• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Warning: new code word for TLC - "Cost-effective MLC".

Not sure if i should laugh or cry but then again the competition is so brutal the marketing people sat around the table and bend/spinned the words as much as possible.

PS : Every time I see a graph during big events (NVIDA,AMD,INTEL,...) I get a image of my old economics/math teacher going ,WTF is this graph ...
 
Last edited:
To be fair, they're not wrong, they're just assholes.

In electronics, a multi-level cell (MLC) is a memory element capable of storing more than a single bit of information.
Click to expand...

So really, 3 bit per cell NAND could be called MLC just as well.
 
This just stinks.

I always thought that 2-bit/cell NAND should have been called DLC (double-level cell), rather than the catch all greater than 1 MLC. Then we wouldn't have to deal with these naming shenanigans.
 
After what they did to the SSDNow V3 I won't touch Kingston anyway, but this is going to make me tell people not to, as well.
 
Blastman said:
This just stinks.

I always thought that 2-bit/cell NAND should have been called DLC (double-level cell), rather than the catch all greater than 1 MLC. Then we wouldn't have to deal with these naming shenanigans.
Click to expand...
You wanna bet that that's exactly why they didn't go with such a specific term?
 
I am not sure why they even bothered to play this game.
Most people have no clue what SLC/MLC/TLC means.

If on the other hand, they would do this:
Single-level cell (SLC) NAND Flash memory is NAND Flash at its simplest and best. Best for high-performance, high-endurance applications, our SLC NAND meets mission-critical demands.
Storing 1 bit of data per memory cell, SLC NAND offers fast read and write capabilities,excellent endurance, and relatively simple ECC algorithms. If an application needs speed and endurance above all else, SLC NAND is the best choice.
Click to expand...
Multilevel cell (MLC) is the most popular NAND Flash, providing the right combination of price and performance for a wide range of high-density applications.
Storing 2 bits per cell, MLC NAND is a popular solution for applications that need higher-density storage, such as SSDs, tablets, smart phones, and other wireless devices. MLC devices offer twice the capacity of SLC NAND in the same die area and are a good choice for cost efficiency.
Click to expand...

TLC you say? Take a look at this chart, before they take it down...
https://www.micron.com/products/nand-flash/tlc-mlc-and-slc-devices
Micron_Chart.png


The only kicker here is 3D TLC. I wouldn't compare that to planar TLC, and the issues involved with that, but, there hasn't been much real world testing to say how much better 3D TLC is.
 
Elixer said:
TLC you say? Take a look at this chart, before they take it down...
https://www.micron.com/products/nand-flash/tlc-mlc-and-slc-devices

The only kicker here is 3D TLC. I wouldn't compare that to planar TLC, and the issues involved with that, but, there hasn't been much real world testing to say how much better 3D TLC is.
Click to expand...

That chart really says it all! ^ Bold part is my main beef about the direction SSD's are heading in. 20-odd tech sites and all they do is copy paste each other's synthetic CrystalDiskMark / IOMeter / AS SSD 'tests' of freshly written data and "reassuring" recycled PR statements of how 3D TLC probably doesn't suffer from 16nm TLC problems without making any actual effort to show it. After Samsung 840's infamous problems we now see the BX200's read speeds halving after just 8 weeks, on which tech sites are remarkably silent... Even Storage Review's "accelerated traces" are woefully unrealistic of "real-world" tests. No data retention testing to see if "JEDEC" standards pan out in practise or vary between SSD's used as daily boot drive vs 99% unpowered backup drive (whilst churning out "the HDD is dead" clickbait). We've all seen that Intel chart, but it's from a presentation over 6 years old and based on Intel SSD's that used far larger process nodes (and not TLC) at the time. Are the figures still valid anymore? The BX200 has been out long enough that a 6-month data retention test (and 12 months for Samsung 850 EVO) could have long been completed.

Whatever happened to "interesting" reviews that took this stuff on? Even Anandtech has degenerated into a "people only come here for the forums" kind of site. Other than the Tech Report which seems to be the only site that does stuff like a 2PB endurance test, or actually bothering to see if the 950 PRO M2's are faster in real world load times, the rest are just half-assed reviews infomercials. :thumbsdown:
 
BSim500 said:
Bold part is my main beef about the direction SSD's are heading in. 20-odd tech sites and all they do is copy paste each other's synthetic CrystalDiskMark / IOMeter / AS SSD 'tests' of freshly written data and "reassuring" recycled PR statements of how 3D TLC probably doesn't suffer from 16nm TLC problems without making any actual effort to show it. After Samsung 840's infamous problems we now see the BX200's read speeds halving after just 8 weeks, on which tech sites are remarkably silent... Even Storage Review's "accelerated traces" are woefully unrealistic of "real-world" tests. No data retention testing to see if "JEDEC" standards pan out in practise or vary between SSD's used as daily boot drive vs 99% unpowered backup drive (whilst churning out "the HDD is dead" clickbait). We've all seen that Intel chart, but it's from a presentation over 6 years old and based on Intel SSD's that used far larger process nodes (and not TLC) at the time. Are the figures still valid anymore? The BX200 has been out long enough that a 6-month data retention test (and 12 months for Samsung 850 EVO) could have long been completed.
Click to expand...

Even if they do not test it I think 3D TLC NAND should have a pretty low risk of having issues with read speed slowdowns seeing as they are like 40nm+ and the Trion 100 seems to be holding up fine despite using just 19nm TLC NAND.

Wouldn't want to say anything definitive yet about the Trion 150 (15nm TLC NAND) but it does seem to behave similarly to the Trion 100 and if it doesn't have any issues that should be an even stronger indication that 3D TLC NAND is pretty safe.


About the chart, well I believe they run tests (accelerated) to assure that the SSDs have a good enough data retention.
 
Tlc is like Smr the pretension of drive manufacturers of getting more money for products that may look similar but are vastly inferior.

It is also a fast way to convinve me to ditch the buy of several seagate drives cuz they were smr. And will ditch any ssd offer trying to serve trash, while keeping the quality for the enterprise level. Learn this, consumer pay more per unit. It is harder to sell to them, thats right, so i suppose if u are not a real professional you will go for the easiness of selling to enterprises and serve rubish out of that circuit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top