backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Oct 2 at 5:50 AM

Write speed problems may mean no SSD price drops until next year

Many potential SSD customers have been waiting for 32nm NAND flash production to increase significantly before they make a purchasing decision. The new smaller chips are much cheaper to make, which would lower the price of SSDs made using those components.

Samsung is the world's largest producer of NAND flash chips used in SSDs, but there is a very large fly in the ointment. DailyTech spoke with half a dozen companies in the SSD market that use Samsung's flash chips, and the results are troubling.

All of the companies we spoke with noted significant write speed issues with Samsung's 32nm flash. The problems are so bad that these SSD makers are unable to use them in their SSDs, which means that they have to source chips from other flash manufacturers like IM Flash Tech and Toshiba.

"Of course every transition to a new process has its problems," stated one source who requested anonymity. "We just weren't expecting it to be this slow".

32nm NAND produced by Toshiba was also initially slow and problematic. However, most of those write speed problems have been resolved. Some of those chips will make its way into drives like OCZ's Agility series.

Meanwhile, Intel and Micron are reaping huge sales from production of 34nm NAND from their IMFT joint venture. SSD prices from rivals like OCZ and Super Talent dropped significantly after Intel introduced their second generation X25-M SSD using those chips.

All is not lost for Samsung though. The company is hard at work finding a solution, and it is still trying to sell those chips in the embedded market. However, time is running out as productions deadlines to meet the Windows 7 launch and critical Christmas shopping season are both approaching.

A major hardware refresh cycle is coming soon, with new CPUs from Intel, cheap DDR3, DirectX 11 hardware, and a much improved operating system all coming together to tempt consumers. Making SSDs a part of a new build or upgrade may prove irresistible, regardless of the cost.

Update: Samsung has responded to this article, which is available here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Last paragraph
By therealnickdanger on 9/30/2009 11:51:22 AM , Rating: 3
It's so true. This fall/winter season is the perfect storm of technology. Core i860, cheap RAM, ATI 5850, Intel SSD... you can buy and build one monster 'puter for under a grand.




RE: Last paragraph
By therealnickdanger on 9/30/2009 11:52:03 AM , Rating: 5
Or go even cheaper and grab a $100 AMD quad-core...


RE: Last paragraph
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/30/2009 1:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
AMD isn't top end right now. It would make more sense to throw an Intel chip into the bleeding edge computer build.


RE: Last paragraph
By HrilL on 9/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Last paragraph
By HrilL on 9/30/2009 7:29:33 PM , Rating: 3
This site has a too many Intel Fanboy's that don't read reviews apparently.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=36...

Thanks for rating me down because you're too stupid to read.


RE: Last paragraph
By therealnickdanger on 9/30/2009 2:09:58 PM , Rating: 4
I agree, but I didn't want to offend the many AMD fans with the facts. ;-)

Honestly, if I were building a system today, I would probably go with the i5 750 since it's $100 less than the i7 860 and plenty fast for my needs. It's only about 10% slower for video encoding, CS4, 3D rendering, but more than fast enough to get over 60fps in all the games I play while running slightly cooler and drawing less power than the i7 860. All the while, it gets your foot in the door for future CPUs should you need to upgrade later.

i5 750 - $200
P55 mobo - $100
60GB Vertex SSD - $200
4850 1GB - $100
8GB DDR3 - $140
PSU - $50
Case - $30
Win 7 - $100

TOTAL - $920
This is all based on Newegg pricing, but if you're a deal-hunter, you could easily shave off a few bucks.


RE: Last paragraph
By Souka on 9/30/2009 4:45:54 PM , Rating: 3
$970... but you forgot a few things...

keyboard $273
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

mouse $130
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

LCD Screen $2060
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

or you could save a few bucks and dust off that AT Keyboard, 2-button square logitech serial mouse, and that 14" CRT you have in the closet....

:)

anyhow... nice build therealnickdanger!....


RE: Last paragraph
By therealnickdanger on 9/30/2009 11:50:27 PM , Rating: 3
It's funny you say that - my favorite keyboard is AT! It weighs about 6lbs, metal and thick plastic, chunky keys with no visible signs of wear. It came with the first PC I owned in 1989. Wow, 20 years! I love this thing, they don't make 'em like they used to! I currently have to use a AT/PS2 adapter, but I haven't tested to see if I can plug that adapter into a USB adapter. If I can do that, then this keyboard will never die!


RE: Last paragraph
By MrPoletski on 10/1/2009 6:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
you just bought a keyboard with a built in mouse and a mouse... all for extortionate prices...


RE: Last paragraph
By Alexvrb on 9/30/2009 10:52:18 PM , Rating: 3
You're slapping hardware (and software) totalling $840 into a $30 box? Talk about skimping. Also the $50 PSU? There's some decent PSUs for $50, don't get me wrong, but most of the good, reliable units in that price range don't leave a lot of room for future upgrades. Also, the 60GB Vertex doesn't leave a lot of room. Throw in a HDD to provide bulk storage, and just use the SSD for OS and critical items.

If this was a cheaper build ($100 CPU, no SSD, etc) I couldn't knock it. But I certainly couldn't justify plunking down all that cash and getting a cheap case and PSU.


RE: Last paragraph
By therealnickdanger on 9/30/2009 11:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think I (or you or anyone else) needs a better case? I've built several computers using the cheapest Rosewill cases (with and without included PSUs) Newegg offers and they are light, sturdy, and offer plenty of airflow. Give me a good reason to spend more (other than looks) and I'll consider it.

A $50 PSU is almost overkill for MOST computers IMO, unless you are running a top-end OCed system with quad-SLI. And assuming you could possibly saturate the graphics card and CPU with enough data to draw the maximum amount of power, it still wouldn't be very demanding. First, check out these system specs (higher than my build):
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3643...

then check out the resulting chart when using a tool specifically designed to push the limits of the entire GPU (much more demanding than any current game):
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/rv870_092209122...

A $50 PSU is just fine, even one with mid-to-poor efficiency - I could probably even get away with a cheap case with its own PSU and never see a problem with this build. As far as buying a better case/PSU for future upgrades... why? Every new CPU and GPU that comes out does more and more while consuming less power and generating less heat. One day my cell phone will be more powerful than my build here.

60GB Vertext is plenty for all the apps, games, and working directories I need. I keep all my media and backups on my home server... But hey, Newegg is selling a 2TB HDD for $170 today if you want to throw that price into the mix.


RE: Last paragraph
By MrPoletski on 10/1/2009 8:29:46 AM , Rating: 4
The problem with a $50 PSU isn't always its power capacity (though for $50 I question the capability of this) its also about reliability and its ability to keep its voltage within spec under load.

As for a $30 case, you'll learn eactly why you shouldn't use one when you try and build a system with any kind of real power. Much more so if you ever intend to upgrade.

I, for one, cannot stand spaghetti computers which is what you end up with in your case if you only spend $30 on it.


RE: Last paragraph
By therealnickdanger on 10/1/2009 8:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'll learn? Thanks, but I've been building computers for 20 years so I think I've already learned quite a bit. I'm assuming "spaghetti computers" means lots of wires jumbled around everywhere? I don't have that problem either, all my builds have wires neatly tucked away. It's not rocket-science and certainly doesn't require an expensive case to accomplish.

Again, what sort of upgrade would require a better case? A 15-inch long graphics card? 10 hard drives? You haven't given any examples to prove to me that the extra $$$ is worth it. Unless I'm adding a second GPU for SLI or CF, most upgrades take the form of swapping out a CPU, adding/swapping RAM, swapping out HDDs... none of which require the additional space, power, or cooling to justify an übercase.

Like I said before, unless you're building a super OCed system with quad-SLI or something that generates an equivalent amount of heat, there's not much point to an expensive PSU or case. Once you're up at that level, then spending more can be justified in order to keep currents flowing, to add liquid cooling, etc. But for the build I listed, the bare minimum will suffice.


RE: Last paragraph
By MrPoletski on 10/2/2009 5:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
You don't need quad SLI and a super OC to cause heating problems in a $30 case, pretty much any decent GPU card at stock will do... but then some people might be happy with a 50C+ case temp, I certainly am not.

The point is also, that a $30 case doesn't have the space to tuck cables in anywhere and a $50 PSU won't have modular cables to make your life easier either.

But more specifically with a $50 PSU, your GFX card will kill it. It might seem like it works now, but if you don't deliver the 12v current required by your card your system will eventually die.

It will look like it works fine, maybe for a couple of months perhaps only with the odd crash you put down to something else, but eventually, that 3D game you run will kill the PSU because your GFX card sucks it dry. When that happens it might take your mobo with it.

Bitter.Personal.Experience.

Also, I have an Antec 1200 case. It rocks. If I want to upgrade or replace something it takes 5 minutes. Off with the side panel and whip it in.

What I DONT need to do is take half my other stuff out first and if its something major like a CPU replacement... I can actually reach the clips on the Hs/F to get it off without slicing my fingers apart on various other things.

On top of that, my case temp doesn't get too high, despite my 4870x2 and i7. The biggest source of heat in my case is the 4870 so I don't OC that, the i7-920 I run at 3.7Ghz tho, but ti doesn't produce much more heat than at stock (because i7's rock the overclock).

And yes, I think I got my first 286 in 1989, IIRC which is when I started putting together my own PC's. I was 9. Ten Megahurts baby! 64 colour EGA FTW!


RE: Last paragraph
By Aloonatic on 10/1/2009 4:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
Under a grand =/= bleeding edge


RE: Last paragraph
By amanojaku on 9/30/2009 1:54:55 PM , Rating: 3
But they're only around $50-$100 cheaper than Intel Quads at the low end. I'm an AMD fanatic, but I'm not sure the $50-$100 in savings makes up for the loss of performance in your sub-$1000 design. I'd still buy the AMD, though, just to keep Intel on it's toes. I hate monopolies, and AMD makes a product that's good enough for most people. Yes, I know there are plenty of people who think the 20 seconds you save on a 10 minute process is significant, but I can wait. And wait. And wait... ;-)


RE: Last paragraph
By Ammohunt on 9/30/2009 2:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
You hate "monopolies" even when they are created by consumer choice on an even playing field(the free market)?


RE: Last paragraph
By amanojaku on 9/30/2009 2:53:45 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, because history has shown that companies get lazy and/or greedy without competition, and consumers suffer as a result. I already pointed out that Intel has better products today, but what happens tomorrow if there is no AMD, Cyrix, etc... to keep them honest? Of course, if AMD produced products with a high rate of defects or performance so low as to be unusable with modern use then I wouldn't buy them.


RE: Last paragraph
By ipay on 9/30/2009 3:04:13 PM , Rating: 1
Since we're talking about defects, how about the Phenom TLB bug?


RE: Last paragraph
By amanojaku on 9/30/2009 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 3
This?

http://www.dailytech.com/Understanding++AMDs+TLB+P...

It was "patched" by a firmware fix that resulted in a performance decrease, but no loss of functionality. The performance decrease probably didn't bother anyone moving up from a single core to a dual core. I'm not making excuses for AMD as I was annoyed, too, but it doesn't seem to have changed the world much.

Anyway, rumor has it that Core2 or i7 had one or more TLB bugs, too, but were patched in the BIOS before they hit the market, and eventually fixed in the processors, just like the Phenom.

http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupd...


RE: Last paragraph
By MrPoletski on 10/1/2009 8:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
try bringing up something relevant, or we'll all start chanting about the divide bug in the original pentium.


RE: Last paragraph
By MrPoletski on 10/1/2009 8:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
While I will agree that Intel processors are currently superior to AMD offerings, I won't agree that Intel has the market share it does simply because of 'consumer choice on an even playing field'.

Massive anti-trust fines and such says otherwise.


RE: Last paragraph
By descendency on 10/2/2009 12:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
The 100$ AMD Quadcore is not a bad idea, if you are going to buy a bigger monitor, but if you want to play an RTS at 640x480 (why you would... I don't know), then the bound is going to be heavily CPU. The 100$ quad core from AMD is probably not the best chip to use.

What I would advise is to look at games reviews (especially in the genre of your choice) and see how many are GPU centric and how many are CPU centric. If you want to play WoW at ungodly low resolution (like 640x480), then you will need to buy the best CPU you can get, which is a core i7 920+. (And really good RAM, for overclocking reasons...)

Really, If you are not going to upgrade your 15/17 inch flat panel you bought a few years ago when they came into fad, then you are probably wasting your time buying a very high end GPU, but people do it. But, if you are going to keep that monitor, (the one with 1280x1024 resolution) you'll definitely want a better CPU.

If you have a 22+ inch monitor, the CPU becomes a lot less important, unless the game is an RTS or the like where it is heavily CPU bound anyways.

So, the 100$ AMD quadcore sounds like a good idea in general, it's probably best to avoid it if you don't have a 22+ inch monitor, since you are probably gaming at low resolution (and therefore it takes very little GPU processing before you hit a large block of CPU code to be processed.)

Basically, the higher the product (1680x1050 = 1.6M, 1920x1200 = 2.3M, 2560x1600 = 4m...) the more likely you need a better GPU and the more attractive that 100$ quad core looks.


RE: Last paragraph
By kattanna on 9/30/2009 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
yep.. im just waiting to complete my monster by adding in either a 5870 or 5850.

already have dual SSD's, top end AMD quadcore, 8GB ram, and win 7 64bit ultimate RTM installed, all sitting in my antec 1200 case. i love how it projects a light blue honeycomb on the walls and ceiling around it when the room lights are off.

even without my new card.. the machine is a damn beautiful beast to behold and work/play on.


RE: Last paragraph
By Nexos on 9/30/2009 1:32:16 PM , Rating: 4
You are, like, EVER so awesome.


RE: Last paragraph
By quiksilvr on 9/30/2009 1:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. I love it when people brag about how awesome their computer looks. Its shows to me that despite my insanity, there are others crazier than me :D


RE: Last paragraph
By kattanna on 9/30/2009 1:39:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You are, like, EVER so awesome.


LOL more like.. ever so broke now..

i dont use it as a measure of an epeen or anything, but i do take pride in my work


RE: Last paragraph
By MrPoletski on 10/1/2009 8:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm detection failure detected...


RE: Last paragraph
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Last paragraph
By tastyratz on 9/30/2009 2:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
The appropriate benchmarks ARE real world applications for videocards if you read a good nonbiased reviews.

ATI cards and nvidia cards seem to just tug of war back and forth at the top of the value castle and have for several years. If your best bang for the buck is ati or nvidia at one time, give it a year and that will flip.


RE: Last paragraph
By ClownPuncher on 9/30/2009 3:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
Try actually wiping all of the Nv drivers out of your system completely before installing an ATi card. The 4870 is far better than a 9800 GT at everything. Current ATi drivers are quite good.


RE: Last paragraph
By MrPoletski on 10/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Last paragraph
By safcman84 on 10/1/2009 5:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
yep.. im just waiting to complete my monster by adding in either a 5870 or 5850. already have dual SSD's, top end AMD quadcore, 8GB ram, and win 7 64bit ultimate RTM installed, all sitting in my antec 1200 case.


I'm all for using an AMD CPU when u are looking to get a budget build.

But you spend serious cash on 2 SSDs, 8gb of RAM + damned expensive case (I know, I have one), but skimp on the CPU to save yourself 100$ ?

Thats like buying a ferrari, but not getting the MP3 radio cos it costs 100$ more than the non-mp3 model.....


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki