" The company's first attempt at an NVMe drive was ready to hit the market but was canceled when it became clear that it would not have been competitive."
Looking at this one maybe it should follow the same fate. Or the price should be much lower.
The MSRP for the 1TB is a completely non starter when the excellent EX920 1TB already hit $170, but if the actual price drops to $120 it's definitely appealing especially for a low write count usage like a Steam install drive.
The 970 EVO 1TB NVMe was just on sale for $228 on most retail sites in the US. At the same cost/GB and significantly better performance, it isn't even a question what to buy currently.
I just paid $139 for a WD Blue 1TB 3D m.2 a couple of days ago. Haven't even beaten on it thoroughly.
In quick testing (video encoding) during the decompress it will sustain 300MBps for a while, not sure if I'm hitting a drive limit, IO limit or CPU limit shortly there after. The program starts a few other processes, so I'm thinking CPU.
When DDR2 went mainstream they stopped making DDR1 dimms. The dimms you could still find for sale a few years later were old ones where you were paying not just the original cost of making them, but the cost of keeping them in a warehouse for several years before you bought them. Individual ram chips continued to be made for a while longer on legacy processes for embedded use but because the same old mature processes were still being used there was no scope for newer tech allowing cost cutting, and lower volumes meant loss of scale savings meaning that the embedded world also had to pay more until they upgraded to new standards.
"There is a low-end NVMe market segment with numerous options, but they are all struggling under the pressure from more competitively priced high-end NVMe SSDs."
I really wish all NVMe drives kept a higher base performance level. QLC should have died on the vine. I get the technical advances, but I prefer tech advances increase performance, not ones that are worse than their predecessor. The price savings, when it's actually there, isn't worth the trade-offs.
As I understand it, it's impossible, due to physics, to make QLC faster than TLC, just as it's impossible to make TLC faster than MLC. Just as it's impossible to make MLC faster than SLC.
Workarounds to mask the deficiencies aren't the same thing. The only benefit to going beyond SLC is density, as I understand it.
Other things being equal, MLC is faster than TLC and so on. But NAND flash memory has been evolving in ways other than changing the number of bits stored per cell. Micron's 64L TLC is faster than their 32L MLC, not just denser and cheaper. I don't think their 96L or 128L QLC will end up being faster than 64L TLC, but I do think it will be faster than their 32L or 16nm planar TLC. (There are some ways in which increased layer count can hurt performance, but in general those effects have been offset by other performance increases.)
Pretty much. If you can afford to pay for SLC and a controller with enough channels and chip enable lines, then you could have a very nice SSD for a very unreasonable price. When you're constrained to a SATA interface there's no reason not to store at least three bits per cell, and even for enterprise NVMe SSDs there are only a few workloads where the higher performance of SLC is cost-effective.
They should drop the SLC emulation and just sell the drive as an SLC drive. Sure, there may be some performance left on the table due to the limits of the NVME interface, but the longevity would be hugely attractive to some users.
They'd make more money too, since they could better justify higher costs that way. In fact, with modern Flash they might be able to get much the same benefit from MLC organization and have roughly half the drive space instead of 25%.
Do not mix better algorithms of the simulated SLC cache and dram with actual "performance", start crushing their simulated cache and the TLC goes to trash.
What's the point of increasing performance when current top-level performance is already so high as to be nigh unnoticeable? The real-world difference between a good mid-range NVMe drive and a high end one are barely measurable in actual real-world workloads, let alone noticeable. Sure, improving random perf would be worthwhile, but that's not happening with flash any time soon. Increasing capacity per dollar while maintaining satisfactory performance is clearly a worthy goal. The only issue is that this, as with most drives at launch, is overpriced. It'll come down, though.
For typical end users, even NVMe over SATA3 SSDs don't provide a noticeable difference in overall system performance. Moving to an SSD over an HDD for your OS install was a different story and a noticeable upgrade, but that kind of noticeable upgrade just isn't going to happen anymore.
Typical end users aren't writing/reading so much off the drive that QLC presents a noticeable downgrade over TLC, or even MLC storage. Yes, right now QLC isn't cheap enough compared to existing TLC products, but we've already done this dance when TLC first arrived on the scene and people were stalwart about sticking to MLC drives only. Today? We got high-end NVMe TLC drives with better read/write and random IOPS performance compared to the best MLC SATA3 drives back when MLC was the superior technology.
Yeah, it's going to take time for QLC to come down in price, the tech is newer and yields are lower, and companies are trying to fine tune the characteristics of their product stacks to make them both appealing in price and performance. Give it some time.
Sure, we lost endurance and speed with the switch from MLC to TLC. But the change from TLC to QLC is much worse in terms of latency, endurance, and just overall performance. Frankly, the sad part is that the drive needs the pseudo-SLC area to just barely meet the lowered expectations for QLC. Some of those QLC drives barely beat good SATA drives.
We now have a new tech (3D Xpoint/Optane) that is demonstrably better for latency, consistency, endurance, and performance. I'd rather Micron continue to put the $ into it to get higher yields for both increased density/capacity & lower costs. That's what I want on the NVMe side, not another race to the bottom.
Sorry, you're not the end consumer that dictates how products get taped out, and honestly, if you were in charge of product management, you'd run the company into the ground focusing on making only premium priced storage drives in a market that's saturated with performance drives.
The bulk of all SSD sales are for lower cost lower storage options. There is no "race to the bottom", it's just some jank you made up in your head to justify why companies are focusing on making products for the common man. Being able to move from an affordable 500GB SSD on TLC to an similarly priced 1TB SSD in a few years is a GOOD THING.
If you want preemium(tm) quality products, SSDs with only the HIGHEST of endurance ratings for the massive Read/Write workloads you perform on your personal desktop on a day-to-day basis, SSDs with only the LOWEST of latencies so that you can load into Forknight(tm) faster than the other childerm, then how about you go buy enterprise storage products instead of whining in the comments section of a free news article. The products you want with the technology you need are out there. They're expensive because it's a niche market catered towards enterprise workloads where they can justify the buckets of money.
You keep whining, I'll keep enjoying the larger storage capacities at cheaper prices so that I can eventually migrate my Home NAS to a completely solid state solution. Right now, getting even a cheap 1TB SSD for caching is super-slick.
"...how about you go buy enterprise storage products instead of whining in the comments section of a free news article."
You are taking this way too personally.
I'm actually thinking more about the business side. I want 3D-Xpoint/Optane to get cheaper & get more capacity so that I can justify it for more than just some specific servers/use-cases. So I'd like Micron to focus more on developing that side than chasing the price train with QLC, which is inferior to what preceded it. With Micron buying out Intel's stake in IMFT for 3D-Xpoint, I just hope the product line diversification doesn't lessen the work to make 3D-Xpoint cheaper & even greater capacities.
Talk about projecting. Micron is taping out dozens of products across different product segments for all kinds of users. They're working on 3D-Xpoint and QLC stuff simultaneously and independently from each other. What's happening here is that Micron is producing QLC NAND for this Crucial M.2 SSD, and you're here taking it personally (and therefore whining in a free news article comments section) that Micron isn't focusing enough on 3D-Xpoint and that supposedly their QLC is bad for some reason. Thing is, this news article isn't for you. This technology isn't for you. You decided your tech needs are above what this product is aimed for: affordable, large volume SSDs for lower prices.
Seriously, calm down. This wasn't an assault orchestrated by Micron against people that need/want higher performance storage options. More 3D-Xpoint stuff will come your way if that's the technology you're looking forward to. Again back to my main point, it's going to take some time for these newer technologies to roll out. Until then, don't whine in comments sections that X isn't the Y you were waiting for. If the article is about technology X, make a half-decent effort keep to the topic about technology X.
"I'll keep enjoying the larger storage capacities at cheaper prices so that I can eventually migrate my Home NAS to a completely solid state solution." Wwwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaattttt?? NEVER. You don't understand the SSD limits. I would not do that with SLC (assuming current quality at QLC price). Enterprises with SSD NASes only use them for short-term performance storage with hourly/daily backup. Anyone who uses them differently is asking for a disaster. Look for linuxconf Intel SSD. There is a presentation where they explain how reading a cell damages nearby cells and manufacturers need to monitor this a relocate the data that is only read. I have 2 servers with only 1 SSD each for OS and 8-10TB HDDs for my actual long-term data. All my desktops/laptops have SSDs (Intel 320, Samsung 830-860 evo+pro, Crucial BX100/MX300 etc). But anything important on SSDs will be backed-up to HDDs.
"[Companies] want the opposite. Their wish is to sell the least for the most."
Not true. Companies want to maximize net revenue, i.e. total revenue minus cost.
Depending on the elasticity of demand (i.e. price sensitivity), that might mean increasing quantity and decreasing price.
A reduction in quantity and an increase in price will increase net revenue only if demand is elastic.
But given the existence of HDDs, it makes sense that demand for SSDs is elastic, i.e. price-sensitive. These aren't captive consumers with zero choice.
Of course, nothing stops a company from catering to BOTH markets, i.e. high performance AND low cost markets.
The transition to TLC drives was also shortly followed with the transition to 3D NAND using higher process (larger) from smaller planar litho process. While smaller litho allowed more density it also came with the trade off of worse endurance/higher decay. So the transition to 3D NAND effectively offset the issues of MLC->TLC which is where we are today. What's the equivalent for TLC->QLC?
Low litho planar TLC drives were the ones that were poorly received and performed worse then they reviewed in reality due to decay. And decay is the real issue here with QLC since no reviewer tests for it (it isn't the same as poor write endurance). Is that file I don't regularly access going to maintain the same read speeds or have massively higher latency to access due to the need for ECC to kick in?
I may not be correct on the exact numbers, but I think the NAND lithography has stopped at 22nm as they were having issues retaining data on 14nm, just no real benefit going to a smaller lithography.
They may tune that in a couple of years, but the only way I can see that working with my rudimentary understanding of the system is to keep everything the same size as the 22nm (gates, gaps, fences, chains, roads, whatever, it's too late/early for me to remember the correct terms), same gaps only on a smaller process. They'd have no reduction in cost as they'd be using the same amount of each wafer, might have a reduction in power consumption.
I'm eager to see how they address the problem but it really looks like QLC may be a dead end. Eventually we're going to hit walls where lithography can't improve and we're going to have to come at the problem (cpu speed, memory speeds, NAND speeds, etc) from an entirely different angle than what we've been doing. For what, 40 years, we've been doing major design changes every 5 years or so and just relying on lithography to improve clock speeds.
I think that is about to cease entirely. They can probably go farther than what we're seeing but not economically.
Yes, price is still too high. But it will come down. I think that the conclusions fail to highlight the main strength of this SSD: top performance / power. For portable devices, this is the key metric to consider. In this regard is far ahead any SATA SSD and almost all PCIe out there.
Massive "read mostly" storage. xx layer TLC for a performance drive, QLC for massive data storage, ie; all of my Steam games installed on a 10 cent per gig "read mostly" drive while the OS and my general use is on a 22 cent per gig TLC.
That's what they're trying to do with that SLC cache, but I think they need to push it a lot farther, throw a 500GB TLC cache on a 4 terabyte QLC drive. That might be able to have it fit into the mainstream NVME lineup.
Please don't give them any ideas! The last thing we need is NAND that generously handles a few dozen P/E cycles before dying. We've already gone from millions of P/E cycles to a few hundred in the last 15 years and data retention has dropped from over a decade to under six months. Sure you can get a lot more capacity for the price, but NAND needs to be replaced with something more durable sooner rather than later. (And no, I'm not advocating for Optane either, just something that lasts longer and has room for density improvements - don't care what that something is.)
I was expecting the extra DRAM to provide a more meaningful advantage over the Intel 660p... I guess it makes sense that Intel left it off to save on BOM.
This could be a very good standard desktop drive if 1) the price is right and 2) you can accept that the 1 TB drive is really only good for up to 900 GB. You would just partition the drive such that there is 100 GB free (or make sure you always just keep that much space free) so you always have the maximum SLC cach available. For the price to be right, it has to be lower. Taking the prices from the article, the 1 TB P1 is only $8 cheaper than a 970 EVO. Now if they could get the price down to the same territory as the current MX 500 they might have something.
Leaving 10% of the drive unpartitioned won't be enough to get the maximum size SLC cache, because 1GB of SLC cache requires 4GB of QLC to be used as SLC. However, 10% manual overprovisioning would definitely reduce the already small chances of overflowing the SLC cache.
On that note, wouldn't it actually make sense to use a MLC cache instead of a SLC cache for these SSDs using QLC flash (and by MLC of course I mean using 2 bits per cell)? I'd assume you should still be able to get very decent write speeds with that, and it would effectively only need half as much flash for the same cache size.
Cache size isn't really a big enough problem for a 2bpc MLC write cache to be worthwhile. Using SLC for the write cache has several advantages: highest performance/lowest latency, single-pass reads and writes (important for Crucial's power loss immunity features), and your SLC cache can use flash blocks that are too worn out to still reliably store multiple bits per cell. A slower write cache with twice the capacity would only make sense if consumer workloads regularly overflowed the existing write cache. Almost all of the instances where our benchmarks overflow SLC caches are a consequence of our tests giving the drive less idle time than real-world usage, rather than being tests representing use cases where the cache would be expected to overflow even in the real world.
Why don't you guys include the Samsung 970 PRO 1TB in your charts for comparison? It's one of the most sought after SSDs on the market for HEDT systems and for sure it would be useful to have your tests results for this one too. Thanks.
A.) Samsung didn't send me a 970 PRO. B.) The 970 PRO is pretty far outside the range of what could be considered competition for an entry-level NVMe SSD. It's a drive you buy for bragging rights, not for real-world performance benefits. The Optane SSD is in that same category, and I don't think the graphs for this kind of review need to be cluttered up with too many of those.
Not to be obtuse, but by price the 970 PRO is well within the range of competition for the P1 given that the 1TB 970 retails for $228 on Amazon right now and the MSRP for the 1TB P1 $220. Buyers looking for a product will most certainly consider the $8 difference and factor that into their decision to move up from an entry-level product to a "bragging rights" option given the insignificant difference in cost. Your first point is valid. I would have stopped there since its reasonable to say, "Physically impossible, don't have one there pal."
I think you were looking at the price for the 1TB 970 EVO. The 1TB 970 PRO is currently $392.99 on Amazon, closer to twice the price of the Crucial P1. I think it is occasionally reasonable to get something like the 970 EVO for a high-end system. Going past that to a 970 PRO isn't reasonable.
Who wants QLC NVME drives as the first widely available consumer QLC tech? Not me I tell you! :D I am fine with 3D TLC for my performance needs both from a performance and price point at the moment. 500GB is enough for many casual enthusiasts and 1TB isn't too expensive either. I'd really like 2.5" SATA and M.2 SATA QLC for my casual media storage needs.
QLC doesn't seem to make any sense in an M.2 PCIe NVMe format - it's just really slow compared to even a good SATA 6Gbps SSD. QLC seems to make sense in a 2.5" SATA format, with an enormous capacity. 1TB makes no sense for this shitty performance level. It needs to be there to replace larger drives. Actually, even that makes no sense for a home user - where long term retention is more important, and a hard disk is therefore more useful. QLC drives will probably come into their own at the ~4TB mark in Enterprise storage arrays as a mid-tier storage solution, with hard disks under, and MLC NAND above.
Why the bloody bejesus do these manufacturers keep tying ever-slower NAND to ever-faster interfaces? If you want your bloody QLC NAND to be a success, Crucial, make a 2TB+ SATA SSD that costs less per gigabyte than any other SSD on the market, and watch them fly off the shelves. You already got this right with the Micron 1100 series that uses 3D TLC NAND, why can't you do it for QLC?
Ah, I see that Micron is touting their "5210 ION" series SSDs (using 3D QLC NAND) as "hard drive replacements", and they start at 2TB. Write speeds are not great, but I don't care and I doubt most consumers looking for high-capacity SSDs will either. Hopefully there will be stock of these in time for Black Friday!
So, roughly 200 cycles per... I'm thinking the Anandtech Destroyer Bench probably did just that.
I'm curious as to how long it could sustain that load.
I wouldn't want it for my main drive, but I've got a secondary drive with my MP3s, game installations, etc, that would probably be a good match if the price were about half that of a standard SSD.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
Back to Article
Marlin1975 - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
" The company's first attempt at an NVMe drive was ready to hit the market but was canceled when it became clear that it would not have been competitive."Looking at this one maybe it should follow the same fate. Or the price should be much lower.
StrangerGuy - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
The MSRP for the 1TB is a completely non starter when the excellent EX920 1TB already hit $170, but if the actual price drops to $120 it's definitely appealing especially for a low write count usage like a Steam install drive.FullmetalTitan - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
The 970 EVO 1TB NVMe was just on sale for $228 on most retail sites in the US. At the same cost/GB and significantly better performance, it isn't even a question what to buy currently.menting - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
comparing sale price vs retail price is pretty meaningless.Billy Tallis - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Given how flash memory prices have been dropping, today's sale price is next month's everyday retail price.DigitalFreak - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Just saw the 970 EVO 1TB is $219 at Microcenter. Unless it gets a $50+ price cut immediately, the P1 is DOA.tokyojerry - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
Currently $128 at Amazon. As of 4/19/2019 3:14:42 PM0ldman79 - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link
I just paid $139 for a WD Blue 1TB 3D m.2 a couple of days ago. Haven't even beaten on it thoroughly.In quick testing (video encoding) during the decompress it will sustain 300MBps for a while, not sure if I'm hitting a drive limit, IO limit or CPU limit shortly there after. The program starts a few other processes, so I'm thinking CPU.
III-V - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
They are supposedly having yield issues. If they resolve those, there is plenty of room for cost to come down.Oxford Guy - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Look at what happens with DRAM every time. DDR2 comes out and DDR1 becomes more expensive. Rinse repeat.QLC may lead to higher TLC prices, if TLC volume goes down and/or gets positioned as a more premium product as manufacturers try to sell us QLC.
DanNeely - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
When DDR2 went mainstream they stopped making DDR1 dimms. The dimms you could still find for sale a few years later were old ones where you were paying not just the original cost of making them, but the cost of keeping them in a warehouse for several years before you bought them. Individual ram chips continued to be made for a while longer on legacy processes for embedded use but because the same old mature processes were still being used there was no scope for newer tech allowing cost cutting, and lower volumes meant loss of scale savings meaning that the embedded world also had to pay more until they upgraded to new standards.Oxford Guy - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
The point was:"QLC may lead to higher TLC prices, if TLC volume goes down and/or gets positioned as a more premium product as manufacturers try to sell us QLC."
Stopping production leads to a volume drop, eh?
romrunning - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
"There is a low-end NVMe market segment with numerous options, but they are all struggling under the pressure from more competitively priced high-end NVMe SSDs."I really wish all NVMe drives kept a higher base performance level. QLC should have died on the vine. I get the technical advances, but I prefer tech advances increase performance, not ones that are worse than their predecessor. The price savings, when it's actually there, isn't worth the trade-offs.
Flunk - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
In a year or two there are going to be QLC drives faster than today's TLC drives. it just takes time to develop a new technology.Oxford Guy - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Faster to decay, certainly.As I understand it, it's impossible, due to physics, to make QLC faster than TLC, just as it's impossible to make TLC faster than MLC. Just as it's impossible to make MLC faster than SLC.
Workarounds to mask the deficiencies aren't the same thing. The only benefit to going beyond SLC is density, as I understand it.
Billy Tallis - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Other things being equal, MLC is faster than TLC and so on. But NAND flash memory has been evolving in ways other than changing the number of bits stored per cell. Micron's 64L TLC is faster than their 32L MLC, not just denser and cheaper. I don't think their 96L or 128L QLC will end up being faster than 64L TLC, but I do think it will be faster than their 32L or 16nm planar TLC. (There are some ways in which increased layer count can hurt performance, but in general those effects have been offset by other performance increases.)Oxford Guy - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
"Other things being equal, MLC is faster than TLC and so on"So, other than density, there is no benefit to going beyond SLC, correct?
Billy Tallis - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Pretty much. If you can afford to pay for SLC and a controller with enough channels and chip enable lines, then you could have a very nice SSD for a very unreasonable price. When you're constrained to a SATA interface there's no reason not to store at least three bits per cell, and even for enterprise NVMe SSDs there are only a few workloads where the higher performance of SLC is cost-effective.Great_Scott - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link
They should drop the SLC emulation and just sell the drive as an SLC drive. Sure, there may be some performance left on the table due to the limits of the NVME interface, but the longevity would be hugely attractive to some users.They'd make more money too, since they could better justify higher costs that way. In fact, with modern Flash they might be able to get much the same benefit from MLC organization and have roughly half the drive space instead of 25%.
Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Do not mix better algorithms of the simulated SLC cache and dram with actual "performance", start crushing their simulated cache and the TLC goes to trash.Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
With worse of everything how is it going to be "faster", do any TLC SSD beat the Samsung MLC ones? No.Valantar - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
What's the point of increasing performance when current top-level performance is already so high as to be nigh unnoticeable? The real-world difference between a good mid-range NVMe drive and a high end one are barely measurable in actual real-world workloads, let alone noticeable. Sure, improving random perf would be worthwhile, but that's not happening with flash any time soon. Increasing capacity per dollar while maintaining satisfactory performance is clearly a worthy goal. The only issue is that this, as with most drives at launch, is overpriced. It'll come down, though.JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
^ This.For typical end users, even NVMe over SATA3 SSDs don't provide a noticeable difference in overall system performance. Moving to an SSD over an HDD for your OS install was a different story and a noticeable upgrade, but that kind of noticeable upgrade just isn't going to happen anymore.
Typical end users aren't writing/reading so much off the drive that QLC presents a noticeable downgrade over TLC, or even MLC storage. Yes, right now QLC isn't cheap enough compared to existing TLC products, but we've already done this dance when TLC first arrived on the scene and people were stalwart about sticking to MLC drives only. Today? We got high-end NVMe TLC drives with better read/write and random IOPS performance compared to the best MLC SATA3 drives back when MLC was the superior technology.
Yeah, it's going to take time for QLC to come down in price, the tech is newer and yields are lower, and companies are trying to fine tune the characteristics of their product stacks to make them both appealing in price and performance. Give it some time.
romrunning - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Sure, we lost endurance and speed with the switch from MLC to TLC. But the change from TLC to QLC is much worse in terms of latency, endurance, and just overall performance. Frankly, the sad part is that the drive needs the pseudo-SLC area to just barely meet the lowered expectations for QLC. Some of those QLC drives barely beat good SATA drives.We now have a new tech (3D Xpoint/Optane) that is demonstrably better for latency, consistency, endurance, and performance. I'd rather Micron continue to put the $ into it to get higher yields for both increased density/capacity & lower costs. That's what I want on the NVMe side, not another race to the bottom.
JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Sorry, you're not the end consumer that dictates how products get taped out, and honestly, if you were in charge of product management, you'd run the company into the ground focusing on making only premium priced storage drives in a market that's saturated with performance drives.The bulk of all SSD sales are for lower cost lower storage options. There is no "race to the bottom", it's just some jank you made up in your head to justify why companies are focusing on making products for the common man. Being able to move from an affordable 500GB SSD on TLC to an similarly priced 1TB SSD in a few years is a GOOD THING.
If you want preemium(tm) quality products, SSDs with only the HIGHEST of endurance ratings for the massive Read/Write workloads you perform on your personal desktop on a day-to-day basis, SSDs with only the LOWEST of latencies so that you can load into Forknight(tm) faster than the other childerm, then how about you go buy enterprise storage products instead of whining in the comments section of a free news article. The products you want with the technology you need are out there. They're expensive because it's a niche market catered towards enterprise workloads where they can justify the buckets of money.
You keep whining, I'll keep enjoying the larger storage capacities at cheaper prices so that I can eventually migrate my Home NAS to a completely solid state solution. Right now, getting even a cheap 1TB SSD for caching is super-slick.
romrunning - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
"...how about you go buy enterprise storage products instead of whining in the comments section of a free news article."You are taking this way too personally.
I'm actually thinking more about the business side. I want 3D-Xpoint/Optane to get cheaper & get more capacity so that I can justify it for more than just some specific servers/use-cases. So I'd like Micron to focus more on developing that side than chasing the price train with QLC, which is inferior to what preceded it. With Micron buying out Intel's stake in IMFT for 3D-Xpoint, I just hope the product line diversification doesn't lessen the work to make 3D-Xpoint cheaper & even greater capacities.
JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
>You are taking this way too personally.Talk about projecting. Micron is taping out dozens of products across different product segments for all kinds of users. They're working on 3D-Xpoint and QLC stuff simultaneously and independently from each other. What's happening here is that Micron is producing QLC NAND for this Crucial M.2 SSD, and you're here taking it personally (and therefore whining in a free news article comments section) that Micron isn't focusing enough on 3D-Xpoint and that supposedly their QLC is bad for some reason. Thing is, this news article isn't for you. This technology isn't for you. You decided your tech needs are above what this product is aimed for: affordable, large volume SSDs for lower prices.
Seriously, calm down. This wasn't an assault orchestrated by Micron against people that need/want higher performance storage options. More 3D-Xpoint stuff will come your way if that's the technology you're looking forward to. Again back to my main point, it's going to take some time for these newer technologies to roll out. Until then, don't whine in comments sections that X isn't the Y you were waiting for. If the article is about technology X, make a half-decent effort keep to the topic about technology X.
mathew7 - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
"I'll keep enjoying the larger storage capacities at cheaper prices so that I can eventually migrate my Home NAS to a completely solid state solution."Wwwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaattttt?? NEVER. You don't understand the SSD limits. I would not do that with SLC (assuming current quality at QLC price).
Enterprises with SSD NASes only use them for short-term performance storage with hourly/daily backup. Anyone who uses them differently is asking for a disaster.
Look for linuxconf Intel SSD. There is a presentation where they explain how reading a cell damages nearby cells and manufacturers need to monitor this a relocate the data that is only read.
I have 2 servers with only 1 SSD each for OS and 8-10TB HDDs for my actual long-term data.
All my desktops/laptops have SSDs (Intel 320, Samsung 830-860 evo+pro, Crucial BX100/MX300 etc). But anything important on SSDs will be backed-up to HDDs.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
"That's what I want ... not another race to the bottom."That's what consumers want: value.
That's not what companies want. They want the opposite. Their wish is to sell the least for the most.
Mikewind Dale - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
"[Companies] want the opposite. Their wish is to sell the least for the most."Not true. Companies want to maximize net revenue, i.e. total revenue minus cost.
Depending on the elasticity of demand (i.e. price sensitivity), that might mean increasing quantity and decreasing price.
A reduction in quantity and an increase in price will increase net revenue only if demand is elastic.
But given the existence of HDDs, it makes sense that demand for SSDs is elastic, i.e. price-sensitive. These aren't captive consumers with zero choice.
Of course, nothing stops a company from catering to BOTH markets, i.e. high performance AND low cost markets.
Mikewind Dale - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Sic:"A reduction in quantity and an increase in price will increase net revenue only if demand is elastic."
That should be "inelastic."
limitedaccess - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
The transition to TLC drives was also shortly followed with the transition to 3D NAND using higher process (larger) from smaller planar litho process. While smaller litho allowed more density it also came with the trade off of worse endurance/higher decay. So the transition to 3D NAND effectively offset the issues of MLC->TLC which is where we are today. What's the equivalent for TLC->QLC?Low litho planar TLC drives were the ones that were poorly received and performed worse then they reviewed in reality due to decay. And decay is the real issue here with QLC since no reviewer tests for it (it isn't the same as poor write endurance). Is that file I don't regularly access going to maintain the same read speeds or have massively higher latency to access due to the need for ECC to kick in?
0ldman79 - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link
I may not be correct on the exact numbers, but I think the NAND lithography has stopped at 22nm as they were having issues retaining data on 14nm, just no real benefit going to a smaller lithography.They may tune that in a couple of years, but the only way I can see that working with my rudimentary understanding of the system is to keep everything the same size as the 22nm (gates, gaps, fences, chains, roads, whatever, it's too late/early for me to remember the correct terms), same gaps only on a smaller process. They'd have no reduction in cost as they'd be using the same amount of each wafer, might have a reduction in power consumption.
I'm eager to see how they address the problem but it really looks like QLC may be a dead end. Eventually we're going to hit walls where lithography can't improve and we're going to have to come at the problem (cpu speed, memory speeds, NAND speeds, etc) from an entirely different angle than what we've been doing. For what, 40 years, we've been doing major design changes every 5 years or so and just relying on lithography to improve clock speeds.
I think that is about to cease entirely. They can probably go farther than what we're seeing but not economically.
Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Youre not specting a drive limited to 500MB to be as fast as a PCI-E 4x SSD with full support for it...TLC vs MLC all goes to endurance and degraded performance when the drive is full or the cache is exhausted.
Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Random performance seems the land of Optane and similar. Even the 16GB optane M10 absoluletely murders even the top of the line NVME Samsung MLC SSD.PaoDeTech - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Yes, price is still too high. But it will come down. I think that the conclusions fail to highlight the main strength of this SSD: top performance / power. For portable devices, this is the key metric to consider. In this regard is far ahead any SATA SSD and almost all PCIe out there.Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Exactly. QLC should stick to big multiterabyte drives for avrg user or HEDT.Like 4TB+.
0ldman79 - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link
I think that's where they need to place QLC.Massive "read mostly" storage. xx layer TLC for a performance drive, QLC for massive data storage, ie; all of my Steam games installed on a 10 cent per gig "read mostly" drive while the OS and my general use is on a 22 cent per gig TLC.
That's what they're trying to do with that SLC cache, but I think they need to push it a lot farther, throw a 500GB TLC cache on a 4 terabyte QLC drive. That might be able to have it fit into the mainstream NVME lineup.
Flunk - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
MSRP seems a little high, I recently picked up an HP EX920 1TB for $255 and that's a much faster drive. Perhaps the street price will be lower.B3an - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
That latency is APPALLING and the performance is below par. If this was dirt cheap it might be worth it to some people, but at that price it's a joke.DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
At this rate, by the time they get to H(ex)LC you'll only be able to write 1GB per day to your drive or risk having it fail.PeachNCream - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Please don't give them any ideas! The last thing we need is NAND that generously handles a few dozen P/E cycles before dying. We've already gone from millions of P/E cycles to a few hundred in the last 15 years and data retention has dropped from over a decade to under six months. Sure you can get a lot more capacity for the price, but NAND needs to be replaced with something more durable sooner rather than later. (And no, I'm not advocating for Optane either, just something that lasts longer and has room for density improvements - don't care what that something is.)MrCommunistGen - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
I was expecting the extra DRAM to provide a more meaningful advantage over the Intel 660p... I guess it makes sense that Intel left it off to save on BOM.Ratman6161 - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
This could be a very good standard desktop drive if 1) the price is right and 2) you can accept that the 1 TB drive is really only good for up to 900 GB. You would just partition the drive such that there is 100 GB free (or make sure you always just keep that much space free) so you always have the maximum SLC cach available. For the price to be right, it has to be lower. Taking the prices from the article, the 1 TB P1 is only $8 cheaper than a 970 EVO. Now if they could get the price down to the same territory as the current MX 500 they might have something.Billy Tallis - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Leaving 10% of the drive unpartitioned won't be enough to get the maximum size SLC cache, because 1GB of SLC cache requires 4GB of QLC to be used as SLC. However, 10% manual overprovisioning would definitely reduce the already small chances of overflowing the SLC cache.mczak - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
On that note, wouldn't it actually make sense to use a MLC cache instead of a SLC cache for these SSDs using QLC flash (and by MLC of course I mean using 2 bits per cell)? I'd assume you should still be able to get very decent write speeds with that, and it would effectively only need half as much flash for the same cache size.Billy Tallis - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Cache size isn't really a big enough problem for a 2bpc MLC write cache to be worthwhile. Using SLC for the write cache has several advantages: highest performance/lowest latency, single-pass reads and writes (important for Crucial's power loss immunity features), and your SLC cache can use flash blocks that are too worn out to still reliably store multiple bits per cell. A slower write cache with twice the capacity would only make sense if consumer workloads regularly overflowed the existing write cache. Almost all of the instances where our benchmarks overflow SLC caches are a consequence of our tests giving the drive less idle time than real-world usage, rather than being tests representing use cases where the cache would be expected to overflow even in the real world.idri - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Why don't you guys include the Samsung 970 PRO 1TB in your charts for comparison? It's one of the most sought after SSDs on the market for HEDT systems and for sure it would be useful to have your tests results for this one too. Thanks.Billy Tallis - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
A.) Samsung didn't send me a 970 PRO. B.) The 970 PRO is pretty far outside the range of what could be considered competition for an entry-level NVMe SSD. It's a drive you buy for bragging rights, not for real-world performance benefits. The Optane SSD is in that same category, and I don't think the graphs for this kind of review need to be cluttered up with too many of those.PeachNCream - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Not to be obtuse, but by price the 970 PRO is well within the range of competition for the P1 given that the 1TB 970 retails for $228 on Amazon right now and the MSRP for the 1TB P1 $220. Buyers looking for a product will most certainly consider the $8 difference and factor that into their decision to move up from an entry-level product to a "bragging rights" option given the insignificant difference in cost. Your first point is valid. I would have stopped there since its reasonable to say, "Physically impossible, don't have one there pal."Billy Tallis - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
I think you were looking at the price for the 1TB 970 EVO. The 1TB 970 PRO is currently $392.99 on Amazon, closer to twice the price of the Crucial P1. I think it is occasionally reasonable to get something like the 970 EVO for a high-end system. Going past that to a 970 PRO isn't reasonable.PeachNCream - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Whoops, you're correct! Please accept my apologies for that one.DigitalFreak - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Even then, the 970 EVO wipes the floor with the P1.Death666Angel - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Who wants QLC NVME drives as the first widely available consumer QLC tech? Not me I tell you! :DI am fine with 3D TLC for my performance needs both from a performance and price point at the moment. 500GB is enough for many casual enthusiasts and 1TB isn't too expensive either. I'd really like 2.5" SATA and M.2 SATA QLC for my casual media storage needs.
Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
QLC is such useless product except for manufactures, they give you a WORST product for basically the same price or more than a TLC.MX500/860 EVO 1TB for $160-180.
Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
*Edit 155-160.piroroadkill - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
QLC doesn't seem to make any sense in an M.2 PCIe NVMe format - it's just really slow compared to even a good SATA 6Gbps SSD. QLC seems to make sense in a 2.5" SATA format, with an enormous capacity. 1TB makes no sense for this shitty performance level. It needs to be there to replace larger drives. Actually, even that makes no sense for a home user - where long term retention is more important, and a hard disk is therefore more useful. QLC drives will probably come into their own at the ~4TB mark in Enterprise storage arrays as a mid-tier storage solution, with hard disks under, and MLC NAND above.crotach - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Oh dearThe_Assimilator - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Why the bloody bejesus do these manufacturers keep tying ever-slower NAND to ever-faster interfaces? If you want your bloody QLC NAND to be a success, Crucial, make a 2TB+ SATA SSD that costs less per gigabyte than any other SSD on the market, and watch them fly off the shelves. You already got this right with the Micron 1100 series that uses 3D TLC NAND, why can't you do it for QLC?The_Assimilator - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Ah, I see that Micron is touting their "5210 ION" series SSDs (using 3D QLC NAND) as "hard drive replacements", and they start at 2TB. Write speeds are not great, but I don't care and I doubt most consumers looking for high-capacity SSDs will either. Hopefully there will be stock of these in time for Black Friday!0ldman79 - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link
So, roughly 200 cycles per... I'm thinking the Anandtech Destroyer Bench probably did just that.I'm curious as to how long it could sustain that load.
I wouldn't want it for my main drive, but I've got a secondary drive with my MP3s, game installations, etc, that would probably be a good match if the price were about half that of a standard SSD.
araczynski - Wednesday, November 14, 2018 - link
so basically, stick with the WD Black of Samsung 970 and call it a day.bhtt - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
I want to buy a 512GB/1 TB m.2 nvme this black Friday for my laptop. Any suggestions ?prashplus - Monday, June 1, 2020 - link
Thanks for reviewing this.