ssd: the next wave in nand flash
DESCRIPTION
SSD: The Next Wave In NAND Flash. Jim Elliott Director of Flash Marketing Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. Agenda. NAND flash market overview SSD technology overview SSD value proposition SSD versus HDD performance metrics Tackling SSD perception barriers Cost Density Concluding remarks. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
SSD: The Next Wave In NAND Flash
Jim ElliottDirector of Flash MarketingSamsung Semiconductor, Inc.
Agenda
NAND flash market overviewSSD technology overviewSSD value proposition
SSD versus HDD performance metrics
Tackling SSD perception barriersCostDensity
Concluding remarks
NAND – Scaling Faster Than Moore’s Law
256Mb220nm
1Gb120nm
2Gb90nm
4Gb70nm
512Mb150nm
8Gb60nm
16Gb50nm
64Gb3xnm
32Gb4xnm
Card for Digital Still Camera32MB ~ 2GB
USB Flash Drive64MB ~ 4GB
Digital Audio Player128MB ~ 8GB
Major Mark
et Driv
ing Applic
ation
PC Era256MB ~ 64GB
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
`91 `92 `93 `94 `95 `96 `97 `98 `99 `00 `01 `02 `03 `04 `05 `06 `07 `08
* Source: WSTS (`06.10)
MP3 Player
Cell Phone
USB Drives
Memory Card
SSD
Flash %
W/W Memory Revenue
Total ’07 Flash RevenueNAND = $14B
($B)
14%
31%
36%36%
12
1921 23
27
16
38% 37%39%
NAND Flash Growth Trends
NAND Application Trend
46%
30%
23%
15%
8%8%
13%
8%
27%
13%
9% Card
MP3 & PMP
USB Drive
Communication
Others
2006
(Source : SEC Marketing)
NAND Revenue Growth
Source: WSTS
M$
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
NAND Seasonality And Application Trends1H/2H imbalance due to over-dependence on CE (black friday)
2011
Q/Q
PC0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NAND $ Growth
* Source: SEC Marketing
16Gb
8Gb
4Gb
81%
1Q2005
83%
2Q
58%
3Q
58%
28%
4Q 3Q 4Q 1Q2007
2Q 3Q 4Q1Q2006
66%
19%
2Q
76%
12%
23%
58%
9%
58%
29%
7%
60%
30%
4%
7%
62%
19%
4%
35%
46%
8%4%
5%3%
39%
47%
▶ Starting 16Gb Production in Q2 2007
Samsung NAND Density OutlookFocus on high density with rapid technology transition
Solid State Drive is a de-vice that uses memory compo-nents to store DIGITAL DATAConsists of NAND FLASH
Memory
• Extreme Ruggedness
• High Performance• High Reliability• Low Power Consumption
Key SSD Advantages…
Definition Of SSD
SSD Distinguishing FeaturesExtreme Ruggedness
Improved Performance
Substantial resistance against impact: > 1500G
No mechanical parts
Extended operation temperature range: -20°C to 85°C
The lightest storage solution available
Faster access time and sequential read/write speed
Virtually no latency: > 1msec
Sequential reads: Up to 64MB/sec (8Gb SLC)
Sequential writes: Up to 45MB/sec (8Gb SLC)
Low power consumption
Operation : 0.5W, Sleep: 0.06W, Idle: 0W (PATA)
Virtually no heat generation
No noise: No moving parts
2007 2008 2009 2010
160
550
850
850
200
100
$10/GB
$6/GB
$4/GB
$2/GB
2,200
Timing ofAdoption (>300K)
2010 Market Size ($M)
10.0
Corporate Server
Corporate Thin Desktop
Corporate High Perf. SAN
Retail Upgrade
Other Consumer Laptops100
UMPC80
Consumer Entertainment Users
Consumer Productivity Users
Corporate Laptop
2.8
12.6
8.3
1.90.8
3.61.8
35.6
Shipments by 2010(M units, 32GB EQ)
Corporate
Consumer
Source: Mckinsey
SSD Volume By 2010SSD Volume Drivers Through 2010:
Corporate laptops, 32GB+Corporate servers (including read cache)Retail upgrades (SSD + HDD SKU’s, gamers)
2006 20102007 2008 2009
PATA4/8/16/32GB
SATA-I8/16/32/48/64GB
SATA-II8/16/32/48/64GB
MLC(Multi Level Cell)
Combo(SLC+MLC)
SLC(Single Level
Cell)
SATA-II16/32/64/96/128GB
SATA-III56/112/224/336/448GB
SATA-II14/28/56/84/112GB
SATA-III32/64/128/192/256GB
SATA-II16/32/48/64/96/128GB
SATA-II32/48/64/128/256GB
SATA-II28/56/112/168/224GB
57/32 64/45 100/80 160/160
800/800
1300/1300R/W Speed:
SATA-III 48/64/128/256/512GB
Samsung SSD Long-Term Roadmap
Standard FF Special FF
1.8’’ 2.5’’ Slim Half Slim So DIMM
Density 4/8/16/32GB 4/8/16/32GB 8/16/32GB 4/8/16/32GB 8/16GB
Dimension
(H x W x T)
78.5x54x8.0
100.2x70x9.5
70.6x53.6x:3.0:
16/32GB2.5: 4~8GB
45.0x53.6x3.8
53.6x70.6x3.0
Connector 50pin 44pin ZIF 40pin ZIF 40pin 200pin
Weight 44g 46g 20g TBD TBD
Market Notebook Sub-Note / Tablet UMPC Custom Custom
Availability Now Now Now ES Jun’07 CS
Aug‘07 Now
Samsung SSD Form Factors
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10 20 300 20 40 60 80 100
SSD Versus HDD Performance
0 50 100 150
Performance in IOMeter, Chunk size: 128KB Performance in IOMeter, Chunk size: 128KB
[ MB/s ][ MB/s ]
HDD 5400rpmHDD 5400rpm
HDD 10000rpmHDD 10000rpm
SSD SATA2(SLC)SSD SATA2(SLC)
SSD SATA2(MLC)SSD SATA2(MLC)
Random Read
Sequential Read
Random Write
Sequential Write
73MB/s73MB/s
92MB/s92MB/s
12MB/s12MB/s
8MB/s8MB/s
64MB/s64MB/s
1MB/s1MB/s
27MB/s27MB/s
19MB/s19MB/s
12MB/s12MB/s
3MB/s3MB/s
38MB/s38MB/s
83MB/s83MB/s
64MB/s64MB/s
100MB/s100MB/s
82MB/s82MB/s 30MB/s30MB/s
80MB/s80MB/s
45MB/s45MB/s
83MB/s83MB/s
38MB/s38MB/s
Sequential read/write: SATA1 SSD already comparable to 10K RPM HDD
SATA1 SSD outperforms 5400 NB HDD (business NB)
Random read: SSD far superior to all HDD (read cache for web-servers)
HDD 5400rpmHDD 5400rpm
HDD 10000rpmHDD 10000rpm
SSD SATA1SSD SATA1
SSD SATA2(SLC)SSD SATA2(SLC)
SSD SATA2(MLC)SSD SATA2(MLC)
HDD 5400rpmHDD 5400rpm
HDD 10000rpmHDD 10000rpm
SSD SATA2(SLC)SSD SATA2(SLC)
SSD SATA2(MLC)SSD SATA2(MLC)
HDD 5400rpmHDD 5400rpm
HDD 10000rpmHDD 10000rpm
SSD SATA1SSD SATA1
SSD SATA2(SLC)SSD SATA2(SLC)
SSD SATA2(MLC)SSD SATA2(MLC)
SSD SATA1SSD SATA1 SSD SATA1SSD SATA1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4200 5400 7200 10000 15000 SSDPATA
SSDSATA
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
4200 5400 7200 10000 15000 SSDPATA
SSDSATA
RPM Drive
4200 Hitachi GST Travelstar 4k120
5400 Toshiba MK1032GSX
7200 Hitachi GST Travelstar 7k100
10000 Seagate Savvio 10K.115000 Seagate Cheetah 15K.4
* HDD DATA background
HDD: Higher RPM = higher powerSSD: Less power saves lifetime energy costs…
SSD Power Savings ComparisonWatts used in operation
modeWatts used in idle Mode
HDD RPM HDD RPM
4.1x
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(min)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
(sec)
Powerpoint(17MB,
135 slides)
Outlook(650 mails)
Searching filesincluding “a”
in C Drive
Windows XPBoot
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90(sec)
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
(min)
Battery Life
Samsung Sens Q1 Sony UMPC UX
1.8” HDDSSD 1.5x
2.3x
2.9x
1.9x
3.5x
6.0x
3.8x
1.3x 1.2x
(Source: Nikkei Electronics 2006.7)
1.8” HDDSSD
1.8” HDDSSD
1.8” HDDSSD
SSD- User BenefitsSSD optimizes mobile user experienceFast Booting/Resume/Application launching
Longer battery life with SSD
SSD: Faster, Lighter, More Mobility… Item 1.8” SSD 1.8” HDD Customer Benefits
Speed(Vista Launch)
1’54” 2’17”
Weight 859 grams 898 grams
Mobility 12 Hours 11.5 Hours
No seek time and latency re-
duces application launch time
(23 seconds)
Notebook with SSD weighs
39 grams less than HDD
Battery life is 30 Minutes
longer due to no moving
parts
* Test System: Sony VAIO type G* source: http://www.jp.sonystyle.com/Business/Vaio/Product/G_vista/closeup.html#c1
SSD Is Ready For VistaWindow Experience Index*
Standard Performance Diagnostic for Vista OS1.8” SSD Clearly outperformed HDD.
HDD needs higher RPM + Bigger Form Factor to Compete (3.5” 7200rpm HDD)
System: Sony VAIO type G
CPU: Core Solo U1400(1.2 GHz),
OS: Windows Vista Business
SSD: 32GB, HDD: 60GB
Test Environment
3.4
5.2
1 6.0
Primary hard disk score
1.8” SSD
1.8” HDD
All task tray ready
1.8“ HDD
1.8“ SSD
Window front page show up50sec
1min 40sec
1min 30sec
3 min
(Source: Itmedia.co.jp)
Boot Time Comparison50% Improvement on Windows Front Page Appearance50% Improvement on All Task Ready Tray
Counter-Acting SSD FUD FactorsMyth #1:
“SSD Density Points are too Low”
Myth #2:“SSD Costs to Much”
HDD Capacity GrowthHDD MB per platter
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Source: IBM, Intel, Samsung
2.5”
3.5”100GB
Increased 35M Times Over 35 years…
Diminishing Marginal Returns?
Who Wants to De-Frag 1TB?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Unique User DataOffice + ProductivityOS + Swap
How Much Storage Is Needed?Percent of HDD capacity usedWhy the need for
so much capacity?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Unique User DataOffice + ProductivityOS + Swap
How Much Storage Is Needed?Percent of HDD capacity usedWhy the need for
so much capacity?
Photos MusicVideo
Work Notebook Challenge…
Jim Elliott’s Work Notebook17.5GB Used Total
Windows XP + Office6 Years at Samsung
Extensive Presentations
32-64GB SSD is Sufficient for
Business NotebooksCTO’s Prefer
Centralized Data StorageNo Personal Files: Video, Music,
Photos, etc.
Source: Jim Elliott - May ‘07
Introducing TCO Concept
Hybrid automobiles…Acquisition cost is higher
Total cost of ownership value:Less gas at $4.00 per gallonCarpool lane time = money…
Business Notebook TCO Analysis
(1) Based on 2009 SSD pricingSource: McKinsey Analysis
180-200
$60HDD FailureReduction
Lifetime productivityimprovement
Total Value Benefit
Laptop lifetime TCO benefit from SSD
Assumptions (3 year lifetime)
50x reduction in the incidence of HDD failure rate
20% Improvement in device lifetime productivity due to reliability and performance consistency characteristics (Source: IDC)
~15 Minutes: average time per day spent waiting for your NB PC to execute commands
Source:: IDC, Gartner, McKinsey Analysis3 Year Product Use Basis
$200
$260
Typical corporate notebook scenario:100’s of NB’s deployed for mobile workforceEfficiency/productivity gains via SSDImagine ~5% HDD failure rate over 3 yearsCosts: Downtime, MIS, data recovery, etc…
(Source SEC)
Notebook TCO AnalysisNotebook HDD TCO 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years Comment
SSD Acquisition Price 320$ 320$ 320$ 320$ 320$ Assume $10 per GBHDD Acquisition Price 60$ 60$ 60$ 60$ 60$ Assume 60GB 1.8" HDD at $110Increased Reliability 20$ 40$ 60$ 80$ 100$ ~50x Fewer Failures, 2M Hrs MTBFProductivity / Efficiency 67$ 133$ 200$ 267$ 333$ Better Performance, Less DowntimeTotal HDD TCO 87$ 173$ 320$ 347$ 433$
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years
Productivity / Efficiency
Increased Reliability
HDD Acquisition Price
SSD Acquisition Price 3 year breakeven at today’s price
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120NB SSD Cross-Over Points
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
2.5” HDD Cost
HDD Fixed Cost
HDD Typical Cost
HDD Margin+ Density “Up-Sell”
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
NAND GB
0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.44.8 6.0
10.3
18.2
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
HDD Fixed Cost
HDD Typical Cost
HDD Margin+ Density “Up-Sell”
2.5” HDD Cost
$60
6GB
80
60
40
20
100
120
0
NAND GB Cross-Over (-50% $/GB / Year)
NB SSD Cross-Over Points
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
NAND GB
0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.44.8 6.0
10.3
18.2
32.0
58.2
105.8
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
HDD Fixed Cost
HDD Typical Cost
HDD Margin+ Density “Up-Sell”
2.5” HDD Cost
$60
6GB
32GB
80
60
40
20
100
120
0
NAND GB Cross-Over (-50% $/GB / Year)
NB SSD Cross-Over Points
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
NAND GB
0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.44.8 6.0
10.3
18.2
32.0
58.2
105.8
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
HDD Fixed Cost
HDD Typical Cost
HDD Margin+ Density “Up-Sell”
2007: 32GB SSD Rivals 40~60GB
HDD
2008: 64GB SSD Rivals 60GB~80GB
HDD
2009: 128GB SSD Rivals <150GB
HDD
Biz NB
Biz + Some Consumer NB
NB + DT
2.5” HDD Cost
NAND GB Cross-Over (-50% $/GB / Year)
$60
6GB
32GB
80
60
40
20
100
120
0
NB SSD Cross-Over Points
SSD TAM Outlook~50M notebooks in 2007
68
14
79
16
98
20
110
27
102
28
104
31
112
39
125
49
136
65
142
81
152
97
8295
118136 130 135
151174
201
249
223
`97 `98 `99 `00 `01 `02 `03 `04 `05 `06 `07
(M units)
D/T
N/B
Total PC Sales Forecast
* Source : IDC(`06.08)
Consumer Space: Rich media content (video, etc.,) HDD survives – for now…SSD breaks in with 128GB+Business Notebook: (50% of total NB) Little to no media files SSD takes over2% attachment rate = 1M units in ‘07
SSD Forecast: >100% CAGR
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2007 2008 2009 2010
Consumer
Enterprise
SSD TAM: ~$5B by 2010Estimates range from $4~7B
SSD to represent ~25% of total NAND TAM by 2010
$B
Concluding ThoughtsHigh storage demand: NAND flash will cache HDD
System performance improvements
Less power consumption (battery life and energy savings)
Market segmentsMid ~ High consumer desktop and notebook
Server – read cache
Moderate storage demand: NAND conversion is inevitable
Overall system performance improvements
Smaller form factor
TCO benefits
Market segmentsBusiness notebooks in ‘07
Consumer applications as density increases
Final thought:
“Better to design up the technology curve than down the cost curve…”