]
I dont like the price but time will sort that out.
Good news for the art of the possible.

 

[storageinventor]

Speed vs Capacity. By dropping the process down to 25nm you can obviously squeeze more memory into the same size chip. But do you automatically get speed improvements from this process advancement? For hard drives, every time they squeeze more bits into every square inch of platter surface, you get better performance because more bits fly under the read/write head with every rotation of the disk. Is there a similar benefit with flash devices where if you shrink the chips, they automatically get better throughput?

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]storageinventor[/nom]Speed vs Capacity. By dropping the process down to 25nm you can obviously squeeze more memory into the same size chip. But do you automatically get speed improvements from this process advancement? For hard drives, every time they squeeze more bits into every square inch of platter surface, you get better performance because more bits fly under the read/write head with every rotation of the disk. Is there a similar benefit with flash devices where if you shrink the chips, they automatically get better throughput?[/citation]
Maybe, but at the rate they are going the limitation will be the SATA interface, not the drive itself...