• Intel and Micron unveils new 3D NAND technology - makes it possibly to create SSD's with 10TB of sto
    77 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Major_Vice;47407871]I mean how many gigs is a 4K full length film? At a high frame rate?[/QUOTE] Compressed 1080p video is about 8-12gb per two hours. 4k should be 4x that and high frame rate should be double that for 48fps or 2.5x that for 60fps. (32-48gb for 4k, 64-96gb for 48fps 4k, 80-120gb for 60fps 4k.)
[QUOTE=Alice3173;47408210]Compressed 1080p video is about 8-12gb per two hours. 4k should be 4x that and high frame rate should be double that for 48fps or 2.5x that for 60fps. (32-48gb for 4k, 64-96gb for 48fps 4k, 80-120gb for 60fps 4k.)[/QUOTE] Resolution and framerate does not linearly increase the filesize of compressed video. The size of compressed video differs are a lot too, the master might be 80mbit, the blueray is like 20, and the one you see on netflix is like 3-6. And the end of the road what most people watch without any low bitrate artifacts is maybe like 1-3 gb big for a full movie.
[QUOTE=Cold;47408318]Resolution and framerate does not linearly increase the filesize of compressed video.[/QUOTE] Can you elaborate on why it doesn't? It seems like it would, at least for resolution. Though I can see why it may not for frame rate however.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;47408396]Can you elaborate on why it doesn't? It seems like it would, at least for resolution. Though I can see why it may not for frame rate however.[/QUOTE] For framerate, pretty much all video encoding formats, compress their video relative to the next and previous frames. The higher the frame-rate the smaller the differences between frames. Because the world does not move twice as fast when recording twice the framerate. Video encoding formats are complex, and smart. Pixels aren't described as pixels, they are described as blocks, and vectors and movement of these blocks, these processes are partially resolution independent The same goes for the resolution as when you increase the resolution, you don't increase the complexity of the world, a white wall in your scene will still be described as a white wall regardless of what resolution you view the world with. The youtube recomended 720p bitrate, is 2500kbps, the 1080p is 4500kpbs, the increase in pixels is 225% the increase in bitrate is 180%. The twitch recomended 720p bitrate, is 2150, the 1080p recomended bitrate is 3250, the increase in pixels is 225% the increase in bitrate is 151%
[QUOTE=Cold;47407924]Yep, the article makes it sound like there some huge innovation of some sort, but its actually just them entering the market. [/QUOTE] 3D NAND has been around for a little while, but it's never been done like this
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47408708]3D NAND has been around for a little while, but it's never been done like this[/QUOTE] I have seen no news site report any significant difference betwheen either Toshiba's Intels or Samsungs 3d nand technologies. Can you please point out to me how its "never been done like this", and where this innovates, compared to the 3d NAND samsung developed and shipped.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;47406853]Yeah sure for the average person SSD lifespans are fine.. but we're not talking about that dude, did you even read my post? 72TB of written data is pathetic for any heavy-duty work, I hope you're not planning on doing anything besides gaming or browsing the web with that SSD.[/QUOTE] Also Lain was talking about a consumer drive. People with those requirements are at least going to shell out for a prosumer drive like my 730, which has far higher ability.
[QUOTE=Cold;47408734] Can you please point out to me how its "never been done like this", and where this innovates, compared to the 3d NAND samsung developed and shipped.[/QUOTE] "As I thoroughly explained in our Samsung 850 Pro review, one of the key issues with planar NAND is the shrinking number of electrons. Because 3D NAND can utilize a much larger cell structure due to the fact that scaling is done vertically rather than horizontally, the number of electrons is considerably higher, which improves both endurance and performance. [B]The slide Intel and Micron shared shows that their 3D NAND will have roughly the same number of electrons as their 50nm process did (or actually slightly more), which is over a tenfold improvement compared to the latest 16nm node.[/B]" - [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/show/9114/intelmicron-share-additional-details-of-their-3d-nand"]Anandtech[/URL]
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47408865]"As I thoroughly explained in our Samsung 850 Pro review, one of the key issues with planar NAND is the shrinking number of electrons. Because 3D NAND can utilize a much larger cell structure due to the fact that scaling is done vertically rather than horizontally, the number of electrons is considerably higher, which improves both endurance and performance. [B]The slide Intel and Micron shared shows that their 3D NAND will have roughly the same number of electrons as their 50nm process did (or actually slightly more), which is over a tenfold improvement compared to the latest 16nm node.[/B]" - [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/show/9114/intelmicron-share-additional-details-of-their-3d-nand"]Anandtech[/URL][/QUOTE] That is comparing intels 3d nand to their 2d Nand, and not samsungs 3d nand. I am not sure what i am supposed to conclude from this quote. [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] infact, [quote]Samsung's V-NAND takes a more relaxed position on the X and Y axes by going back to a 40nm process node, which increases the cell size and leaves more room between individual cells, eliminating the major issues 2D NAND has.[/quote] I am not sure how much electrons per cell the 850 pro V-Nand has compared to intels technology, but with 40nm its gonna be significantly more then the 16nm of the 2d nand drivers.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47406520]Hopefully, I'm actually amazed the HDD survived so long being as slow and unreliable as it is [/QUOTE] Idunno where you're buying your platter drives, but I haven't had any problems whatsoever with reliability, and I keep my drives for a ridiculous amount of time. I'm still using a 120gb IDE drive that was state of the art when I got it. Admittedly the only thing I use it for these days is a museum, nothing I ever access on a normal timescale resides there, but it's still in my system and it's still humming along happily.
[QUOTE=TestECull;47409675]Idunno where you're buying your platter drives, but I haven't had any problems whatsoever with reliability, and I keep my drives for a ridiculous amount of time. I'm still using a 120gb IDE drive that was state of the art when I got it. Admittedly the only thing I use it for these days is a museum, nothing I ever access on a normal timescale resides there, but it's still in my system and it's still humming along happily.[/QUOTE] More or less the same here. I'm still using a 500GB drive I got back in 2009, runs like a champ. SMART data's still fine for it too, so it's got some time left on it. I think when it fails, I'll just switch to SSD entirely, and host my files on a NAS.
The only issues with SSDs are the price
[QUOTE=TestECull;47409675]Idunno where you're buying your platter drives, but I haven't had any problems whatsoever with reliability, and I keep my drives for a ridiculous amount of time. I'm still using a 120gb IDE drive that was state of the art when I got it. Admittedly the only thing I use it for these days is a museum, nothing I ever access on a normal timescale resides there, but it's still in my system and it's still humming along happily.[/QUOTE] I have 2x500GB drives which are really old now and I ran out of space so I bought a 2TB one, but my parents' PC went through 3 HDDs so far, each of them died in a different way, it's just luck I guess. I just [I]strongly dislike[/I] magnetic and optical storage, mostly because it's so dreadfully slow compared to everything else inside a PC that is thousands times faster. Imagine if console games stopped using blurays and used memory cards instead, you'd never have to install them ever, and the loading times would be way shorter as well, the only problem is the cost, hopefully this technology will make smaller memory cards cheaper.
Now how about resistive RAM like this? [url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/8796/crossbars-resistive-ram-technology-reaching-commercialization-stage-soon[/url] Its like flash memory but much faster and can have high read/write cycles. And they claimed that scaling below 10 nm improves reliability And memristors. I hope that SSD will become cheaper so everyone could use it, as I have seen several hard drives broken because falling, or a airsoft magazine fall on top of a laptop and its hard drive is broken, or it just dead by itself.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47407151] I have about 2.5 tb, I'm only almost filling 1tb.[/QUOTE] I have 1tb and i'm always deleting stuff because i'm constantly near 900gb+ I could easily fill up more than 2tb
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47411427] Imagine if console games stopped using blurays and used memory cards instead, you'd never have to install them ever, and the loading times would be way shorter as well, the only problem is the cost, hopefully this technology will make smaller memory cards cheaper.[/QUOTE] Not all memory cards are made the same. They also have speed ratings and part of the price is based on that speed.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47407151] I have about 2.5 tb, I'm only almost filling 1tb.[/QUOTE] Lucky you... PC: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/y4o0sF3.png[/IMG] NAS: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/us2mrCS.png[/IMG] I must admit that I have some stuff which take a lot of space (raw video from full hd camera and virtual instruments libraries) but even if I haven't had this stuff I would've fill up all this space with various crap pretty fast.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47411427]Imagine if console games stopped using blurays and used memory cards instead, you'd never have to install them ever, and the loading times would be way shorter as well, the only problem is the cost, hopefully this technology will make smaller memory cards cheaper.[/QUOTE] You mean kinda like Nintendo still does with its handhelds and used to do with their consoles as well up until the Gamecube? It's not quite exactly the same as what you're talking about in the case of the console cartridges and the pre-DS handhelds but it was the same basic idea. And DS/DSi/3DS cartridges are basically modified SD cards.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47411427] I just [I]strongly dislike[/I] magnetic and optical storage, mostly because it's so dreadfully slow compared to everything else inside a PC that is thousands times faster.[/quote] Still fast enough to get the job done, I 'spose. My only complaint about my platter drives is that they're not big enough. NEed more space. My 320gb unit has 42 gigs free, my 120gb museum drive is brimmed, my 1tb drive has 93 gigs free. And that's after I went through and nuked shit, at one point it was 500mb free. [quote]Imagine if console games stopped using blurays and used memory cards instead, you'd never have to install them ever, and the loading times would be way shorter as well, the only problem is the cost, hopefully this technology will make smaller memory cards cheaper.[/QUOTE] The only things that would change would be: Slightly harder to pirate console games(A 100 pack of high-cap DVDs is like ten bucks, whereas a single writeable cart will be about the same as a used copy of the game that'd get written to it anyway) Justification for $120+ on launch Making it slightly harder to pirate console games is all fine and dandy, but honestly we'd be better served putting the SSD in the console where we currently put a platter drive, then continue to use optical media and digital downloads to distribute the games. They run off the SSD, so they get the same speed boost, but we have one less reason for game companies to gouge us even harder on something they're already gouging the shit out of us on.
Brick-and-mortar stores need to go the way of the dodo. It's one of the reasons why digital triple-A games on Steam are the same price as boxed copies in spite of not needing to manufacture a disc, because if they were cheaper than console discs GameStop would throw its toys out of the pram like the geriatric infants they are.
[QUOTE=ironman17;47414891]Brick-and-mortar stores need to go the way of the dodo. It's one of the reasons why digital triple-A games on Steam are the same price as boxed copies in spite of not needing to manufacture a disc, because if they were cheaper than console discs GameStop would throw its toys out of the pram like the geriatric infants they are.[/QUOTE] You dont think ea just wants to sell you a 60$ game? Discs aren't that expensive to burn.
Artificial inflation is a bitch, isn't it?
[QUOTE=Major_Vice;47407871]As storage and bandwidth become cheaper, compression will likely becomes less and less important, and an unneeded hindrance in real time applications. Look at titanfall; to squeeze more performance, they packed in like 40GB of uncompressed audio files into the game. Other games are looking at huge installers because of larger and larger texture resolutions from consumer demand. When was the last time you scoffed at a 5GB game install? 10GB? 30GB? The size of everything will go up eventually, and who knows what kind of mediums and media standards we'll be looking at in the future. I mean how many gigs is a 4K full length film? At a high frame rate? If VR and 3d stuff takes off, are we going to downloading and consuming 3d panoramic images and pictures? Talking less fantastically, my cell phone today takes 14MP images. That wasn't even available to the DSLR market a decade ago. I remember as a kid, getting a 100MB external drive for my mac OS6 was like, all the space in the world and we were asking the same questions you're asking now - then again, games of the time were sprite based or featured 100 poly or less 3d models, and most images were on a 16 bit color palette optimized for 800x600 and 640x480 monitors.[/QUOTE] While indeed it would be awesome to have cost-effective SSDs, your scenario bugs and worries me. I'm already at this point where I absolutely hate the fact that people aren't using compression nearly as aggressively or widespread. Internet service in my area has stalled at 1.5 Mbit down ADSL. Right now, it is not even [I]remotely[/I] profitable to expand more useful services to my area, and will most likely not be for the next decade considering that it appears the population has not changed/is shrinking. It is a marathon to download anything more than a simple, small indie game. And games like Titanfall are essentially a non-option. [I]I have gotten to the point where I base my purchases on how big a game is, not how fun it is.[/I]
[QUOTE=ironman17;47414891]Brick-and-mortar stores need to go the way of the dodo. It's one of the reasons why digital triple-A games on Steam are the same price as boxed copies in spite of not needing to manufacture a disc, because if they were cheaper than console discs GameStop would throw its toys out of the pram like the geriatric infants they are.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if it costs less to stamp and ship discs en masse than it does to pay for the internet bandwidth a company like EA or Valve uses up monthly. It may cost someone like you or me ten cents to burn a game ISO to a DVD, but it only costs a tenth of a cent for big factories to do it. They don't even burn them, they stamp them. Someone nudge Valve and EA to release some hard and fast numbers for the same FY, valve for digital distro EA for disc, for titles that shipped roughly the same quantity over the same time period. [QUOTE=nagachief;47415118]While indeed it would be awesome to have cost-effective SSDs, your scenario bugs and worries me. I'm already at this point where I absolutely hate the fact that people aren't using compression nearly as aggressively or widespread. Internet service in my area has stalled at 1.5 Mbit down ADSL. Right now, it is not even [I]remotely[/I] profitable to expand more useful services to my area, and will most likely not be for the next decade considering that it appears the population has not changed/is shrinking. It is a marathon to download anything more than a simple, small indie game. And games like Titanfall are essentially a non-option. [I]I have gotten to the point where I base my purchases on how big a game is, not how fun it is.[/I][/QUOTE] You and me both, brah. My hickville DSL is rated 10mb down but I rarely get more than 2.5. I can wolf down a standard sized DVD release game(IE Fallout: New Vegas) overnight. Barely. DCS World is overnight + 5hrs(And I'm about to queue up a second copy to download on my roomy's machine!). Star Citizen was laughable. They're the kings of uncompressed textures and, after a little mathing it up, I discovered it would take me 38 days straight to download the base game. Each patch? Aroundabouts a week. I will never be able to play that game because of my internet, even though it actually piques my interest somewhat(I've always wanted a space dogfighter). Of course, when this is pointed out, people often just sneer and go 'Get better internet, loser'. As if we have a choice. I'm sure you've got the same monopolistic stranglehold on ISP choice that I do(I have dialup with ATT, DSL with ATT[used], and HughesNet) so it's not like we can just [i]get better internet[/i]. Alas, the people sneering do so loudly enough that games are swelling up and compression software usage is waning faster than infrastructure can update.
HDDs aren't even that slow anymore, my new 4tb drive has sustained sequential read and write of 200 MB/s. Sure it still gets destroyed by the 550 MB/s of my SSD but it's nowhere near "dreadfully slow". Filling up the 1TB drive it replaced took over a decade for me, even with steam using up half of the space, can't imagine that this 4TB will get full any time soon.
Affordable 10TB SSDs would be nice, I'm already running out of my 5TB HDD space and 500MB SSD
I'm running a 300gb hd that's 6 years old. It's s miracle it even runs with what I put it through.
Y'all are casuals, I have 250GB HDD so old I dont remember when I got it. Probably before 2007, maybe even sooner.
It sounds great, but unless it goes into read only mode rather than outright failing, I'm not interested.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47407151] 64tb vram please I need uncompressed textures that are 100,000x100,000[/QUOTE] So basically Star Citizen alpha on lowest settings
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.