![]() ![]() Maybe someday, applications will be optimized to fully make use of something like 3D Xpoint, and the pricing will be down to practical levels, but today those advanced storage technologies are terribly priced, and don't really improve the performance of most real-world tasks substantially. The vast majority of today's applications and usage scenarios won't see much benefit from higher-end flash, so it doesn't make much sense for most people to pay more for it. ![]() There might be some limitations, but it definitely seems like a positive development.Īnd as I pointed out before, QLC is already arguably pretty good when implemented properly. So, pretty much the opposite of what you are suggesting. X-NAND is most useful for QLC, since it supposedly fixes its main limitations. ![]() X-NAND dramatically improves the endurance of QLC. And that's just TLC, which is still bad compared to MLC and especially SLC, but at least in that case the price drop was actually more significant.I'm not sure if you actually read the article, but at least according to what they are claiming. Anything that improves QLC can be used to improve TLC by an even wider margin, so it's always going to be worth paying that extra ~$20 for the much higher speeds and 10x the endurance. QLC is never going to be good enough or cheap enough to be worth buying over TLC. Giroro said:Imagine how good the memory would be if they put this kind of effort into improving good NAND instead of trying to "save" trash bottom-of-the-barrel QLC.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |