Intel reports breaktrhough in SSD costs – to release 10TB SSDs

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: Intel reports breaktrhough in SSD costs – to release 10TB SSDs[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2014/11/myce-intel-3d-nand-1-95x75.png[/newsimage]

Intel plans to release SSDs based on 3D NAND in 2015 with “disruptive cost”. SSDs with 3D NAND will also make it possible to sell drives with 10TB capacity, according to the company.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/intel-reports-breaktrhough-in-ssd-costs-to-release-10tb-ssds-73553](http://www.myce.com/news/intel-reports-breaktrhough-in-ssd-costs-to-release-10tb-ssds-73553)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

SSDs with 3D NAND will also make it possible to sell drives with 10TB capacity

Yeah and will take my leg and arm to get one of those…I rather purchase a 10tb HDD and save my leg and arm for future uses.


#3

I wish they would do that for RAM prices!


#4

You may be very surprised at the nand prices in 2016, 10TB for under 1,000USD not out of the question here,


#5

I sense Intel is also engaged in a little “anti-Samsung” marketing press release (not so much a demerit as it is an observation).

It can’t be coincidence that Samsung just recently released their 850 series with V-NAND, which has barely any peer in performance and none in endurance (as far as the theory goes) as of 2014 holiday shopping season.

Intel’s announcement of “disruptive pricing”, without making any REAL statement about that, boils down to “WAIT! Don’t buy THAT one yet, the price is going to drop through the floor soon!”.

I just put off buying an SSD because of this. SSD prices have crept downward slowly, with only incremental steps toward affordability. The Samsung EVO’s performance was offset by it’s supposed longevity problems due to the TLC used (and the very small node contributing), though for many consumer uses it’s still a suitable product for it’s epoch.

This “breakthrough” (which isn’t an Intel exclusive in reality) must be why Samsung dropped so much cash on new manufacturing facilities a short while back. They must be preparing for their own “disruptive pricing”, and all out competitive war between the main flash chip makers.

This is exactly what the industry needs, and exactly the results REAL competition produces. This depicts the battle lines of an all out price war the rest of us have been waiting for.

Now, note Intel’s focus on higher density compared to Samsung (without mentioning Samsung), but look beyond the present rhetoric. Samsung’s current node for V-NAND is around 40 nm, an old process offering very high reliability and low cost. It leaves PLENTY of room to shrink, which Intel is sprinting toward (but not yet reached, as there isn’t a product out). I rough estimate suggests simply dropping from 40nm to 32nm would account for the density figures mentioned.

It would SEEM that Samsung’s first offerings are actually TOO reliable, comparitively. They claim 150 TB, up only from 100 TB, as the reliability target for the new drives, but they also claim to have a prototype drive under test that passed 8000 TB without failure. It even close to true, the 40nm node produced such reliability as to exceed all need, and thus shrinking the node will simply bring the result into alignment with market needs, and competitive advantage.

Guessing, wildly, we could easily discover that new owners of 256 GByte Samsung Pro drives, having shelled out a “reasonable” $160 or so on sale, will be comparing their devices to 512 G and 1 T devices at the same or lower price by about mid year 2015. If the giants keep up the pace of corporate war, we could see the price per GByte of SSD’s match the current price of old fashioned HD’s before, or at least by 2016.


#6

Just about all SSD makers have quite a bit of greed, because they exploit this niche market for quite a long time in their density capacites so as to not cannibalize the HDD industry. Intel will be no different. You only have to look at their CPU market dominance as a primary example.

If by chance, ssd’s would reach the price of HDD’s at the wholesale level… retailers would inevitably put their own PREMIUM on pricing to pad their profits. That’s just the nature of the business.

I wonder when we’ll see RAM densities expand further… it’s typical to pay ~$160 - $200 for decent 16gb densities… where you should be seeing densities of 64-128gb by now!