News Samsung's upcoming 280-layer QLC flash could allow for 16TB M.2 SSDs — claims up to 50% higher storage density than the competition

[Admin]

Samsung is getting ready to announce its next-generation QLC V9 NAND flash that will reportedly be nearly 50% denser than the competition, with potentially improved performance as well.

Samsung's upcoming 280-layer QLC flash could allow for 16TB M.2 SSDs — claims up to 50% higher storage density than the competition : Read more

 

[Amdlova]

Nice :] 16tb of storage... slow as <Mod Edit> when need it and 3000tb of endurance. Can't wait

 

[usertests]

At 28.5Gb/mm^2, Samsung's new QLC 3D NAND V9 solution is nearly 50% denser than YMTC's 232L QLC NAND flash at 20.63mm^2

It's about 38.15% denser, what I'd call nearly 40%.

With TLC flash architectures beginning to reach their limits in terms of raw storage capacity (just like SLC and MLC before it), QLC represents the future for SSD manufacturers that want to keep pushing the capacity envelop of mainstream-consumer SSDs.

TLC is always 75% of QLC. There's no limit to reach, other than the endurance limit.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

If performance is good enough, Samsung's new QLC-based flash could radically change the consumer SSD landscape when it arrives later this year.

Considering all manufacturers are slashing production to drive up prices, I don't see anything changing "radically". I don't even see Samsung pricing these at $199.99/4TB $599.99/8TB

 

[pug_s]

I think I till try to avoid qlc ssd because it has less endurance compared to tlc's.

 

[Notton]

I'm confused. In the "NAND Capacities and Densities" chart you have, why is 1Tb tied between Micron, Samsung, and WD? Is that chart correct?

The SN570 2TB, for instance, only uses a single 2TB chip.
Are they all 1Tb densities, and then stacked into a single package to form 2TB and 4TB chips?
Or They're all 1Tb, forming 2TB chips, but the Samsung takes up the least surface area?

 

[Li Ken-un]

8 TB M.2 SSDs have clung to sky high prices. 16 TB ones are incoming… but NAND prices are also skyrocketing. Who else is thinking of the same thing as I: playing the waiting game? 🙂

 

[vern72]

No way in hell I'm ever getting QLC storage. I'm still ticked off at the term "3-bit MLC". That's TLC!

 

[whatever66]

To the author:

bolstering

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Try "boasting".

 

[Flayed]

I think I till try to avoid qlc ssd because it has less endurance compared to tlc's.

They write so slowly will take forever to reach the endurance limit though 😛

 

[gg83]

Is there a solid way to compare storage density between the new toshiba 30tb hdd vs this new Samsung ssd tech? It seems hdd's use a different density metric than nand?

 

[bit_user]

No way in hell I'm ever getting QLC storage. I'm still ticked off at the term "3-bit MLC". That's TLC!

Wait, you're ticked off at the term and not the practical implications of QLC?

As far as terminology goes, "MLC" means Multi-Level Cell, which basically covers anything more than 1-bit per cell. So, it's not a great name to begin with, since it doesn't specify how many bits. That requires one to say "2-bit MLC" or "3-bit MLC", if you want to be completely clear.

It's unfortunate that MLC came to be associated with 2-bits per cell, because that gave rise to an even greater sin, which is TLC (and, by extension, QLC). These terms are factually inaccurate, since TLC actually corresponds to 8-level cells (3 bits) and not 3-level (1.5 bits), as the name implies. I hope there's a special place in hell for whoever originated such an abuse of language.

Once 3-bit cells came along, they should've just said "3 bits per cell" or "3-bit cells", which could be abbreviated 3bpc or 3bc. It's no more work, but it's not misleading!

 

[bit_user]

To the author:
...
I do not think that word means what you think it means. Try "boasting".

Hmm... at this point, I wonder if we're not being trolled.
; )

 

[vern72]

Wait, you're ticked off at the term and not the practical implications of QLC?

I'm ticked off at the term MLC. The convention is that MLC means 2-bits. It really should be called DLC. As for QLC, I'm not ticked off at the practical implications of QLC, but I would never buy it. They can invent it. It might have its uses for someone else, but not me.

It's unfortunate that MLC came to be associated with 2-bits per cell, because that gave rise to an even greater sin, which is TLC (and, by extension, QLC). These terms are factually inaccurate, since TLC actually corresponds to 8-level cells (3 bits) and not 3-level (1.5 bits), as the name implies. I hope there's a special place in hell for whoever originated such an abuse of language.

Agreed.

 

[Colif]

nice to see reality is approaching the size of fake ssd although some are out of reach for a while, like the 96 petabyte ones

16tb nvme from other makers are on horizon as well.

i have a 4tb QVO. I doubt I ever fill it up so not worried about its life too much. Its only storage for games I can download again.