Tuesday, January 11th 2022

Micron Ships 2400 PCIe Gen4 Client SSD Based on 176-layer 3D QLC NAND Flash

Micron Technology, Inc., today announced it has begun volume shipments of the world's first 176-layer QLC NAND SSD. Built with the most advanced NAND architecture, Micron's 176-layer QLC NAND delivers the industry's leading storage density and optimized performance for a broad range of data-rich applications. Designed for use cases spanning client and data center environments, Micron's transformative new NAND technology is now available with the introduction of the Micron 2400 SSD, the world's first 176-layer PCIe Gen4 QLC SSD for client applications. The new 176-layer QLC NAND will also be incorporated into select Micron Crucial consumer SSDs, and available as a component for system designers.

Micron's groundbreaking 176-layer QLC NAND provides a layer count and density unprecedented in QLC NAND flash and follows Micron's delivery of the industry's first 176-layer TLC NAND. Additionally, Micron's 176-layer QLC NAND enables 33% higher I/O speed and 24% lower read latency than Micron's prior generation solution. Its replacement-gate architecture is the only mass production QLC flash storage that combines charge trap with a CMOS-under-array design. These improvements are driving adoption of QLC SSDs in the client PC market, which is expected to triple QLC adoption by 2023, exceeding 35%, and reaching nearly 80% bit share in 2025.
"Micron's 2400 SSD builds upon our 176-layer NAND industry leadership to drive the transition to QLC-based storage for the client market," said Jeremy Werner, corporate vice president and general manager of Micron's Storage Business Unit. "Furthering our market leadership, we expect the new 2400 PCIe Gen4 SSD will significantly accelerate the adoption of QLC in client devices as it enables broader design options and more affordable capacity."

QLC NAND SSD for everyday computing
The Micron 2400 SSD delivers industry-leading storage density in a mainstream, value NVMe SSD to enable flexible OEM solution design and provide an uncompromising user experience. With 176-layer NAND and PCIe Gen4 technologies combined, the 2400 SSD doubles the performance of Micron's previous generation client SSD and delivers 23% faster read time for accelerated boot and load times.

The Micron 2400 SSD is also the world's only 2 TB 22x30mm M.2 SSD. This form factor shrinks the physical space required by 63% when compared with a 22x80mm M.2 form factor, providing design flexibility and making the drive ideal for small, mobile laptop designs. It is also available in 22x42mm and 22x80mm M.2 form factors, all with common firmware to minimize design qualification efforts.

The 2400 SSD provides a robust user experience across diverse use cases enabled in part by Micron's Host Memory Buffer technology that allows the host to flexibly optimize performance. The SSD features low-power consumption for all-day, untethered computing, with active idle power being reduced by 50% from Micron's previous generation solution. The Micron 2400 SSD is designed to meet Intel Project Athena requirements, enabling more than nine hours of real-world battery life on laptops even when using high-definition displays.
For more information, visit this page.
Add your own comment

34 Comments on Micron Ships 2400 PCIe Gen4 Client SSD Based on 176-layer 3D QLC NAND Flash

#2
Chaitanya
Tsukiyomi91perfect to be a game library drive.
Barely faster than HDD but much smaller and more expensive.
Posted on Reply
#3
Owen1982
ChaitanyaBarely faster than HDD but much smaller and more expensive.
Not a fan of QLC at all - but the read performance should be ok... or?
Posted on Reply
#4
ixi
Tsukiyomi91perfect to be a game library drive.
Maybe? Personally don't like the price and neither TBW.
Posted on Reply
#5
TheLostSwede
ChaitanyaBarely faster than HDD but much smaller and more expensive.
Care to share what kind of hard drives you use, as I want me some of those, if these SSDs are barely any faster.
Posted on Reply
#6
AusWolf
Micron? :wtf: What about Crucial? I thought they were one and the same company. Or is it some kind of illusion of internal competition like with Coca-Cola and Fanta?
Posted on Reply
#7
Tomorrow
AusWolfMicron? :wtf: What about Crucial? I thought they were one and the same company. Or is it some kind of illusion of internal competition like with Coca-Cola and Fanta?
Micron = Enterprise
Crucial = Consumer
Posted on Reply
#8
Tigger
I'm the only one
4500MB/s is not bad for a game drive, way faster than any HDD
Posted on Reply
#9
AusWolf
TomorrowMicron = Enterprise
Crucial = Consumer
Ah! I thought Micron manufactured the chips, but Crucial was the brand of the final product. A bit of learning every day. :oops:
Posted on Reply
#10
TheLostSwede
TomorrowMicron = Enterprise
Crucial = Consumer
Micron is also OEM, used by system integrators, so not only enterprise.
Crucial being the retail brand of Micron if you want to use fancy terms.
Posted on Reply
#11
Chaitanya
TheLostSwedeCare to share what kind of hard drives you use, as I want me some of those, if these SSDs are barely any faster.
I am currently using Seagate 8TB IronWolf Pro HDDs in NAS(repurposed old PC) and for my PC use I have pair of Samsung 870 EVO SSDs. Many QLC drives seem to struggle with large file transfers(I copy large number of photos and videos at once and post culling they get pushed to NAS from PC).
Owen1982Not a fan of QLC at all - but the read performance should be ok... or?
Would be curious to see if some OEM picks them up for making small portable SSDs given these 2230 SSD might be DRAMless it could be good replacement for portable HDDs and flash drives.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheLostSwede
ChaitanyaI am currently using Seagate 8TB IronWolf Pro HDDs in NAS(repurposed old PC) and for my PC use I have pair of Samsung 870 EVO SSDs. Many QLC drives seem to struggle with large file transfers(I copy large number of photos and videos at once and post culling they get pushed to NAS from PC).
Depends if you run out of SLC cache or not, but no SSD is slower than a hard drive.
Posted on Reply
#13
Chrispy_
Owen1982Not a fan of QLC at all - but the read performance should be ok... or?
Yeah, the read performance will be good.

Like others say, for a game library drive that you barely ever write to at high speed, it'll be fine. I think every game store now streams installs direct to the target drive via the web - so as long as the pitiful QLC sustained write speeds are faster than your internet connection (or the download server) then it doesn't matter if your write performance is utter shit.

For application or OS use, QLC is a massive performance downgrade that cannot possibly justify the miniscule cost/GB savings.
Posted on Reply
#14
trsttte
Tigger4500MB/s is not bad for a game drive, way faster than any HDD
Not bad? That's well above the max speed possible with a pcie3.0 drive (3940MB/s) which is awesome. WAYYYY above the max you can do with any HDD (last time I checked bellow 200MB/s)
Posted on Reply
#15
Tigger
I'm the only one
trsttteNot bad? That's well above the max speed possible with a pcie3.0 drive (3940MB/s) which is awesome. WAYYYY above the max you can do with any HDD (last time I checked bellow 200MB/s)
Tbh faster than my PCIe gen3x4 boot m.2 :p
Posted on Reply
#16
AusWolf
TiggerTbh faster than my PCIe gen3x4 boot m.2 :p
Reliability matters more than speed for a boot drive, imo. ;) As long as it's nvme, you don't feel the difference anyway.
Posted on Reply
#17
lexluthermiester
Micron? You can take QLC and shovel it into a landfill were it belongs.
Posted on Reply
#18
AusWolf
lexluthermiesterMicron? You can take QLC and shovel it into a landfill were it belongs.
Why do I have the feeling that PLC (penta level cell) and HLC (hexa level cell) are coming with even worse reliability? We'll get to the point when you have to buy a new system SSD for every reinstall.

And then the same companies preach about environmental protection, net zero and all that crap... yeah, right.

What I also don't get is that the transition from SLC to MLC and then from MLC to TLC brought cheaper SSDs to the market. Then why do QLC drives cost relatively the same as TLC ones?
Posted on Reply
#19
lexluthermiester
AusWolfWhy do I have the feeling that PLC (penta level cell) and HLC (hexa level cell) are coming with even worse reliability?
Not without a breakthrough in NAND chemistry in both speed and chemical stability. HLC is actually not possible currently because the voltages required exceed the limits which the chemical formulation can handle. PLC isn't yet viable for the same reason. QLC is garbage likewise. If the chemical engineers can find a formulation that can either withstand the voltages needed to induce a multibit state or ideally require less voltage for shorter periods then QLC, PLC and beyond would be viable and even TLC would be vastly improved. The problem is that the existing chemistry just isn't very durable. This is why QLC cell durability is measured in the 100's of program/erase cycles and TLC is measured just barely in the 1500 range(compared to MLC at just over 22,000 and SLC north of 300,000). PLC in Micro's R&D has only recently broken the 100P/E cycle limit(no I will not discuss my source and if anyone doesn't like that, get knotted). Rumor has it Samsung has yet to do so. With such abysmal performance durability it would be damn near criminal to release PLC anytime soon as a viable storage solution.
AusWolfThen why do QLC drives cost relatively the same as TLC ones?
Because they cost about the same to make.
Posted on Reply
#20
AusWolf
lexluthermiesterBecause they cost about the same to make.
Then there should be no reason to make lesser quality products (other than to chase sale numbers).

MLC brought SSDs for the masses. TLC made extra large capacity SSDs possible. What has QLC brought to the table?
Posted on Reply
#21
trsttte
AusWolfThen there should be no reason to make lesser quality products (other than to chase sale numbers).

MLC brought SSDs for the masses. TLC made extra large capacity SSDs possible. What has QLC brought to the table?
It increases storage even more. The thing is the storage increase starts to get less noticeable as we move upwards. The move from SLC to MLC doubled density but from TLC to QLC it's only a 25% difference
Posted on Reply
#22
lexluthermiester
AusWolfWhat has QLC brought to the table?
Nothing. The solution is not data density per cell.

Makers need to tell the industry pundits to release the SATA4-72gbps spec and release SATA drives with lots of TLC chips for higher capacity drives. M.2 is a great interface for ultra compact PC platforms like ultra compact desktops, laptops and ultrabooks. Normal desktops need normal drives. Practicality and functionality need to prevail. We don't need motherboards with 3 or 4 NVMe slots. What we need is standard size(2.5" & 3.5") drives of decently large capacity and a bus the supports the speed they can provide.
Posted on Reply
#23
AusWolf
lexluthermiesterNothing. The solution is not data density per cell.

Makers need to tell the industry pundits to release the SATA4-72gbps spec and release SATA drives with lots of TLC chips for higher capacity drives. M.2 is a great interface for ultra compact PC platforms like ultra compact desktops, laptops and ultrabooks. Normal desktops need normal drives. Practicality and functionality need to prevail. We don't need motherboards with 3 or 4 NVMe slots. What we need is standard size(2.5" & 3.5") drives of decently large capacity and a bus the supports the speed they can provide.
I agree and disagree. SATA is great for data storage, although I prefer having only M.2 drives in my desktop PC for better cable management.
Posted on Reply
#24
lexluthermiester
AusWolffor better cable management
Function over fashion. F^&% fashion.
Posted on Reply
#25
AusWolf
lexluthermiesterFunction over fashion. F^&% fashion.
Fewer cables - easier maintenance. ;)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment