Samsung's 256GB UFS 2.0 Mobile Storage Is Twice As Fast As SATA SSDs

[Lucian Armasu]

Samsung announced industry's first 256GB storage module for smartphones that's based on the Universal Flash Storage (UFS) 2.0 standard, with twice the performance of the previous generation.

Samsung's 256GB UFS 2.0 Mobile Storage Is Twice As Fast As SATA SSDs : Read more

 

[viperjt90]

This sounds awesome. I hope they can integrate this tech into other platforms. I.E Desktops, Cell phones, Consoles, etc. Cant beat speeds that are around 2X-3X faster than SATA SSD's.

 

[jimmysmitty]

This sounds awesome. I hope they can integrate this tech into other platforms. I.E Desktops, Cell phones, Consoles, etc. Cant beat speeds that are around 2X-3X faster than SATA SSD's.

They already have. The Galaxy S6 line is using UFS 2.0 for its storage.

 

[epobirs]

The description is a bit deceptive. If you look at the numbers, what they really mean is that they're twice as fast as really lousy SSDs. 850MB/s read speed is quite good on its own merits but when is the last time you considered buying a SATA SSD that topped out at 425MB/s?

Then, when it comes to write speed, they change the comparison to microSD cards because staying with SATA SSDs would look even worse.

This is utter marketing double talk. It's like they cannot help themselves when it comes to honest descriptions. The product is a big improvement over what it is intended to replace but apparently they feel that isn't enough to sell it, even though the target market isn't consumer but rather product design engineers who know better.

So, yes, we're talking a substantial improvement for mobile devices but go by the actual numbers and not the deceptive language.

 

[atheus]

The company also said that next-generation smartphones should support USB 3.0 speeds

...but Samsung's next-generation smart phones don't support USB 3.0 speeds? Or are they just saying that they "should" even though they don't? Maybe they're talking about everyone else's next-gen smart phones? oh the lols.

 

[epobirs]

The company also said that next-generation smartphones should support USB 3.0 speeds

...but Samsung's next-generation smart phones don't support USB 3.0 speeds? Or are they just saying that they "should" even though they don't? Maybe they're talking about everyone else's next-gen smart phones? oh the lols.

Plenty of current phones don't. Samsung itself got blowback on the Note series, reverting to USB 2.0 after negative response to the USB 3.0 mini-B port on the Note 3. Way too many people didn't understand that a 2.0 cable would still work at lower speed and power if plugged into the right half of the connector. So for the following generation they took the path of least resistance and just used 2.0. USB 3.1's Type C connector is a far better long term solution but has its own transitional issues, which means it will be a long time before it becomes, well, universal. There will likely be a generation of models with faster internal storage than their external connection can properly support. The demographic for those models won't know the difference. I've met a fair number of people who make it clear they don't know what USB is beyond charging their phone. So long as apps load faster on their new phone than its predecessor, they'll be happy.

 

[TJ Hooker]

The description is a bit deceptive. If you look at the numbers, what they really mean is that they're twice as fast as really lousy SSDs. 850MB/s read speed is quite good on its own merits but when is the last time you considered buying a SATA SSD that topped out at 425MB/s?

It looks like they may be talking about the theoretical performance of the UFS 2.0 standard rather than a specific real world implementation, which would mean that actual performance would depend on the specific controller and NAND used. If that's the case, a much fairer comparison would be to compare 850 MB/s to the 600 MB/s of the SATA 3, which would only be a 42% increase. So yeah, looks like a misleading statement.

 

[atheus]

Plenty of current phones don't. Samsung itself got blowback on the Note series, reverting to USB 2.0 after negative response to the USB 3.0 mini-B port on the Note 3. Way too many people didn't understand that a 2.0 cable would still work at lower speed and power if plugged into the right half of the connector.

I didn't even know that (regarding plugging 2.0 mini-b into 3.0 mini-b), and I spend entirely too much time reading tech news. Then again, I only have one type of device that uses the mini-b USB 3.0 and it's an external HDD, so it's not like I had any cause to think about it. Regardless, USB-C isn't the same issue, and while I appreciate that there is a dollars and cents cost to fielding customer questions, I suspect that the competitive edge among informed buyers would make it worthwhile.

So for the following generation they took the path of least resistance and just used 2.0. USB 3.1's Type C connector is a far better long term solution but has its own transitional issues, which means it will be a long time before it becomes, well, universal. There will likely be a generation of models with faster internal storage than their external connection can properly support. The demographic for those models won't know the difference. I've met a fair number of people who make it clear they don't know what USB is beyond charging their phone. So long as apps load faster on their new phone than its predecessor, they'll be happy.

We're talking about a $600+ device, and all that's needed to plug USB-C into a type A port is a $5 cable or adapter. Sometimes the path of least resistance is still a plain stupid choice. The crux of their plan appears to me as "release a phone that's definitely going to be obsolete in 2017".

 

[Camikazi]

The company also said that next-generation smartphones should support USB 3.0 speeds

...but Samsung's next-generation smart phones don't support USB 3.0 speeds? Or are they just saying that they "should" even though they don't? Maybe they're talking about everyone else's next-gen smart phones? oh the lols.

Plenty of current phones don't. Samsung itself got blowback on the Note series, reverting to USB 2.0 after negative response to the USB 3.0 mini-B port on the Note 3. Way too many people didn't understand that a 2.0 cable would still work at lower speed and power if plugged into the right half of the connector. So for the following generation they took the path of least resistance and just used 2.0. USB 3.1's Type C connector is a far better long term solution but has its own transitional issues, which means it will be a long time before it becomes, well, universal. There will likely be a generation of models with faster internal storage than their external connection can properly support. The demographic for those models won't know the difference. I've met a fair number of people who make it clear they don't know what USB is beyond charging their phone. So long as apps load faster on their new phone than its predecessor, they'll be happy.

Wait, is that why they changed back to USB 2.0? I knew they changed but never knew why, although I did meet a few people who freaked out when they forgot the USB 3.0 cable and thought they could no longer charge their phone.

 

[razor512]

SATA 3 tops out at about 560MB/s real world throughput (reads and writes), and 100,000 IOPS for reads and writes.
The next standard is m.2 which can top out at 4GB/s and over 1 million IOPS (if using a PCI-e 3.0 connection.

If you compare the performance of current top of the line m.2 SSDs (2GB/s+ reads, and 1.5GB/s+ writes), you will see that benchmarks are not much higher, most non server/ data center style workloads have almost no improvement, and that is because it is extremely rare to hit even 300MB/s on high end SSD on tasks not involving a file transfer or file copy. The areas where where you notice a measurable improvement for common consumer workloads, is with the latency of the drive (how fast can it respond to an input), This directly improved the low queue depth performance which always run at a fraction of the total speed of the drive (even for RAM disks).

Most tasks fail to go much beyond a queue depth of 1

Unless they significantly reduce the latency, then it will not add up to an improved user experience when interacting with the device directly, instead it would only benefit you when transferring media to and from the device using USB 3.0 or 3.1, as you are then doing linear reads and writes, and could potentially backup the full device in around 5 minutes.

 

[alidan]

SATA 3 tops out at about 560MB/s real world throughput (reads and writes), and 100,000 IOPS for reads and writes.
The next standard is m.2 which can top out at 4GB/s and over 1 million IOPS (if using a PCI-e 3.0 connection.

If you compare the performance of current top of the line m.2 SSDs (2GB/s+ reads, and 1.5GB/s+ writes), you will see that benchmarks are not much higher, most non server/ data center style workloads have almost no improvement, and that is because it is extremely rare to hit even 300MB/s on high end SSD on tasks not involving a file transfer or file copy. The areas where where you notice a measurable improvement for common consumer workloads, is with the latency of the drive (how fast can it respond to an input), This directly improved the low queue depth performance which always run at a fraction of the total speed of the drive (even for RAM disks).

Most tasks fail to go much beyond a queue depth of 1

Unless they significantly reduce the latency, then it will not add up to an improved user experience when interacting with the device directly, instead it would only benefit you when transferring media to and from the device using USB 3.0 or 3.1, as you are then doing linear reads and writes, and could potentially backup the full device in around 5 minutes.

I have a question, if you know it. I have a folder that has a crap ton of images and it and it takes a while for it to load, it's on a solid state but the South states the fair number years old at this point. You tell me what part would make that process faster?

Plenty of current phones don't. Samsung itself got blowback on the Note series, reverting to USB 2.0 after negative response to the USB 3.0 mini-B port on the Note 3. Way too many people didn't understand that a 2.0 cable would still work at lower speed and power if plugged into the right half of the connector.

I didn't even know that (regarding plugging 2.0 mini-b into 3.0 mini-b), and I spend entirely too much time reading tech news. Then again, I only have one type of device that uses the mini-b USB 3.0 and it's an external HDD, so it's not like I had any cause to think about it. Regardless, USB-C isn't the same issue, and while I appreciate that there is a dollars and cents cost to fielding customer questions, I suspect that the competitive edge among informed buyers would make it worthwhile.

So for the following generation they took the path of least resistance and just used 2.0. USB 3.1's Type C connector is a far better long term solution but has its own transitional issues, which means it will be a long time before it becomes, well, universal. There will likely be a generation of models with faster internal storage than their external connection can properly support. The demographic for those models won't know the difference. I've met a fair number of people who make it clear they don't know what USB is beyond charging their phone. So long as apps load faster on their new phone than its predecessor, they'll be happy.

We're talking about a $600+ device, and all that's needed to plug USB-C into a type A port is a $5 cable or adapter. Sometimes the path of least resistance is still a plain stupid choice. The crux of their plan appears to me as "release a phone that's definitely going to be obsolete in 2017".

A device is not obsolete because it doesn't use the connection you want

 

[SteelCity1981]

you have usb 2.0, 3.0, 3.1 gen 1, 3.1 gen 2 type A and C floating around now and you wonder why the avg cosumer is soo confused with the current usb standard.

 

[razor512]

I have a question, if you know it. I have a folder that has a crap ton of images and it and it takes a while for it to load, it's on a solid state but the South states the fair number years old at this point. You tell me what part would make that process faster?

If you have a folder with a large amount of photos, then the issue is not really the SSD, instead it is the thumbnail generation and various other processing that the file explorer is doing in order to load the folder. For example, when generating thumbnails, the system has to open each individual file, and then generate a scaled down image that will work as a thumbnail, as well as reading the metadata (date taken, ISO and all other camera data that is saved with the file, windows reads it all when when loading the folder) . Furthermore, in windows, that process is single threaded, even though it would be 100% perfect for multi-threading since each core could work on its own image.

When I load a large folder of images, the load speed will typically stay under 50MB/s and large burst to those speeds, while a single core remains at full load, and the bottleneck is the CPU as it is only using 1 core to do it all.

If you need to manage a large library, programs such as adobe bridge, and lightroom will work better, as they use 2-3 threads to complete this process, while it would be better if they supported unlimited threads, 3 is better than 1.

PS, also shoot raw, and export jpegs when you need to, windows does not go crazy over trying to access raw files directly, and thus folders like that will load almost instantly, even with tens of thousands of files in them.

 

[alidan]

I have a question, if you know it. I have a folder that has a crap ton of images and it and it takes a while for it to load, it's on a solid state but the South states the fair number years old at this point. You tell me what part would make that process faster?

If you have a folder with a large amount of photos, then the issue is not really the SSD, instead it is the thumbnail generation and various other processing that the file explorer is doing in order to load the folder. For example, when generating thumbnails, the system has to open each individual file, and then generate a scaled down image that will work as a thumbnail, as well as reading the metadata (date taken, ISO and all other camera data that is saved with the file, windows reads it all when when loading the folder) . Furthermore, in windows, that process is single threaded, even though it would be 100% perfect for multi-threading since each core could work on its own image.

When I load a large folder of images, the load speed will typically stay under 50MB/s and large burst to those speeds, while a single core remains at full load, and the bottleneck is the CPU as it is only using 1 core to do it all.

If you need to manage a large library, programs such as adobe bridge, and lightroom will work better, as they use 2-3 threads to complete this process, while it would be better if they supported unlimited threads, 3 is better than 1.

PS, also shoot raw, and export jpegs when you need to, windows does not go crazy over trying to access raw files directly, and thus folders like that will load almost instantly, even with tens of thousands of files in them.

i have 2 image folders on the ssd, one open instantly, though no thumbnails are made instantly is has 1900 images
the other takes 9-20 seconds and has 248 images,

all images are jpg/gif/png

i have a bunch of hdd folders that have 10k+ but the biggest is 66000 images and it opens in about 30, though this is detail instead of thumbnail.

its just weird to me that a small folder takes so damn long to load,

 

[atheus]

A device is not obsolete because it doesn't use the connection you want

lol... I was going to let this slide since it's veering off topic, but then I noticed that you actually went back to vote down my comment? Crimony.

Of course devices can be made obsolete by using the wrong connector. What else is obsolescence other than sub-standard specs that hinder its performance in some key aspect which is solved by a newer and better option? Ask any PATA HDD, SCSI scanner, or firewire HDD. They're obsolete technologies, since better and more versatile alternatives have taken over (although firewire still is sometimes used in pro audio for its low latency, that too will come to its end eventually). The point I made is that the device would be "obsolete in 2017", and you could take that literally if you want, I suppose. It means that it will become obsolete faster because it is using a connector with specs that will soon be deemed inadequate, since the next standard is already here and gaining widespread adoption.

As it is, Samsung has been using a non-standard spec to deliver more power through the USB 2.0 cable, which makes it incompatible with most USB chargers. If I plug an incompatible car charger into my Galaxy S4, it will actually use more power running the screen and GPS than the charger provides, so the battery discharges during trip navigation instead of charging. As a result, I need to ensure that any charger I wish to use with my phone has been designed to be compatible with Samsung devices, and also be sure to use a shielded USB wire, since a normal wire won't work.

So as you can see, Samsung is already facing compatibility issues with its USB 2.0 port due to its obsolescence, and had to go outside of its base spec to resolve that. It makes far more sense to me to use the new type C which natively handles all that is required, and will undoubtedly become the new standard for portable devices.

 

[f-14]

awesome sd card from now on just obsoleted bluray by a 3:1 factor

 

[alidan]

A device is not obsolete because it doesn't use the connection you want

lol... I was going to let this slide since it's veering off topic, but then I noticed that you actually went back to vote down my comment? Crimony.

Of course devices can be made obsolete by using the wrong connector. What else is obsolescence other than sub-standard specs that hinder its performance in some key aspect which is solved by a newer and better option? Ask any PATA HDD, SCSI scanner, or firewire HDD. They're obsolete technologies, since better and more versatile alternatives have taken over (although firewire still is sometimes used in pro audio for its low latency, that too will come to its end eventually). The point I made is that the device would be "obsolete in 2017", and you could take that literally if you want, I suppose. It means that it will become obsolete faster because it is using a connector with specs that will soon be deemed inadequate, since the next standard is already here and gaining widespread adoption.

As it is, Samsung has been using a non-standard spec to deliver more power through the USB 2.0 cable, which makes it incompatible with most USB chargers. If I plug an incompatible car charger into my Galaxy S4, it will actually use more power running the screen and GPS than the charger provides, so the battery discharges during trip navigation instead of charging. As a result, I need to ensure that any charger I wish to use with my phone has been designed to be compatible with Samsung devices, and also be sure to use a shielded USB wire, since a normal wire won't work.

So as you can see, Samsung is already facing compatibility issues with its USB 2.0 port due to its obsolescence, and had to go outside of its base spec to resolve that. It makes far more sense to me to use the new type C which natively handles all that is required, and will undoubtedly become the new standard for portable devices.

ok, that makes a bit more sense, but i can say this as someone who had a pata hdd well after sata 2 was in use and was on my motherboard, just because sata was a thing didn't automatically make my hdd worthless.

as for the phone, i assume that it comes with its own charger, and depending on who you go through for service, you get a "free" phone every 4/9/12/24 months anyway, many settling on one year, i'm also assuming that the only thing you sacrifice even when samsung does something stupid is convenience, which is fairly minor.

stupid decision, yea, with the explanation you gave it is, obsolete, god no.

 

[atheus]

ok, that makes a bit more sense, but i can say this as someone who had a pata hdd well after sata 2 was in use and was on my motherboard, just because sata was a thing didn't automatically make my hdd worthless.

The situation isn't that someone with an old computer is still using their old PATA HDD after SATA was released. The issue is that we have a company that is releasing the latest and greatest flagship phone which historically takes the largest market share aside from the iPhone (and thus has a substantial influence on adoption rates of new standards), and they used the [PATA] connector, instead of [SATA]. Had they gone with the new connector, that would be a strong driving force toward what needs to happen, which is to move past the old standard which is inadequate for its purposes, despite it being stretched out of spec in various ways to give it a few more dying gasps before it vanishes.

As for the phone, i assume that it comes with its own charger, and depending on who you go through for service, you get a "free" phone every 4/9/12/24 months anyway, many settling on one year, i'm also assuming that the only thing you sacrifice even when samsung does something stupid is convenience, which is fairly minor.

Of course it comes with a charger, but it doesn't come with a car charger. You can buy Samsung compatible chargers, too, but you have to read the fine print to know whether it'll actually work well. An incompatible charger will not tell you that it will only provide 25% of the current required by the device.

Aside from that, a different fellow earlier posited that they stuck with USB 2.0 again because Samsung received backlash when using a USB 3.0-based mini-port from confused customers who couldn't figure out how to work with the new connector. This is why it's topical that the USB 2.0 version they're using has compatibility issues of its own, making the decision to stick with it even more absurd.

Lastly, these phones are never free. If that's what you think, you just don't understand how you're paying for it. Even with plans that include a phone subsidy, they still usually want you to chuck in an extra $200-300 on top of what you're paying monthly for one of these flagship devices. This is why I still have a Galaxy S4. I didn't feel like paying $600+ for a new phone just yet, since they weren't a big enough upgrade to justify the expense. I thought perhaps I'd get a Galaxy S7 this year, but with a USB 2.0 port on the bottom, I'll be looking elsewhere for a design that's fully updated. Just like I won't be buying any devices this year which use a HDMI 1.4b port.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I don't think USB Type-C is big enough to warrant is on the device yet, even though I wish it was for ease of use. Most desktops and laptops still do not have it and you normally need a pretty high end enthusiast board to get a Type-C connection.

So I can understand why Samsung went without it. Also we have to consider that they are pushing wireless charging, which is damn convenient TBH so the need for USB charging is almost non-existent.

I would prefer the speed though but unless they also plan to support Thunderbolt protocols on the USB Type-C I don't really care as USB is still too slow and not good for data transfers anyways.

 

[atheus]

I don't think USB Type-C is big enough to warrant is on the device yet, even though I wish it was for ease of use. Most desktops and laptops still do not have it and you normally need a pretty high end enthusiast board to get a Type-C connection.

True, sadly too many products based on 6th gen intel boards are lacking USB-C connectors. However, as motherboards go, there are plenty of motherboards that aren't "enthusiast" boards that have USB-C. Just the other day I put a system together for a friend with an $80 motherboard sporting a USB-C connector.

So I can understand why Samsung went without it. Also we have to consider that they are pushing wireless charging, which is damn convenient TBH so the need for USB charging is almost non-existent.

Yes, wireless charging is nice, but in order to utilize it outside of your normal charge-up location you need to purchase specialized equipment, just like anyone would who intended to utilize USB-C.

I would prefer the speed though but unless they also plan to support Thunderbolt protocols on the USB Type-C I don't really care as USB is still too slow and not good for data transfers anyways.

I agree that it would be nice if Thunderbolt USB-C weren't such a rare find, but even USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB-C is a worthwhile upgrade over USB 2.0 which is less than 10% as fast for data, and has forced various deviations from spec for adequate power delivery. Plus, file transfers to/from these phones over even the fastest 802.11ac connection is dismally slow for some unknown reason. I've found that it's often better to do a large transfer over usb 2.0, even with the pathetic transfer speed it offers. So this article featuring Samsung's super fast mobile storage to me, plus the absurd quote they belched out in the middle of it: "The company also said that next-generation smartphones should support USB 3.0 speeds, which means you'll be able to transfer those large files much more quickly to your device as well." just serves to piss me off all the more that this extremely solvable problem is not going to be solved this year either.

Do you know of a good way to transfer 50 GB of data to or from your phone? Theoretically it should only take 14 minutes or so at USB 2.0 speeds, but chances are it would take you quite a bit longer than that. You would probably need to set aside an hour or so to get it done.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I don't think USB Type-C is big enough to warrant is on the device yet, even though I wish it was for ease of use. Most desktops and laptops still do not have it and you normally need a pretty high end enthusiast board to get a Type-C connection.

True, sadly too many products based on 6th gen intel boards are lacking USB-C connectors. However, as motherboards go, there are plenty of motherboards that aren't "enthusiast" boards that have USB-C. Just the other day I put a system together for a friend with an $80 motherboard sporting a USB-C connector.

So I can understand why Samsung went without it. Also we have to consider that they are pushing wireless charging, which is damn convenient TBH so the need for USB charging is almost non-existent.

Yes, wireless charging is nice, but in order to utilize it outside of your normal charge-up location you need to purchase specialized equipment, just like anyone would who intended to utilize USB-C.

I would prefer the speed though but unless they also plan to support Thunderbolt protocols on the USB Type-C I don't really care as USB is still too slow and not good for data transfers anyways.

I agree that it would be nice if Thunderbolt USB-C weren't such a rare find, but even USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB-C is a worthwhile upgrade over USB 2.0 which is less than 10% as fast for data, and has forced various deviations from spec for adequate power delivery. Plus, file transfers to/from these phones over even the fastest 802.11ac connection is dismally slow for some unknown reason. I've found that it's often better to do a large transfer over usb 2.0, even with the pathetic transfer speed it offers. So this article featuring Samsung's super fast mobile storage to me, plus the absurd quote they belched out in the middle of it: "The company also said that next-generation smartphones should support USB 3.0 speeds, which means you'll be able to transfer those large files much more quickly to your device as well." just serves to piss me off all the more that this extremely solvable problem is not going to be solved this year either.

Do you know of a good way to transfer 50 GB of data to or from your phone? Theoretically it should only take 14 minutes or so at USB 2.0 speeds, but chances are it would take you quite a bit longer than that. You would probably need to set aside an hour or so to get it done.

I don't disagree with any points however I don't need to buy any specialized equipment. The Galaxy 6/7 series support both of the most popular wireless charging standards (PMA and Qi) so if I need to charge I just plop it down.