Annoying market trend is annoying. I suppose the prospect of higher capacities is what matters to Average Joe and will help SSDs push hdd out of some markets a bit better, but I miss watching the esoteric numbers go up );
"we'll see 1TB drives at a significant disadvantage compared to 2TB and 4TB models. Since NAND price increases will make it harder for consumers to jump up to higher capacities, we may see a real performance regression for the average mainstream consumer SSD, without any monetary savings as a consolation prize."
With current prices, and future QLC prices, it does not make sense to buy anything smaller than 2TB anyway.
I have a couple of questions about the table posted. 1. Why E16-based drives do not have 8TB models, while E12 do? 2. Why E12 has higher random read performance @ 4TB (490k) than E16 (330k), while @ 1TB and 2TB E16 is faster as expected?
1. They probably don't have any customers planning to do an 8TB E16 drive in the near future, but they definitely have customers doing 8+ TB E12 drives (albeit not for the consumer retail market). Those customers may not be ready to switch to PCIe 4.0, or may be waiting for E18.
2. This is probably a mistake on Phison's part, because the E16 is definitely the faster controller. They even have at least one customer using E16 at PCIe gen3 speed (ie. with PCIe gen4 disabled in firmware) because E16 is a bit faster and has better LDPC. My guess is that they either didn't test the larger E12 and E16 QLC drives the same way, or they simply printed the wrong numbers in their CES brochure. I'm pretty sure that they aren't using a drastically different firmware between the two.
The E12 was tested on an Intel platform and the E16 tested on AMD. There are subtle differences between the two platforms that make the direct comparisons difficult. The E16 is faster than the E12 on Intel.
The endurance dies not depend on the controller, but on the Flash chips used, so it doesn't make sense for phison to specify endurance, since the controller can be paired with flash from different manufacturers, that have different endurance. But you can expect QLC endurance to be a lot less than TLC.
you are very right my guy <3. The only problem i have is that these controllers are tailored towards QLC drives. It will be some time before QLC drives have enough endurance for nas use. for common people like me this "isnt" a problem at all. :) but 2TB QLC right now having endurance numbers of 600TBW endurance isn't aw inspiring. and that's the best we got right now. compare that to 4x or more endurance numbers of TLC right now. I understand it will get better with time. I think in about a year we will see competent endurance from QLC drives.
It almost seems like the SSD industry is desperate to produce SSD drives with real-world performance worse than HDD.
QLC looks like a clear losing proposition. Going from 3 bits per cell to 4 bits per cell gives only a 25% improvement in capacity, but the problem of discriminating that many voltage levels is vastly greater. If they are going to more bits per cell, it just gets worse.
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
10 Comments
Back to Article
Unashamed_unoriginal_username_x86 - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Annoying market trend is annoying. I suppose the prospect of higher capacities is what matters to Average Joe and will help SSDs push hdd out of some markets a bit better, but I miss watching the esoteric numbers go up );shabby - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
As long as the $$$ numbers go down i don't mind, even the slowest e12 has good enough numbers for majority of people.peevee - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
"we'll see 1TB drives at a significant disadvantage compared to 2TB and 4TB models. Since NAND price increases will make it harder for consumers to jump up to higher capacities, we may see a real performance regression for the average mainstream consumer SSD, without any monetary savings as a consolation prize."With current prices, and future QLC prices, it does not make sense to buy anything smaller than 2TB anyway.
peevee - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
I have a couple of questions about the table posted.1. Why E16-based drives do not have 8TB models, while E12 do?
2. Why E12 has higher random read performance @ 4TB (490k) than E16 (330k), while @ 1TB and 2TB E16 is faster as expected?
Billy Tallis - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
1. They probably don't have any customers planning to do an 8TB E16 drive in the near future, but they definitely have customers doing 8+ TB E12 drives (albeit not for the consumer retail market). Those customers may not be ready to switch to PCIe 4.0, or may be waiting for E18.2. This is probably a mistake on Phison's part, because the E16 is definitely the faster controller. They even have at least one customer using E16 at PCIe gen3 speed (ie. with PCIe gen4 disabled in firmware) because E16 is a bit faster and has better LDPC. My guess is that they either didn't test the larger E12 and E16 QLC drives the same way, or they simply printed the wrong numbers in their CES brochure. I'm pretty sure that they aren't using a drastically different firmware between the two.
Chris_Ramseyer - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
Hello peevee,The E12 was tested on an Intel platform and the E16 tested on AMD. There are subtle differences between the two platforms that make the direct comparisons difficult. The E16 is faster than the E12 on Intel.
CR - Representing Phison
austinsguitar - Friday, January 17, 2020 - link
yea yea yea but what is the endurance phison :). gonna need to know that "tiny" bit of information rather soon.AlexDaum - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
The endurance dies not depend on the controller, but on the Flash chips used, so it doesn't make sense for phison to specify endurance, since the controller can be paired with flash from different manufacturers, that have different endurance. But you can expect QLC endurance to be a lot less than TLC.austinsguitar - Sunday, January 19, 2020 - link
you are very right my guy <3. The only problem i have is that these controllers are tailored towards QLC drives. It will be some time before QLC drives have enough endurance for nas use. for common people like me this "isnt" a problem at all. :) but 2TB QLC right now having endurance numbers of 600TBW endurance isn't aw inspiring. and that's the best we got right now. compare that to 4x or more endurance numbers of TLC right now. I understand it will get better with time. I think in about a year we will see competent endurance from QLC drives.PaulHoule - Wednesday, January 22, 2020 - link
It almost seems like the SSD industry is desperate to produce SSD drives with real-world performance worse than HDD.QLC looks like a clear losing proposition. Going from 3 bits per cell to 4 bits per cell gives only a 25% improvement in capacity, but the problem of discriminating that many voltage levels is vastly greater. If they are going to more bits per cell, it just gets worse.
Why?