The Corsair User Forums  

Go Back   The Corsair User Forums > Corsair Product Discussion > Solid State Drives (SSD)

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 16 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Yellowbeard's Avatar
Yellowbeard Yellowbeard is offline
Corsair Tech Mktg
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Atlanta,GA, USA.
Posts: 11,213
POST ID # = 489829
Yellowbeard Reputation: 45
Send a message via AIM to Yellowbeard
Default Some Q/A on SSDs with 25nm ICs

We have fielded a fair number of questions recently on the SSD transition from 34 nanometer (34nm) to 25 nanometer (25nm) technology. The following Q&A should help to answer all the questions that we are seeing. We hope this helps!

What is 25nm technology?
25nm technology refers to the feature size of the transistors that are used to make the flash ICs. As the process geometry gets smaller, the capacity of the ICs gets larger, and they become less expensive to manufacture.

How is it different from earlier technologies?
Flash ICs based on 25nm transistors are fairly unique in that the transistors have now become so small that it is starting to become difficult to store a charge on them. Engineers compensate for this by creating very sophisticated error correcting circuits. However, while guaranteeing your data, these transistors create some overhead in terms of capacity and/or performance.

Will all SSD suppliers be making this transition?
Yes. Sometime later in the spring, 34nm ICs will be totally gone from the market, for all suppliers. Furthermore, 25nm SSDs is likely to become significantly less expensive then 34nm on a price-per-gigabyte basis as the technology matures.

When will Corsair be making this transition?
We are starting to make this transition now. We have just launched our first 25nm drives, an F80 and an F115.

How can I tell what technology my drive is based on?
All Corsair 25nm-based Force SSDs will have a part number that ends in "-A". And, if the same capacity is already offered in 34nm technology, we will be very clear about noting any lowered specifications. For example, our current 34nm F80 is sold with a guaranteed read speed of 285 MB/s and write speed of 275MB/s; the F80 "-A" will have specifications of 280 MB/s and 270 MB/s, respectively. You will be able to tell what you have by looking at the part number that is printed on the drive.

What are the Force "-A" capacities that Corsair will be offering?
Our roadmap and transition plans follow:
  • 80GB Force SSDs: We currently have F80 and F90 SSDs on the market that are based on 34nm technology, and have just launched an F80 "-A" that is based on 25nm technology. Note that the F80 "-A" uses additional flash ICs to achieve the 80GB density rating.
  • 120GB Force SSDs: We currently have an F120 in the market that is based on 34nm technology. We have just launched an F115 "-A" SSD that is based on 25nm technology. As mentioned before, the reduced capacity is due to increased overhead required by the new technology. Along with the reduced size, the F115 "-A" is about $15 less expensive than the F120 at the time this article was published.
  • 180GB and 240GB Force SSDs. Both the F180 and the F240 are currently available based on 34nm technology. Anticipated improvements in controller firmware will allow us to migrate both these products to 25nm with no loss in drive capacity. We expect to migrate these drives to 25nm F180 "-A" and F240 "-A" in late March, 2011.
  • 40GB and 60GB Force SSDs. Both the F40 and F60 are currently built using 34nm ICs. We will migrate these drives to a new design based on 25nm technology in late March. Since the capacity of these drives is already fairly modest, the F40 "-A" and the F60 "-A" will use a design that maintains density, increases performance, but will cost nominally more as a result.

What performance differences should I expect to see with Force "-A" drives?
To give a reasonable idea regarding performance differences, we have run testing of the F120 SSD against the F115 "-A" SSD and the F80 "-A". All tests were run on the same individual test platform, and both drives were fresh from sealed drives. While there are indeed performance differences, the F115 "-A" performs competitively with the F120. The F80 "-A" is slower in some tests, though this isdue in part to the different drive implementation. We will update these results with the 34nm F90 as the results are available; this will provide a better head-to-head comparison with the F80 "-A".

The complete set of test results are included at the bottom of this post.

How long will Corsair continue to sell 34nm Force SSDs?
Well, to be honest, we will continue to sell them until we run out of them! If I had to guess when that will happen, I would say it will begin to happen sometime in mid to late March, 2011.

Where do I go if I have more questions?
We hope that we have answered most questions here. But, if you have further questions, there is a thread on this topic at Corsair's forum. Or, feel free to contact Corsair technical support.

Appendix: Performance testing results
All tests were run on a Intel "Sandy Bridge" platform running Windows 7 64-bit with Intel Core i5-2400 CPU, MSI P67-GD65 motherboard, and Nvidia GeForce 240GT video card. A Corsair V64 SSD was used as the boot drive, and the drives under test were configured as secondary drives. Note that these test results are accurate for this test platform, but may vary on other platforms.

Performance Comparisons
PC Mark Vantage 64-bit (1.0.2.0)F120 34nmF115-A 25nmF80-A 25nm
HDD Test Suite (Overall Score)37,62437,966.0038,168.0
HDD - Windows Defender178.67 B/s177.31 B/s177.12 B/s
HDD - gaming148.6 B/s146.51 B/s144.97 B/s
HDD - importing pictures to209.94 B/s207.22 B/s207.4 B/s
HDD - Windows Vista startup191.48 B/s208.32 B/s207.0 B/s
HDD - video editing using Windows145.51 B/s159.08 B/s152.0 B/s
HDD - Windows Media231.36 B/s227.39 B/s224.75 B/s
HDD - adding music to Windows127.54 B/s126.38 B/s141.91 B/s
HDD - application loading194.41 B/s186.84 B/s187.01 B/s

Crystal Disk Mark 3.0 x64F120 34nmF115-A 25nmF80-A 25nm
Sequential- Read211.6 MB/s227.7 MB/s168.5 MB/s
Sequential- Write85.89 MB/s81.01 MB/s58.31 MB/s
512K- Read197.4 MB/s212.3 MB/s160.5 MB/s
512K- Write82.17 MB/s80.41 MB/s58.08 MB/s
4K- Read21.02 MB/s18.54 MB/s17.89 MB/s
4K- Write52.93 MB/s51.49 MB/s50.87 MB/s
4K QD32- Read124.6 MB/s95.62 MB/s90.02 MB/s
4K QD32- Write85.79 MB/s80.24 Mb/s57.96 MB/s

IO Meter Alignment 4k 100% Write 100% RandomF120 34nmF115-A 25nmF80-A 25nm
Total I/O’s Per Second39,398.4939,828.7636,935.02
Total MBs per Second153.9155.58144.28

ATTO v. 2.41F120 34nmF115-A 25nmF80-A 25nm
4KB Read117.28 MB/s113.92 MB/s112.34 MB/s
4KB Write151.89 MB/s151.62 MB/s147.16 MB/s
64KB Read260.99 MB/s256.65 MB/s251.16 MB/s
64KB Write269.33 MB/s264.87 MB/s262.27MB/s
4MB Read282.56 MB/s276.16 MB/s278.46 MB/s
4MB Write272.24 MB/s267.89 MB/s268.43 MB/s

Transfer 10GB (4,326 random files) Stop WatchF120 34nmF115-A 25nmF80-A 25nm
V64 transferring to tested Drive2:232:082:56
Copy and Paste from same location on tested drive4:283:124:12

HD TuneF120 34nmF115-A 25nmF80-A 25nm
Minimum170.6 MB/s177.7 MB/s93.4 MB/s
Maximum178.6 MB/s184.8 MB/s175.8 MB/s
Average176.4 MB/s181.3 MB/s164.4 MB/s

AS SSD Benchmark 1.5.3784.37609F120 34nmF115-A 25nmF80-A 25nm
Overall Score383307272

Corsair Blog Post
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: XMSYELLOWBEARD

Make friends on Facebook: XMSYELLOWBEARD

Last edited by Yellowbeard; 02-18-2011 at 04:49 PM. Reason: added bbcode
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #2  
Old 02-19-2011, 04:50 AM
BogdanH BogdanH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3
POST ID # = 490033
BogdanH Reputation: 10
Default

Hi,

I'm one of those, who bought (now) "famous" ******** 120G SSD 25nm (btw. it is my first SSD) -which is the reason I've landed here.
I assume you will say "we don't know about ********...", but here's my question anyway...
Acoording specs I've read, Corsair F120 and ******** 120 are/were very, very similar. Now, Corsair is moving to 25nm as ******** did recently (you know "the story" about that move).
Above, you well explained some points and consequences about 34nm to 25nm move and supported that with benchmarks. From my experience of using SDD, benchmarks only tell partial story. Anyway, what I would like to know is:
1. How many nand chips 25nm series will contain? From what I've read, by halving number of nand chips (as ******** did), performance of SandForce drops -which isn't that obvious in benchmarks, but it is in real usage.
2. How about lifespan of 25nm chips compared to 34nm?

Greetings,
Bogdan

PS: Excuse my poor English -it isn't my native language.
PPS: Didn't know mentioning other brands is forbidden -sorry. I just tried to make clear, from where my questions come.

Last edited by Wired; 02-19-2011 at 05:57 PM. Reason: don't edit the filter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #3  
Old 04-09-2011, 03:52 AM
M.Quick M.Quick is offline
Registered User
M.Quick's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Stockholm / Sweden
Posts: 19
POST ID # = 497439
M.Quick Reputation: 10
Default

Can you give us closer info on the AS SSD test? What individual test scores where gotten? Transfer rates, access times, and IOPS for each test, just like you are showing us on all the other tests, i wonder why you won't show the AS SSD test though..?

Compared to the rivals those scores look bad but as there isn't any further info on the AS SSD test, we cannot draw any further conclusion on what it's worse at. Why is this info hidden? Anything that isn't revealed is usually something people won't or are not willing to show because of the drawbacks or other negative aspects, so i'm not saying it is like that, but people will usually assume this until more info is shown.

And i asked in my own thread why the 25nm isn't faster than the 32nm, and i got linked to this thread, hoping i would find that answer, but i can only find out that the 25nm better at some things, but definately not everything as new tech usually is. Any clarification on this?

Last edited by M.Quick; 04-09-2011 at 03:57 AM.
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #4  
Old 04-09-2011, 11:05 PM
Wired's Avatar
Wired Wired is offline
Administrator
Wired's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 31,998
POST ID # = 497516
Wired Reputation: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Quick View Post
And i asked in my own thread why the 25nm isn't faster than the 32nm, and i got linked to this thread, hoping i would find that answer, but i can only find out that the 25nm better at some things, but definately not everything as new tech usually is. Any clarification on this?
Already answered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellowbeard View Post
Flash ICs based on 25nm transistors are fairly unique in that the transistors have now become so small that it is starting to become difficult to store a charge on them. Engineers compensate for this by creating very sophisticated error correcting circuits. However, while guaranteeing your data, these transistors create some overhead in terms of capacity and/or performance.
__________________
No, I don't work for Corsair
...you need to flow like a river...
Forum Rules
Admin of this forum / webdesignforums.net / Petri's IT Forum / The Corsair Memory Steam Group
Founder/Creator/Admin of ZE SECRET PROJECT (Coming Soon)
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #5  
Old 04-15-2011, 04:06 AM
ayunet ayunet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1
POST ID # = 498306
ayunet Reputation: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wired View Post
Already answered:
Hi Admin, I think his questions are not fully answered. I believe he wants to know why isn't the new 25nm transistors better overall than the 34nm transistors as most of time the time, new tech are usually overall better than the tech they are replacing.

And I'm also curious. From the test results, it seems that the 25nm transistor is only marginally better than the old tech in certain areas. But the 34nm transistor betters it by a significant percentage in many other areas. If the 25nm transistor doesn't perform as well (lower capacity and speed), why the need to change to it?
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #6  
Old 04-15-2011, 04:18 AM
faugusztin faugusztin is offline
Registered User
faugusztin's PC Specs
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 37
POST ID # = 498307
faugusztin Reputation: 10
Default

@aynet: Manufacturing costs. Same chip is taking up only 25/34 = 73.5% of the space used by 34nm. Means you can put more chips on one waffer, means lower overall production costs.
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #7  
Old 04-15-2011, 04:27 PM
Wired's Avatar
Wired Wired is offline
Administrator
Wired's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 31,998
POST ID # = 498405
Wired Reputation: 16
Default

Correct. Again, this is also covered in the first 2 Q&A responses.
__________________
No, I don't work for Corsair
...you need to flow like a river...
Forum Rules
Admin of this forum / webdesignforums.net / Petri's IT Forum / The Corsair Memory Steam Group
Founder/Creator/Admin of ZE SECRET PROJECT (Coming Soon)
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #8  
Old 07-29-2011, 03:53 AM
tcphung tcphung is offline
Registered User
tcphung's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3
POST ID # = 516013
tcphung Reputation: 10
Default force 60 vs force 60A

can they still be raided in a rad0?
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.