3DXPoint barely competes with planar NAND on density.
Assuming NAND vendors go for string stacking soon-ish, XPoint will never be price competetive with 3D NAND.
This frees up 3D XPoint to use a multi-layer structure, though not one that is as easy to manufacture as 3D NAND flash. This initial iteration of 3D XPoint uses just two layers and provides a per-die capacity of 128Gb, a step or two behind NAND flash but far ahead of the density of DRAM. 3D XPoint is currently storing just one bit per memory cell while today's NAND flash is mostly storing two or three bits per cell. Intel has indicated that the technology they are using, with sufficient R&D, can support more bits per cell to help raise density.
That's a pipe dream.I believe the goal is not to compete with 3D NAND so much as it is to compete with DRAM.
It's not going to be cost competitive even against pSLC Z-NAND, and MLC one is coming.However, looking at the following bit densities I'm thinking the upcoming 4 layer 2nd generation 3DXpoint would have the same bit density as a 64L Samsung SLC Z-NAND (this assuming the Z-NAND is essentially a 1 bit per cell version of the company's own TLC V-NAND):
Assuming is ever reaches the market in timely manner.Extrapolating that further I would assume a 8 layer 3DXpoint competes with a 128L Samsung Z-NAND (SLC version).