Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel 335 Series SSD Equipped With 20-nm NAND

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the that's-not-many-nanometers dept.

Data Storage 135

crookedvulture writes "The next generation of NAND has arrived. Intel's latest 335 Series SSD sports 20-nm flash chips that are 29% smaller than the previous, 25-nm generation. The NAND features a new planar cell structure with a floating, high-k/metal gate stack, a first for the flash industry. This cell structure purportedly helps the 20-nm NAND overcome cell-to-cell interference, allowing it to offer the same performance and reliability characteristics of the 25-nm stuff. The performance numbers back up that assertion, with the 335 Series matching other drives based on the same SandForce controller silicon. The 335 Series may end up costing less than the competition, though; Intel has set the suggested retail price at an aggressive $184 for the 240GB drive, which works out to just 77 cents per gigabyte."

cancel ×

135 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Excellent deal on the price point (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41811999)

Maybe we won't need so much of that rare earth stuff anymore. I still find it amazing that a hard drive with all that monkey motion going on inside is any cheaper than these SSDs.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41812115)

According to TFA, each of these new 8GB 20nm dice are 118 mm. There are 32 of them in the 335 series. 37.8 square centimeters of processed silicon is serious business. Honestly, I'm amazed that it's so cheap.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41812627)

How much human effort is involved in the manufacturing process compared to a hard drive? To me that's where the real costs lie. Mechanization should be driving the price even lower.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41816047)

Maybe not so much in the direct making of the hard drive, although some of the machines used to making state of the art semiconductors can cost up to several tens of millions of dollars each due to the labor that goes into designing, refining and making those machines. A couple of similar priced machines in a process chain, plus a few parallel chains, and that starts to add up even if they are used to continuously pump out products.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41813593)

118*32/10^3 = 3.78. you're off by a factor of 10.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41813799)

Why are you dividing by 10^3? We're talking square centimeters, not centimeters cubed.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41814447)

According to TFA, each of these new 8GB 20nm dice are 118 mm. There are 32 of them in the 335 series. 37.8 square centimeters of processed silicon is serious business. Honestly, I'm amazed that it's so cheap.

The thing is, it's made up of individual dies. If you tried to make a single slab of silicon that's 38 square cm, you'll find it impossible because of flaws. The smaller the die, the less chance it will be made on imperfect silicon, so smaller processes lead to more dies per wafer (less cost per die) and higher yields. Both make for cheaper memory in the end.

As for finding good SSDs - the trick is to see what Apple, Dell Lenovo, etc. use. Especially Apple. Because Apple ships so many SSDs, if there was any sort of failure of them, it would seem the whole world would be up in arms because when you're shipping millions, even a small percentages amplify - say 1% failure rate when you're shipping millions mean tens to hundreds of thousands of failures and it will become SSDgate like Atennagate (probably a similar number of affected people).

Apple and the other OEMs pick reliability over performance - because when you're doing 40k IOPS and 500MB/sec writes, for most users, it's "fast enough". If you can make the firmware less buggy and end up with a SSD that only does 20K iOPS and 200-300MB/sec writes, it's still "fast" and the OEMs are much happier (less warranty issues).

For that, it means either Intels or more commonly, Samsung - Apple etc. tend to use Samsung or Toshiba controllers.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (1)

MangoCats (2757129) | about 2 years ago | (#41813365)

Like a lightbulb, the factories are a sunk cost, they're just churning out the copies now. SSDs are still recouping R&D costs for now - once they get rolling in equal volume to spinning drives, they should be cheaper. Like tape 20 years ago, it's the sheer volume of spinning platters that keeps them going - 2TB of platters for $99... hard to touch that with SSD.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41813647)

I'm in total agreement on the ongoing R&D costs. Ultimately I expect the price to really plummet, if the patent licensing isn't abused. I sure wish more laptop makers included an SSD option, but maybe they still need to offload their warehouse full of hard drives. It should really be only a couple more years.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41813979)

The problem is gonna be, as this article notes the chips get a LOT worse with each shrink [tomshardware.com] with more failures and more trouble with throughput. As their tests show single does best, triple cell does worst, but of course we all knew that and what we are seeing on the market is mostly MLC.

I have a feeling SSDs are gonna be a "stop gap" on our way to something like the PRAM that HP is working on, but until it gets here the keyword with SSDs is gonna be backup, backup backup backup. We know that is smart to do anyway, but you'd be surprised how many normal folks will think the SSDs are no different than the HDDs and just trust it and find out the hard way you get NO warning with SSDs. This article may be a little old but its still true, with SSDs its a hot/crazy scale [codinghorror.com] with hot speeds and crazy failure rates.

Re:Excellent deal on the price point (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#41815425)

I think the extent to which silicon can be shrunk is hitting a dead end. We are already at the level where you have gates that are a few atoms thick, and it can't get any smaller than that. Let's face it - the era of endless cost reductions and Moores law is coming to an end - at least w/ silicon. Once they get there, making newer fabs will be relatively cheaper, and companies can then make products at the margins they need to carry on.

Interesting... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41812013)

I'm a bit surprised that Intel seems to have abandoned doing their controllers in-house(which they did for some of their early entries in the SSD market, back when there was some...um... extremely variable quality available. *cough* JMicron *cough*). Does SandForce have some juicy patents that make it impossible for Intel to economically match/exceed them even with superior process muscle? Has building competent flash controller chips now been commodified enough that Intel doesn't want to waste their time? Did some Intel project go sour and force them to go 3rd party?

Re:Interesting... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812087)

And why hasn't Intel shipped better faster cheaper products? Do they even want to compete anymore? Are these even questions? Or perhaps some form of statements in the form of questions? Isn't it about time we get some answers? Who knows anymore? Does Intel know?

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812699)

Intel never wanted to compete in the drive market, they just want to help push the market along to help sell their NAND. Once SSD hits a similar price points and thus volumes of spinning disk, I doubt we'll even be seeing branded Intel SSDs.

Intel Flash (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#41815289)

This is ridiculous! Intel previously had a flash memory division, which made their famous StrataFlash, which they later spun off into a separate company called Numonyx (which was a merger of their and STM's flash memory division) which even later got acquired by Micron. In other words, Intel exited the flash market b'cos they were dragging down their margins.

In that context, I'm just not getting why Intel is making any flash - be it NAND flash or NOR flash. First of all, memory fabs are somewhat different from logic fabs, where the equipment is more geared towards highly array-efficient chips. Then doing their latest processes, w/ the latest wafer sizes - in this case, the 18" wafers - means that they would be using the latest and most advanced equipment, implying that their costs here would be real high. I understand that they'd want to drive volume and are therefore planning to put a fab or more out like this just to crank out an unlimited #NAND chips, which can then go into drives. Doing enough of that would help them accelarate the depreciation of equipment and the fab, but it's not like they would then be able to use them to make say, the next Atom.

On the controllers, since there are a number of companies that make ATA controllers, it would just be a matter of Intel fabbing it for them and buying what it needed for the agreed-upon margins. Incidentally, I know Intel has world class fabs and all that, but do they do their own assembly & test as well?

Which is why I'm not getting their strategy here. The only thing that seems to make sense - that after the ww shortage in hard drives due to the Thailand floods, they've decided not to leave the supply of an essential part of computers to the likes of WD or Seagate. Otherwise, there are a lot of PC parts that Intel does not touch b'cos it just doesn't make sense to do it. SSDs are not much different.

Re:Intel Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41815417)

Because the flash processes are being used to work the bugs out of their fab processes before they tape the cpu silicon. By doing so they already know some if not all the workarounds needed to keep the processors stable at the higher process technologies. And since the flash dies are significantly smaller/less complicated than the cpu dies, it's easier to produce a profitable yield out of the processes since there's far more parts in the same amount of silicon.

Selling the flash is just an economic side-benefit of being able to ramp up process technologies to production levels before their 'big' chips ever hit the masks.

Re:Intel Flash (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#41815629)

My guess would be that, although the fabs are different, the underlying processes are similar and that's where a huge amount of Intel R&D money goes. Intel's big advantage over the last couple of decades has been outspending everyone else on process technology, so they're always at least half a generation ahead. If they can use this investment in another product line, then that reduces the amount of the price of every CPU that has to go towards R&D.

The other part of the problem, I would suspect, comes from some simulator results that Intel published about a decade ago. When they make a new CPU, they first run it in a complete simulation environment, where every aspect can be adjusted. They tried making the CPU infinitely fast in one experiment (i.e. every CPU cycle takes 0 simulation time) and found that this increased the overall performance by a factor of two. All it did was move the bottlenecks to memory and disks. Ensuring that fast disks are available helps stimulate the market for faster CPUs. We've seen recently in the FreeBSD kernel that the mantra for the last 20 years in a lot of places in the storage stack has been 'don't worry about optimising that - it's on a code path that does I/O, so the extra CPU time will be lost in the noise'. Then you replace a 150IO/s, 50MB/s spinning disk with a 10,000IO/s, 300MB/s SSD and suddenly it becomes a lot less true: operations you used to be able to hide in the 5-10ms of seek time are now quite noticeable and can cause real slowdowns when that seek time becomes a single microsecond.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Amouth (879122) | about 2 years ago | (#41812167)

The last in house controller was on the 320's,, and in overall use i still continue to buy the Intel 320 series drives for enterprise use. They are absolutely rock solid.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812801)

Rock solid by whose definition? Yours, or the rest of the actual world?

http://www.techspot.com/news/44694-intel-confirms-8mb-bug-in-320-series-ssds-fix-available.html [techspot.com]
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/intel_ssd_320_firmware_fix_for_8mb_bug.html [guru3d.com]
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4625/intel-testing-firmware-fix-for-ssd-320-8mb-power-bug [anandtech.com]

P.S. -- This comment comes from someone who owns 5 of these SSDs and none of them have experienced the aforementioned problem, and that's probably because I upgraded the F/W almost immediately. But despite that, a bug is a bug, especially of this catastrophic nature. I can refer folks to similarly catastrophic bugs in other SSDs such as the Crucial m4, so don't think Intel is the only naughty one.

Re:Interesting... (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 2 years ago | (#41813513)

My first SSD had the bug.. was painful to eperience... been pretty happy with my corsair drives since then.

Re:Interesting... (5, Interesting)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 2 years ago | (#41812567)

It's pretty much all of the above. On the Intel side of things, making their own controllers just wasn't panning out. There are rumors that they had some problems with what was supposed to follow their existing in-house controller, but there's also a lot of evidence that the benefits of building their own controller wasn't worth the cost. The controller itself is very low margin, and Intel is looking for high-margin areas.

Meanwhile SandForce has some extremely desirable technology. Data de-dupe and compression not only improve drive performance right now, but they're going to be critical in future drives as NAND cells shrink in size and the number of P/E cycles drops accordingly. Intel likely could have developed this in-house, but why do so? They can just buy the controller from SandForce at a sweet price, roll their own firmware (that's where all the real work happens anyhow), and sell the resulting SSD as they please.

Custom Firmware.. (2)

willy_me (212994) | about 2 years ago | (#41813033)

If I remember correctly, Intel is using their own firmware on the SandForce controller. So an Intel SSD will still be different then those from their competitors.

Re:Interesting... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#41813225)

SSD reliability has been so bad [insert contrary anecdotes here] and Sandforce such a bright-spot of "not broken" that at this point I just specify Sandforce controllers and worry aout other things. Newegg will even let me search by it now. Perhaps Intel gets this sentiment and stands to benefit. Intel has a historical relationship of OEM'ing from LSI and their memory is good, so sign me up if these things don't get hanged in the first couple months.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41813843)

Sandforce such a bright-spot of not broken? Are you being sarcastic or from a different universe?

Re:Interesting... (3, Interesting)

PipsqueakOnAP133 (761720) | about 2 years ago | (#41814977)

I actually asked a person who worked in Intel's storage research about this.

It boiled down to this: Intel Research made the X25, and pushed it over to Intel's product teams who basically just put them in boxes and shipped it. And people loved it.

Then Intel's product design teams tried to design a follow on controller and sucked entirely at it. So they got the research group to rev the x25 a few times, while they contracted with Marvell for controllers since they needed a SATA 6G controller for their own firmware.

At that time, they hadn't switched to Sandforce, but judging by the fact that Sandforce has been quite dominant even back then, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel did almost no firmware customization now.

I wouldn't have believed that Intel had sucked in SSD controller design had I not heard it from a Intel researcher (although they might have been biased given that the story make their peers look good) but looking back again, we're talking about the company that brought us Netburst and FBDIMMs.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41815487)

This is not a new problem for Intel, although one thing that probably isn't helping is the massive increase in employees since the late 90s-early '00s (I don't know exactly when.) But basically that, combined with less room for advancement, being a less 'hip' place to work, etc. has probably lead to brain drain. Combined with the MBA mentality of the current crop of managers since '00 era and the technical expertise that once made Intel great may be dwindling (Obviously not in their process technology, and perhaps not in their modern cpu designs, but looking elsewhere in their product portfolio things have not been as rosy as in the past. Combined with the focus on only selling high margin items, they're really setting themselves up for economic collapse, if for example ARM suddenly takes off onto the desktop. A very real possibility given that few apps nowadays require the front end systems to be x86, and instead could be dealt with by having legacy x86 boxen in the backoffice, while using ARM systems up front. Or hell, even qemu or another form of system virtualization. How many of those legacy apps are really going to demand enough cycles to warrant a real rather than virtual processor?)

A tiny example of trickle down economics in action (-1, Offtopic)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41812037)

This is an example of what is known as 'trickle down economics' in action, which means that the more productive a company becomes (by getting profits from its current sales and re-investing the profits into the business, creating more efficiencies, new technologies) the lower it can set the prices accessing bigger and bigger markets.

Those who are poor (compared to Intel for example, because they do not have their own factories to produces these SSDs) are gaining from the rich (Intel investors) and see their lives improve (if they need and buy this product at the lower prices).

That is what all economics is, not a centrally planned economy, aiming at equal outcomes for different people and thus destroying the society by creating discrimination, which requires destruction of individual freedoms. But this is just normal economics (some call it 'trickle down') in action. A company searching for more profit investing its profits and creating new products that end up improving people's lives, and it's done with only the free market feed back loop, signalling the company that it is on the right track with its products.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812101)

Intel FINALLY after many years brings out ONE product that is equal with the competition in price / performance, is not "trickle down economics", its "well shit, better get our act together or we wont be in this market too much longer"

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41812143)

Whatever your feelings are about Intel's products, this product is cheaper than a similar product 1 year or 2 years ago, it's better, it's faster, it's less power hungry, it has more capacity.

Clearly the investment into the original batch of SSDs paid off and Intel was able to use the profits it made on them to invest into better technology. That is economics (as I said, some call it 'trickle down' economics), but really all real economics is 'trickle down' economics. The more profitable a company becomes, the more it can invest into its products and the lower the prices will be eventually, because more profits brings in more [samsung.com] competition [ocztechnology.com] .

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812227)

its not even cheaper, its average

so having an average price to what everyone else is charging is trickle down economics? not to mention intel was a bit late to the starting gate on SSD's

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (3, Informative)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41812297)

It is not cheaper than Intel's offers from 1 and 2 years ago?

Actually 3 years ago I bought a couple of X-25Ms, 160GB, they were 639USD each.

This one is 240GB at 180USD.

That is not cheaper? Obviously it is 'trickle down' or normal economics, that's how it works. A company sees profits from its product, works on the product more to sell it to a wider market, more people get the product at lower prices.

I see a company giving me a better offer in a positive light, so why are you so upset? You don't like better cheaper deals?

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41813597)

its not cheaper than the competition dimwit, who had their drives out first

and I am not upset that I am getting a cheaper price, but its no where close to trickle down economics, where a fat rich bastard has a little more pocket cash to tip the waiter, therefore the waiter is receiving better benefits from the rich getting richer

god your stupid

God is not stupid. You are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41813865)

"god your stupid" by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29, @10:54PM (#41813597)

See subject and look into using "you're", as in YOU ARE (stupid).

Re:God is not stupid. You are (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41814201)

thanks English professor, no one gives a shit

Wrong. You do care. You replied. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41816289)

"thanks English professor, no one gives a shit" by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 30, @12:30AM (#41814201)

See subject and your downmod (others cared too). Quit being so stupid.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41815901)

Clearly you are too obtuse to comprehend written words.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41812619)

And without Intel, they have been going down in price steadily. Intel does more to form barriers (patents for things obvious to those skilled in the art, allowed because they are magic to those not skilled in the art), and anti-competitive practices, and only after years of losing share to the "poor" do they try to re assert their dominance to kill the poor and take their spoils.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41812701)

Are there any examples of these obvious Intel patents?

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (1)

Amouth (879122) | about 2 years ago | (#41812273)

while they might have just got the price & performance to the same point as everyone else, they have far exceeded everyone in quality for a long time.

Please tell me... (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 years ago | (#41812153)

that you know more about electronics than economics, or anything having to do with the real world. I'd like to think tha tyou are an idiot savant and not just an ordinary idiot.

Re:Please tell me... (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41812199)

I like George Reisman's quote on this

Of course, many people will characterize the line of argument I have just given as the 'trickle-down' theory. There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress, achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory.

Re:Please tell me... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41812687)

Capital flowing from the rich to the poor isn't "trickle down" economics. The more modern idea that more subsidies for the rich and more taxes for the poor will benefit the poor by some "trickle down" is the modern meaning (apparently it changed back around 1980 with the presidential election and Reagan pushing trickle-down, and Bush, famously calling it voodoo economics).

Since the rich have gotten such preferential treatment, life for the poor has gotten worse, not better. If you believe in trickle-down, then you should raise taxes on the rich and give the subsidies to the poor, that's the only way the rich will allow their wealth to trickle down.

Re:Please tell me... (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41815215)

more subsidies for the rich and more taxes for the poor will benefit the poor

- that's a loaded statement. The rich pay more taxes than ever and poor get more subsidies than ever, beyond that, the poor get cheaper products than ever. The capitalists are the actual friends of the poor, though the poor may not recognize it, even when they go shopping and get all the products and services at ridiculously low prices. The actual enemy of the poor is the government, which works hard, every day, to raise prices for the poor by creating fake money, by propping up silly credit bubbles, by running costly wars, by running anti-productive welfare state, which pushes the savings out of the country, by running the police state.

Taxes on the wealthy capitalists in USA have been at confiscatory levels since about the thirties of the last century. The masses have been brainwashed to believe that these high taxes were the reason for the economic boom of the fifties and sixties, of-course nothing is further from the truth. The actual economic boom in USA happened before 1913, when the corporate and income taxes were introduced and when the Fed was established. Of-course it became worse in 1917, when the Fed's mandate was changed to allow it to monetize Treasury debt with fake money.

The real tax that the poor pay is the tax of inflation. That tax is created by the fake money flowing from the fake credit that the Fed 'creates' and that tax pushes businesses, capitalists into other countries, eventually leaving USA without any productive capacity beyond the military contractors, that again, the government props up.

The rich that did get preferential treatment are the ones who are well connected to the government institution, they became the government. This only became possible as the government sold the masses on the idea that they should get something for nothing by taxing those, who actually produce everything.

There is an old saying: those who live by the sword die by the sword, it's quite applicable in this case. Those who decided to confiscate private property from individuals based on the threat of government violence (via income taxes, which are just confiscation of private property, they are not a legitimate tax for legitimate government) they will die by the threat of government violence (destruction of the economy by the taxes, regulations, inflation, and thus abolishment of capitalism, wars, police state, collapse of the living standard due to all of the above.).

Trickle down is simply a misnomer for the supply side economics and the only real economics is supply side economics, and you can easily observe it by looking at who is working, who is supplying and who is consuming.

The ones that are supplying have all the wealth, all the machines, all the tools, all the real management and knowledge, all the productivity.

The ones that are consuming have the printing presses.

Eventually the ones who are supplying will stop giving away their productivity for the paper that comes off the printing presses, because people do not trade for fake currency, they trade to exchange their productivity for productivity of other people, who also must produce, create, in order to have legitimate money.

Re:Please tell me... (2)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 2 years ago | (#41812233)

This is Slashdot. He's not an ordinary idiot. He's an extraordinary idiot.

Re:Please tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812599)

only to the extent that I still post here after all these years, then I may even agree with you.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812163)

Wow... This is both offtopic and wrong...

This is the most *interesting* example of 'trickle down economics' that I have ever seen.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812349)

This is an example of what is known as 'trickle down economics' in action, which means that the more productive a company becomes (by getting profits from its current sales and re-investing the profits into the business, creating more efficiencies, new technologies) the lower it can set the prices accessing bigger and bigger markets.

Those who are poor (compared to Intel for example, because they do not have their own factories to produces these SSDs) are gaining from the rich (Intel investors) and see their lives improve (if they need and buy this product at the lower prices).

That is what all economics is, not a centrally planned economy, aiming at equal outcomes for different people and thus destroying the society by creating discrimination, which requires destruction of individual freedoms. But this is just normal economics (some call it 'trickle down') in action. A company searching for more profit investing its profits and creating new products that end up improving people's lives, and it's done with only the free market feed back loop, signalling the company that it is on the right track with its products.

Umm.. No, that's not what trickle down economics is. Instead, what you've described is simply capitalism actually working -- in a quest to find more revenue a firm is providing supply to customers at lower prices by improving efficiency via R&D.

Trickle-down economics (effectively -- but not exactly -- a pejorative term for supply-side economics) is the idea that a dollar given to those at the top of the socio-economic food chain will be redistributed down through the economy benefiting rather than being horded. It is used contrast against the "classic" or Keynesian view which is that the same dollar given to someone at the bottom will immediately be spent and will therefore work it's way across and up the socio-economic ladder benefiting all. A simple thought exercise which should make you question the validity of that idea:

Give $10 to a bum on the street (or Rush Limbaugh):
      You -> Bum (Rush) -> Crack dealer -> Liquor store -> Liquor Distributor + Gun shop -> Liquor Distiller + UPS + Gun factory -> Farmer + Gas Station + Steel Factory -> ...

Give $10 to Bill Gates:
      You -> Bill Gates -> Nothing

That $10 did not impact Bill's participation in the economy one bit. Bill will buy what he was going to buy before he got the $10. Hell, he could have simply used it to light up a palette of Androids and iPhones to heat his chalet.

Of course, this is grossly oversimplifying the debate, but it highlights why the majority of real economists are not supply-siders. Do yourself a favor and research this on your own before you buy into whatever nonsense you've been hearing (including mine, I suppose) and please try to stop spreading it yourself.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812405)

"Capitalism simply working" has been turned into pejorative 'trickle-down' economics in the West. Probably you should take your own advice and do research on this topic, start with wiki [wikipedia.org] , why not.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41812773)

That's because capitalism doesn't work. No place has tried it. And it leads to runs on tulips.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41815169)

Now that is a troll.

As opposed to all the other times, when /. moderators mode something as a troll, they clearly do not understand the concept of what a troll is, which is clear now, since this one is not moderated accordingly.

Why is it a troll? Because it is contrary to the most obvious fact that there were and there are and there will be plenty of people who use their own savings (capital and private property) to start a business by arranging scarce resources (by managing capital, land an labor) in order to achieve profit by providing customers with some product or service that they would pay for voluntarily.

It is obvious that the above poster understands and knows this simple fact, yet he chooses to post a comment that is contrary to the facts, that is what a legitimate troll comment looks like.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | about 2 years ago | (#41815483)

True indeed.

So, tax the people at the top and give this to the people at the bottom or give them jobs which will benefit society (building new roads, picking up litter etc.) and the rest should be encouraged to use their savings to promote new business.

The people at the top get hammered with extra tax but stimulating the economy should increase should trickle-up to their high value business ventures.

This economics thing is a breeze!

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (0)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41816027)

Well, if your conclusion is that the productive people need to be taxed more to give unproductive people more money to spend, then clearly "this economic thing" is not a breeze. How do you derive your conclusion?

The people at the top spend only as much as they need out of their earnings, the rest is obviously invested. By taxing them you do not take away from their spending, that would make no sense for them, they will keep their spending at the same exact level as they need. You tax their investments. There is such a thing as 'economy of scale', so when you remove money from investments that are used by economies of scale, you reduce economic activity much more than if in fact you taxed somebody who is in a much lower bracket, where the productivity is much less efficient.

Note, that I am not advocating for any income taxes at all, AFAIC there is no more destructive tax than income tax. If somebody wanted to come up with a tax, on purpose, that would hurt economy in the most profound way, they could not have designed a tax more insidious than an income tax for this purpose.

Building new roads, picking up litter, all of this is good for the economy that has enough excess capacity that it can waste it, because that's a wasted effort. It is only marginally better than offensive wars, because while effort is wasted in either case, at least when people pick up trash there is less trash laying around. However neither of those activities (trash, wars, roads) improves the balance of trade.

It does not matter how much trash is picked up. Unless your importers are happy to be paid in trash that you pick up, this trash (and the fact that it is picked up) only does one thing: it requires reduction in real economic activity (via taxes) and requires the money, that otherwise can be spent on real economic activity (productive activity) to be given to people who are at that point not part of the legitimate economy.

Actually that is where there is the true multiplier effect (not the nonsense that the Keynesians like to talk about). The productive investments are reduced, to there is less economic activity. The people are moved into the public sector, so government grows and all the activities grow that depend on the taxes. The people are moved from the productive private sector into the public sector, so that there are fewer resources in the private sector, this may have an effect of raising prices in an inefficient manner. The people are paid money from the taxes and end up buying goods produced elsewhere, thus the trade imbalance grows bigger rather than getting smaller.

What you call 'stimulating economy' in fact is the exact opposite, it's chocking the economy. That's the reason the economy is where it is in the first place. This economics thing is a breeze.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#41814143)

I know you said your example was grossly simplified, but it's also simplified to the point of misrepresentation. Rich people don't just let their money sit there. If they did, they'd become less rich through inflation. The hypothetical Bill Gates sequence runs more like this:

You -> Bill Gates -> Investment Manager -> Expanding Business -> Employee -> Supermarket + Landlord + Gas Station -> Farmer + Logistics Company + Oil Company -> ...

Now, whether that actually benefits low socio-economic groups is another question, but the rich don't generally just sit on their cash.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41814257)

I think the point is that a hypothetical billionaire given more money will not change his behaviour perceptibly. Give Bill G an extra $10 and sure he'll probably invest it but that will not significantly flow back into the economy. He won't go "Oh this $10 is just what I was waiting for to enable me to buy the latest Devo CD" - If Bill wants something he's already bought it. Also, an extra $10 when you have $1Bn under management is not going to increase anybody's fees.

The same $10 given to someone with next to nothing will be immediately spent (not necessarily wisely) but it will be spent. The money will then circulate as described in the grandparent.

Trickle down economics is - quite simply - hogwash, designed to fool stupid people into voting for politicians that take money off of them and give it to the very wealthy who pay for the politicians. Simply put, if you earn less than $250,000/year (possibly more) and you vote for the current incarnation of the republicans you are acting against your best interests. It wasn't always so but it has been ever since Reagan.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#41814311)

Give Bill G an extra $10 and sure he'll probably invest it but that will not significantly flow back into the economy

What do you think investing is, if not flowing back into the economy? "Significantly" is a meaningless qualification, unless you'd care to define it further.

Re:A tiny example of trickle down economics in act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41815843)

You've fallen for the fallacy that when rich people have money, they invest it, and all investment leads to more economic activity. Unfortunately, it's not true. Real investment that creates wealth only happens when there's enough demand for the wealth created.

Who can't do math? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812065)

20 is 20% smaller than 25.

25nm - ( 20% * 25nm) = 20nm

Re:Who can't do math? (3, Informative)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 2 years ago | (#41812283)

(1-(167mm^2-118mm^2))=0.2934, or approximately 29%. They were referring to the area of the die.

Re:Who can't do math? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41812745)

You know, bored_engineer, that's the kind of answer I'd expect from someone with a strong mathematics background and a lot of spare time.

Re:Who can't do math? (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 2 years ago | (#41813527)

Alas, the spare time has diminished and the errors creep in. . .

Re:Who can't do math? (2)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 2 years ago | (#41813181)

(1-(167mm^2-118mm^2))=0.2934

No, that equation reduces to 1 - 49.I am pretty sure you meant 1 - (118/167), which is ~0.2934.

I realise your name is bored_engineer, but that's no excuse for sloppy maths ;)

Re:Who can't do math? (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 2 years ago | (#41813503)

Thanks for the humour in your correction. The "-" is right below "/" on the Dvorak keyboard, which I type blindly as the office won't buy me a "proper" keyboard. I'm usually a bit better at double-checking my work.

Re:Who can't do math? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 2 years ago | (#41814211)

Well, I did figure it was a typo of sorts. It's not exactly ground breaking maths to derive a percentage decrease :D

Re:Who can't do math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812285)

What matters here is area, not linear dimensions of minimum feature size. I get 36% smaller features (in area), so I suppose there is some overheard in the scaling; its not a trivial die shrink (darn quantum mechanics I suppose). There most likely are some design changes in the spacing at least.

You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812303)

There's 2 dimensions in play on a chip.

Still not sure where the 29% comes from since the square dimensions would be 36% smaller, but perhaps they've spaced the cells a bit apart for some reason.

Re:Who can't do math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812329)

The percentage reduction quoted is area, not the reduction in one dimension.
Obviously they didn't manage a full 20% reduction in both dimensions, since that would be 36% smaller area. Which doesn't correspond to the 118/167 area change of the chips.

Re:Who can't do math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41813091)

20 is 20% smaller than 25.

25nm - ( 20% * 25nm) = 20nm

Who can't RTFA?

help me understand! (2)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | about 2 years ago | (#41812239)

Just wondering: Is there a point (or is this close to it) where in using HDDs and certain RAID configurations, you can match or beat speed while maintaining better redundancy with larger capacity, cheaper drives? What is the main application these excel at? I assume power would be one, and cached content on webservers? Help me understand :-)

Re:help me understand! (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41812551)

Laptops are one obvious win, since only the largest ones can even contain a RAID of any flavor, and certainly not a properly cooled 15k SAS type arrangement.

When you aren't dealing with form-factor constraints, though, the big deal is random access. SSDs are only moderately superior(and some are actually worse) than HDDs for big, well-behaved, linear reads and writes. If you are faced with lots and lots of requests for little chunks from all over the disk, though, mechanical HDDs fall off a cliff and SSDs don't.

Re:help me understand! (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | about 2 years ago | (#41812963)

I gotcha. Thanks for the reply!

Re:help me understand! (2)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#41815345)

Uh, no. NAND flash does not allow you to read random data - it loads or unloads pages of data (depending on the page size - typically 64kB or higher). Whereas w/ HDDs, the disc contents are copies to a cache and then accessed by the CPU, so random access there is very much possible

Re:help me understand! (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#41812887)

Just wondering: Is there a point (or is this close to it) where in using HDDs

Yes, and the crossover point will vary depending on how much data you want to store and how much you want at once. Hybrid solutions like using an SSD as the cache drive in ZFS change that point as well. A pile of recent drives of any kind will saturate gigabit if you have enough of them.

Re:help me understand! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41813075)

Are you actually that short sighted or just being a twat for the sake of being a twat. Give it a few years and these will be 2TB and $50. Light years faster than unreliable spinning drives, and fully RAIDable for whatever lunatic performance you want.

People who need very highspeed IO are already RAIDing SSDs with incredible results. Not like the large array you have for porn and TV shows.

Re:help me understand! (1)

Tarkhein (2007710) | about 2 years ago | (#41813297)

SSDs are not about speed, that's just a side effect of their true nature. The reason you use SSDs is because of their low latency (and high IOPS).

Re:help me understand! (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 2 years ago | (#41814823)

How exactly are latency and IOPS not measures of speed?

Re:help me understand! (1)

Tarkhein (2007710) | about 2 years ago | (#41815119)

Did you just conveniently ignore the context of my post? The 'speed' I was referring to is the high latency, low IOPS of multiple drives in RAID0 (as compared to an SSD). Sequential throughput might be similar, but there are other benchmarks in which hard drives are inferior.

Re:help me understand! (1)

loneDreamer (1502073) | about 2 years ago | (#41813489)

If redundancy is what you want you will sacrifice even more latency. In general, the latency (speed, but other considerations also apply) benefit of SSD has to do with fetching the required data directly, instead of waiting for the head of the disk to move along the radius (seek-time), and for the disk to rotate to the correct location, or both. These issues dominate performance in a HDD, unless the files are big and contiguous, in which case transfer time gets more important and thus the benefit of SSD over HDD diminishes.

Now, a RAID can have multiple disks working concurrently, so you will see a benefit only if your workflow involves reading a lot of files in parallel. Note that extra redundancy has additional penalties on writes, since consistency needs to be considered (and copies or parity blocks updated).
So, in a sense, it all depends on the actual workload. Redundancy can actually make things slower.

IMHO, the most interesting idea is a hybrid, that (with decent logic that may not be there) can choose which type of media is more useful given the concrete situation (read/write, big/small, etc). At least till SSD reaches a price point were no longer matters.

Re:help me understand! (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41813577)

Hard drives arrays can be fast at sequential transfers but they suck at random access as tends to happen when doing things like loading software or running most types of server.

Re:help me understand! (1)

godrik (1287354) | about 2 years ago | (#41813835)

SSDs typically have read write sustained bandwidth around 500MB/s. You would need about 4 HDD to catch up with that speed. Moreover RAID is not going to do much about latency which is one of the most important point with SSDs. The power consumption of SSDs is much lower than that of a single HDD. The only good thing about HDDs is their price per GB.

Re:help me understand! (2)

Mad Merlin (837387) | about 2 years ago | (#41814275)

Just wondering: Is there a point (or is this close to it) where in using HDDs and certain RAID configurations, you can match or beat speed while maintaining better redundancy with larger capacity, cheaper drives? What is the main application these excel at? I assume power would be one, and cached content on webservers? Help me understand :-)

You'd need several dozen hard drives to even approach the IOPS of a single consumer level SSD. The SSD wins so many times over it's not funny.

Now, if you're talking about sequential read/write speeds, that's a whole different matter. You'd need roughly 3-4 hard drives (in RAID 0 (no redundancy)... double that figure for RAID 10) to match the typical sequential read/write speeds of an SSD. At that point, the raw cost of the hard drives far exceeds that of the SSD, and that's ignoring the need for the extra SATA ports, cooling, physical space and the extra drive failures you need to deal with. So, the SSD wins again, hands down.

Now, say you needed to store more than roughly 200 gigabytes of data and performance didn't matter at all, in that case, hard drive(s) will be more cost effective than SSDs.

Basically, hard drives excel at bulk storage of stuff where performance doesn't matter. SSDs excel at everything else.

so this fixes smaller cell = less reliability? (3, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 2 years ago | (#41812377)

Last I heard, failure rate was directly tied to process size. Does any of this fix that?

Also: Sandforce controller? Way to go, Intel - Sandforce is a bucket of fail:

https://www.google.com/search?q=sandforce+freeze [google.com]

and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SandForce#Issues [wikipedia.org]

and more...

Re:so this fixes smaller cell = less reliability? (1)

mactard (1223412) | about 2 years ago | (#41812683)

Intel writes their own firmware, they just use the SandForce controller. That's why Intel SSDs are rock solid and other SandForce SSDs are garbage.

Rock solid? Yeah right... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812847)

My experience with Sandforce based Intel SSD's was rubbish. Bought a SSD 330 120GB, constant freezing. Sent it back, got a replacement - still freezing. The seller gave me a free 'upgrade' to a SSD 520 120GB as an apology for the trouble. Guess what? Still freezing all the time. Got a refund, went and bought a Samsung SSD 830 128GB (based on Samsung's own controller), and is as solid as a rock - might not be as speedy, but it was £20 less and actually *works*.

Re:Rock solid? Yeah right... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812999)

Talk about rubbish. I have 4 Intel SSD 330 in a build system constantly churning away with rock solid stability. Maybe it's time for you to step away from the computer and find a new profession and/or hobby.

Re:Rock solid? Yeah right... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41814741)

What do you mean by 'freezing'? Depending on your OS, the issue may actually be with the SATA controller/driver. There is a Windows hotfix for Win7/2k8R2 addresssing the inbox driver.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to sign in.

Re:so this fixes smaller cell = less reliability? (2)

ne0n (884282) | about 2 years ago | (#41813709)

Not quite. Intel debugs and modifies the firmware to a mild degree. Although Intel fixes certain SandForce bugs, mainly specific to Intel's own needs, these fixes may eventually trickle down to other OEMs after an expiration period of 6-12 months. We've seen this happen a few times recently. I wouldn't buy more SandForce because of it though.

Re:so this fixes smaller cell = less reliability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812879)

This is why most hosting providers won't touch any SSD's with Sandforce controllers, so most are either still using the Intel 320 and/or the Samsung 830.

It still remains to be seen whether Sandforce controllers with Intel firmware are reliable enough for production environments.

Re:so this fixes smaller cell = less reliability? (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41813227)

Last I heard, failure rate was directly tied to process size. Does any of this fix that?

I haven't heard anything about failure rate, but smaller process size generally means it will wear out earlier. Anandtech's review [anandtech.com] says it is still rated at 3000 P/E (program/erase cycles) like the 25nm NAND that preceded it, but they found some very disturbing results of less than 1000 P/E so I'd definitively wait to see how that checks out. Personally I'm sitting on a 5K-rated drive that according to the life meter should die after three years, so yeah... these new SSDs may be "cheap", but they're also consumables. The speed is addictive though so I'll just get a small and fairly cheap one until the dust settles, then maybe I'll spring for an "enterprise" SSD. They often have 10x the life span, so if I say 3 years for this one I'm thinking 30 years. That's good enough.

Write Endurance (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 years ago | (#41812581)

Awesome, so now we're down to what, nine erasures before it's cooked?

Re:Write Endurance (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41812749)

TFS:

allowing it to offer the same performance and reliability characteristics of the 25-nm stuff.

There is no "down to" it is "the same as"

Re:Write Endurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41812811)

At least according to the press released written by Intel's marketing department, which would understandably love to sell gobs of the stuff.

Re:Write Endurance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41813123)

Intel has always been pretty conservative in their marketed specs with respect to endurance. I have no reason to doubt their honesty now.

77c/GB? I can live with that (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41812641)

As long as the hardware can provably outlast a spinning HDD, I'd be more than happy.

Re:77c/GB? I can live with that (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 years ago | (#41812703)

Not at 77c/GB it won't.

Re:77c/GB? I can live with that (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41812779)

Before or after someone accidentally puts an HP part number sticker over the breather hole on the mechanical hard drive?

Re:77c/GB? I can live with that (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#41813627)

Time will tell, I still have spinning disks from the late 1980's that work like a champ in my retro computer corner

(pluS One Informative) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41814291)

am protesting lesson and Bought the farm... will recall that it KKep unnecessary [tux.org]? Are you You loved that

reply (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41814575)

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.mcrushingplant.com
http://www.crusher007.com
http://www.sand-making-machine.com
http://www.china-impact-crusher.com
http://www.cnshunky.com
http://www.bestssj.com
http://www.shunkyen.com
http://www.crusheren.com
http://www.crusher02.com
http://www.portablecrusherplant.net
http://www.csconecrusher.com

No emergency power = not for serious users (2)

thue (121682) | about 2 years ago | (#41815463)

Serious users should insist on SSD with a battery or super capacitor [wikipedia.org] . If not, then you might lose data in internal caches [2ndquadrant.com] in an unclean shutdown.

Unlike the Intel 320 series, I can't find anywhere whether the 335 series has backup power, so I strongly assume that it doesn't.

Re:No emergency power = not for serious users (2)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 years ago | (#41815617)

Does a forced reset (i.e. Windows crash) count as a shutdown here?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>