2 ms·
a very visible increase in price and decrease in capacity Unfortunately SLC costs disproportionately more compared to MLC, TLC, and now QLC -- the actual die c
by userbinator 2y ago
a very visible increase in price and decrease in capacity
Unfortunately SLC costs disproportionately more compared to MLC, TLC, and now QLC -- the actual die cost is only 3x for SLC compared to TLC of the same capacity, but the prices are closer to 10x or more.
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40405578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40405578
- Panzer04 2y agoI recall reading about running MLC+ SSDs in SLC mode for SLC reliability at the cost of the capacity multiplier afforded by the multilevel NAND. It always sucks when hardware that is effectively identical is charged at massively different prices, but I guess as a consumer this differentiation probably leads to ever so slightly cheaper MLC+ SSDs...
- adgjlsfhk1 2y agomost of the reason for this is that tlc still has plenty of endurance for any remotely normal use case. people get really worried about the decrease in reliability, but normal tlc drives are warrantied to 0.3 DWPD, which is still a ton (~900 hours of 8k compressed raw video for a 2 TB SSD)
- userbinator 2y agoThe problem isn't endurance, it's retention. Early SLC was rated for 10 years retention after 100K cycles. The latest QLC is only rated for several months after 300 cycles.