What is the cost reduction from 64L 3D NAND

We just updated our models for 3D NAND, (and DRAM, 3D Xpoint). The results show major impact from 64L shipments

• Includes wafer cost for capacity added in new or existing factory
• Includes test cost and packaging cost
• Includes up to date yields
• Includes cost as it is ramping (not fully loaded) and at maturity
• Includes impact of string stacking and CMOS under the array

Results:

• 64L provides 30%+ cost reduction at mature yields. 
• 3D overall and 64L in particular is a major cost reduction. We have the margins, Costs, prices to back this up. Don't believe the people saying its too expensive. The data is clear
• The 3D wafer cost is much higher than 2D NAND. Some people have said it doesn't use advanced lithography so it is cheaper. They are unclear on the details of output per tool and per fab. But the bit output and scaling more than compensates for increased wafer cost!
• Differences between companies on CUA, string stacking, Charge trap, and die size are all taken into account.
• 64L is where all companies go ALL IN with 3D NAND. this will provide significant bit output increase and cost reduction.

See our presentations at Flash Memory Summit or call us for More information

Optane 3D Xpoint for Enterprise and Consumer

Optane 3D Xpoint for Enterprise and Consumer

Intel announced more updates on status of their Optane products. I wanted to say launched but then I realized that actually no product is yet available to the public... soon it will be I hope.


1) Enterprise P4800x SSD: Its arguably the fastest SSD in the world depending on which metric you choose. Intel's focus is on low latency... which is important since transactions involving a queue depth of  32 are quite rare. Its also expensive and only shipping in one density and limited quantities to limited customers. It also supports a virtual memory activity where it looks like memory to the server. Still waiting on third party benchmarks but at this point it is fast and shipping somewhere for revenue.

On the downside, the internet is exploding with "it was supposed to be 1000x faster with 1000x endurance!!!!" and "I waiting 18 month for this?!!!!" .

OK its 8-10x faster and the cells last 2-3x as long as NAND. Its still a great drive for certain Enterprise Applications.


2) Intel Optane memory: This was announced to press at same time... but embargoed for a few more days. 16/32GB cache device announced also at CES.

As I mentioned when this came out earlier at CES... caching is a great idea. 95% of the performance at much lower cost... when it works. Intel showed data that when combined with a HDD is improved boot and program loading performance. There is some concern that these metrics were cherry picked but we will see when third party benchmarks comes out (THG???? Anandtech???)

The price was good $44-$77, it makes a difference in performance, and Intel is hyping the heck out of it. If PC OEMS push it... it could be a big deal. I am not sure what percentage of chipsets accept it today, but I will try it out ASAP when it comes out (See... Intel even tricked me into buying a Kaby Lake PC with 200 Chipset!).

It it better than more DRAM? or a 256GB SSD? who knows for now.


This just in... Optane, as a NVMe SSD/Cache is not 1000x faster and is not going to change the world like the steam engine, the internet, or the cell phone (SORRY) ... but it appears to be a option for fast performance in some applications ... if you can buy it somewhere.

More to come when it actually appears!

Mark Webb
www.mkwventures.com

Is Optane + HDD a good thing? A great thing?

Intel (and PC OEMs) recently announced that sometime in Q2 we can use a 16GB or 32GB Optane NVMe Module with a HDD to achieve SSD like results. Optane module is connected by M.2 to PCIe bus. It is not a DIMM and it does not act like DRAM memory.

Is this a good thing? Is this a great thing? A Couple questions have been raised


1) This is caching again. In a perfect world, caching would make it so that 95% of storage access would be the cache speed. As a person who runs SSDs, hybrid HDDs, HDDs with a SSD cache, I can say this about caching: "its is real fast some of the time" and "it is HDD slow more of the time than I would expect".  Will this version work better? If so, we will have the blazing SSD like performance 90% of the time. What will the benchmarks and boot time say?

2) What will it cost? I have detailed models for how much that M.2 Module will cost including controllers, PCB, BOM components and the 3DXP memory.... we will save that exact cost for later (Call me!)... but what will the price to consumers be? There are two possible options:

    a) It will be marked up a ton to account for it being new, rare, and desire to differentiate. I will go with a $160 adder prediction for the 32GB version option.
    b) It will be subsidized with a price to push people to convert to the new architecture and help  Intel sell processors. I will go with a $50 adder for 32GB option


3) Am I better just buying more DRAM? Today, the PC OEM is charging >$130 to go from 8GB to 16GB of memory. This is about 4x what you should pay... oh well. But if it were reasonably priced, 8G to 16G for $35 or 16G to 32G for $75 is going to make a big difference in performance. If subsidized price, go with Optane.... else go with more DRAM. More DRAM is the gift that never goes out of style.


5) When can I but this option? According to Intel, it is Optane ready today (but without Optane???).

For actual working, non vaporware Optane, Lenovo says April ... others say June.... others say "later". If Intel doesn't delay it again, and it sells in April, I will be buying that Lenovo PC with 32GB just to say I have been Optaned (or is it Optanized?).

Optane Cache .... April 2017.... Finally !!


Mark Webb
www.mkwventures.com

QLC or 96L 3D NAND... which is better

As we look into the future, one question is:
"What is the best way to scale costs in 3D NAND?"... more layers or more bits per cell?

The assumption is that we will keep adding layers, use string stacking as needed. We also will go to QLC or 4Bits per cell. We will do both. In reality companies have to decide where to focus efforts and jumping to increased layers and QLC at the same time might be difficult to engineer and market.

String stacking adds wafer cost and die size. QLC could control both but will limit write and potentially read performance even lower than TLC. Going from 64L to 96 adds theoretical 50% more bits. Going from TLC to QLC adds theoretical 33% more bits.

Cost estimates based on a 768Gb die in 2018 production are available with scenarios favoring one or the other based on yields and die size estimates. Details are available with all the numbers and yields and cost.... but most scenarios show that QLC will need design changes to prevent reduced performance to stay competitive.

Mark


www.mkwventures.com
MKW Ventures Consulting, LLC
NAND, NVM, 3D Xpoint, RRAM, SSD

Top 5 NAND and NVM Myths for the New Year

Top 5 NVM and NAND Myths for the New Year

1) NAND prices are dropping and SSDs will be cheaper per GB than HDDs soon.
REALITY: NAND prices were dropping … now flat to going up. HDD prices are dropping. SSDs are still 5-7x more expensive per GB.... and the gap really isn't closing very fast. NAND prices over time will drop 25% per year and HDD prices will drop 10-15%. No crossover coming soon. Whether consumers will take a 256GB SSD over a 1TB HDD will be decided in 2017... place your bets (I have mine placed and can tell you what is happening)

2) NAND SSDs have instant on capability
REALITY: NAND SSDs do boot faster. 50% faster to be exact. But it still takes significant time from power off. Are consumers willing to pay for 20-30 seconds of time per day? NVMe 3DXP and RRAM SSDs will boot even faster. It will take 10 seconds for them vs 15 for a NAND SSD and 30 for an HDD. Boot times

3) 3D Xpoint will replace NAND in next 2 years:

REALITY: 3D Xpoint and the technology behind it are faster and have advantages. But we always knew that new technologies ramp much slower than original commits from the inventor. Sometimes they never ramp. 3D Xpoint is behind Intel’s original schedule (but actually is matched to Micron’s original schedule), so be patient. NAND is lower cost today and tomorrow but RRAM and 3DXP will give it some competition 3 years from now (See my article on RRAM Cost)

4) 3D NAND will cut costs dramatically
REALITY: 3D NAND will reduce costs by 25% per year over planar. Which is exactly the trend for Planar for the last 10 years (FYI: DRAM costs dropped 30% per year). So 3D lets memory cost scale like it always has scaled… assuming companies have a successful, mature 3D NAND Process. TLC 3D Ramp is the big thing in 2017. I have exact bit% and cost numbers as well.

5) Multiple New companies will enter NAND/NVM market

REALITY: New companies will be <3% of the market 3 years from now. NAND is hard, 3D NAND is really hard, getting it cost effective is nearly impossible. Give credit to the existing companies that contribute >99% of the NAND bits, they evolved and do a great job. New companies in China have huge advantage in capital, but until they get technology from a current industry leader, they won’t have a decent technology. If they sign a JV with Micron, Hynix, WD… that would be different (call me about whether that is going to happen)

3D NAND, TLC, More SSDs in 2017… it will be interesting

Mark

www.mkwventures.com
MKW Ventures Consulting, LLC
NAND, NVM, 3D Xpoint, RRAM, SSD

Update on FMS 2016 Predictions Part 1

At Flash Memory Summit (FMS) 2016, I was on a panel making predictions. its been over 3 months... Update part 1

•SSD cost/GB drop 25% per year (On track!) 

•Prices 25% or more  (Off track for now... but just wait... )

•TLC becomes dominant in all SDDs 

•Client and Enterprise/Datacenter (On track! ... Most SSDs in development today for both enterprise and Client are TLC)

•Cloud/Hyperscale becomes dominate SSD market (On track. They are building tons of SSDs that are not counted in most market statistics)

•Formfactors cost optimized for SSD applications

•M.2 for all applications (On track. Client is there, Datacenter is work on implementations)

•BGA for Phone/ultramobile, Notebooks (On track … Multiple Example Notebooks from multiple SSD vendors in 2017. Then market acceptance in 2018+)

•SCM memory has multiple suppliers and technologies for >$1B market (On track … in 2018/19 ... but the winner might not be who you were expecting)

Mark Webb
www.MKWVentures.com
3D XPoint, RRAM, 3D NAND, SSD

3D Xpoint, Optane, RRAM Status and Forecast

Predictions for 3DXP and RRAM were presented at FMS in August 2016.

All the predictions are holding. We  are even getting updates on 3DXP delays and potential products

3DXP costs, RRAM costs, why they are great and whether they can compete with NAND.


All the details are here. call for more information!

http://mkwventures.com/reports.html


Mark

MKW Ventures Consulting, LLC
NAND, NVM, 3D Xpoint, RRAM, SSD