Intel Expected to put QLC 3DNAND into Volume Production this Quarter. DigiTimes

[Dayman1225]

Notebook vendors boosting SSD adoption for new models

Industry sources said that Intel is reportedly to start volume production of QLC (quad-level cell) SSDs that involve larger storage capacity and lower cost in the second quarter of 2018. This is expected to further inspire notebook vendors to adopt large-capacity SSDs.

I imagine this is the 660p drive that appeared in Intel documents awhile back

From Tomshardware Article

And remember, Tomshardware said that a source told them to expect 512GB QLC SSDs for around $100

One source told us to expect 512GB QLC SSDs for around $100.

Looking forward to see how QLC 3DNAND Performs and how its endurance is compared to modern TLC drives like the 760p

 

[Insert_Nickname]

And remember, Tomshardware said that a source told them to expect 512GB QLC SSDs for around $100

These will be perfect for write-once, quick access data storage. Likely not for much else at first.

Looking forward to see how QLC 3DNAND Performs and how its endurance is compared to modern TLC drives like the 760p

I suspect it won't be that bad compared to TLC. The additional voltage states shouldn't be that difficult for the controller to handle, since it already needs to be very precise for TLC. I do hope they use some hefty ECC though, and that might affect performance.

 

[Glo.]

If the 100$ for 512 GB SSD is for NVMe - yes, that makes sense. Considering that currently SATA3 500 GB TLC SSD price is around 119$ it would not be a groundbreaking option.

 

[arandomguy]

This is going to be pretty horrible for notebook buyers since they typically will not list the type of SSD or even guarantee which model. The same notebook line can source multiple brands/models of storage as long as it's "512gb."

 

[IntelUser2000]

I do hope they use some hefty ECC though, and that might affect performance.

The specs are already in the leaks from the first post. It seems to be better than the 600p. Yea, 600p isn't the best NVMe SSD, but 600p+ 512GB for $100 is pretty decent.

They've got Samsung 970's and Intel 760p's out of TLC NAND, which was at some point thought to be death knell for SSDs.

 

[Glo.]

From what I understand, QLC NAND is loosing 33% of TLC Endurance.

So if latest Intel NAND has 300 TBW endurance on 500 GB TLC SSD, QLC NAND should have 200 TBW on 500 GB SSD QLC SSD.

Which still should be better than Crucial MX500 180 TBW on TLC NAND.

 

[IntelUser2000]

From what I understand, QLC NAND is loosing 33% of TLC Endurance.

That assumes everything is the same, which is never true.

960 Evo - 100/200/400 TBW(250GB/500GB/1TB)
960 Pro - 400/800/1200 TBW(512GB/1TB/2TB)
970 Evo - 150/300/600/1200 TBW(250GB/500GB/1TB/2TB)
970 Pro - 600/1200TBW(512GB/1TB)

While there's a 33% degradation between the 960 Pro and the 970 Pro/EVO for 512GB and 1TB, it doesn't degrade at all for 2TB. Despite both using TLC, the 970 series does improve significantly over the 960 EVO, with 50% greater endurance at the same capacity. 960 EVO with TLC has same endurance specifications as the 950 Pro with MLC.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

From what I understand, QLC NAND is loosing 33% of TLC Endurance.

So if latest Intel NAND has 300 TBW endurance on 500 GB TLC SSD, QLC NAND should have 200 TBW on 500 GB SSD QLC SSD.

Which still should be better than Crucial MX500 180 TBW on TLC NAND.

Honestly, I think endurance stopped being a problem for consumer drives a long time ago. Take an example, a 1.5 year old 512GB 600p (288TB rating) with a power-on time of a 152 days, and a grand total of 4.51TB written. Despite constant abuse, and regular hibernation. That works out to around 9 P/E cycles consumed in those 2 years.

Even if we double that, that's still only ~9TB in 4 years, so it'll be long obsolete before being worn out.

Of course, if your workload involves regular writing of larger files YMMV. But I doubt you'll be looking at a 600p then.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Of course, if your workload involves regular writing of larger files YMMV. But I doubt you'll be looking at a 600p then.

NAND endurance specs are also based on a worst case scenario. It may last noticeably longer doing larger file writes, than if it was doing large number of 4K sized writes that are random in nature. I think its because sequential transfers and large file sizes make it predictable for the controller, so the buffering schemes work well to even out the wear using all the cells.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

NAND endurance specs are also based on a worst case scenario. It may last noticeably longer doing larger file writes, than if it was doing large number of 4K sized writes that are random in nature. I think its because sequential transfers and large file sizes make it predictable for the controller, so the buffering schemes work well to even out the wear using all the cells.

The 600p features a 17GB SLC cache, I suppose that helps with managing the NAND too. Nice, even sized, predictable writes to the TLC portion.

That SLC cache is pretty important in the 600p's case, because without it the write performance goes through the floor. It's only ~100MB/s once that cache is full, hence the comment.

 

[IntelUser2000]

TLC vs MLC:
960 Pro - 400/800/1200 TBW(512GB/1TB/2TB)
970 Pro - 600/1200TBW(512GB/1TB)

970 Pro has 50% increased endurance while moving to TLC from MLC. Controller trickery does wonders.

 

[Billy Tallis]

970 Pro has 50% increased endurance while moving to TLC from MLC. Controller trickery does wonders.

The 970 PRO uses two bit per cell MLC, just a newer generation than the two bit per cell MLC used by the 960 PRO.

 

[IntelUser2000]

The 970 PRO uses two bit per cell MLC, just a newer generation than the two bit per cell MLC used by the 960 PRO.

Yep, you are right.

 

[IntelUser2000]

From,

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1274...-qlc-nand-micron-5210-ion-enterprise-sata-ssd

This is more likely for 660p.

Intel and Micron are also working on their next generation 3D NAND manufacturing process, which increases the layer count to 96.