• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Phison E18 + Micron 176-Layer NAND Preview

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,665 (3.74/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Phison has improved their E18 controller to work with Micron's new 176-layer 3D TLC NAND. The result is an SSD that's faster than even the Samsung 980 Pro in both real-life and synthetic testing. What's even more impressive is that sustained write rates finally beat the MLC-based Samsung 970 Pro.

Show full review
 
Specifications table list it as PCI-E 3.0, could it be from a copy-paste of another table?
It seemed odd from the first glance at the big heatsink and the 2x1GB DDR4 chips for a GEN3 drive.
 
Finally, next-gen NAND, been waiting for this for a good year or more.

High initial pricing means it's of limited interest but once it has been on the market a while the trickle-down benefits will arrive in drives costing $0.15/GB or less.
 
Damn, it's almost like higher capacity nand is faster...

Can we stop comparing 1TB drives against 2TB drives?
 
Damn, it's almost like higher capacity nand is faster...

Can we stop comparing 1TB drives against 2TB drives?
It shouldn't matter as long as the lower capacity drives still utilise all channels on the controller.

Performance differences you're worried about tend to only exist on the smaller capacities of budget drives where the granularity of the NAND pacakges doesn't split into enough channels to use the controller, and half the bandwidth is lost.
 
It shouldn't matter as long as the lower capacity drives still utilise all channels on the controller.

Performance differences you're worried about tend to only exist on the smaller capacities of budget drives where the granularity of the NAND pacakges doesn't split into enough channels to use the controller, and half the bandwidth is lost.
You're wrong. Looking at even the most basic of test i.e manufacturer specification show transfer speed and IOPS differences between two models of same drive 1/2tb.

Actual benchmarks show more details.
 
Damn, it's almost like higher capacity nand is faster...

Can we stop comparing 1TB drives against 2TB drives?
Same capacity NAND as 1 TB drive, just twice the chips, but same number of channels and CEs
 
This is what I was waiting for I was not impressed by the E18 with 96L Flash but heard faster version was coming.
 
How will end users know which version they have to purchase for the faster speed if retail channels don't usually show that info?
 
How will end users know which version they have to purchase for the faster speed if retail channels don't usually show that info?
I'm 100% sure that drives with the faster NAND will be marketed as such
 
I posted some information in reply to this on my subreddit, but here are some additional details:

This is Micron's second replacement gate NAND generation, the 128L does exist but you don't see it very often and it's not nearly as much an improvement over the floating gate 96L. Replacement gate is similar to what Samsung uses, based on TCAT, which originally offered advantages like faster erases, faster operations (read/write), better data retention, and wider voltage threshold windows. In any case, Micron also adds CuA to the mix, which we will also see from Samsung (finally) and also with BiCS6 for that matter. Floating gate is still used for Intel's QLC (e.g. 144L) and may be the technology of choice for split-gate/split-cell due to the advantages of the semicircular cell shape with it.

The Phison E18 is a penta-core design - triple Cortex-R5 cores, with dual-core CoX - that in the 12nm process node can be clocked higher to handle the higher MT/s requirement. B27B can't quite achieve what Phison wanted with this controller. Speaking of which, Micron also has B48R with B57R in the works. There seems to be some NAND temperature throttling possible here, though, which is interesting. It's noteworthy because common knowledge is that "heat is good" for flash which is not really true. I'd go more deeply into that, but I'd like to write an entire article on the subject to fully explain why that's not an accurate view. However, for succinctness sake, you don't want cTLC exceeding 100C, but one reviewer had issues with the E18 throttling too early based on NAND temp.

Not much else to say technically, I guess the SLC caching result - direct-to-TLC and folding speeds specifically - speaks for itself. Given its a 32-CE design we can speculate as to per-die performance, although I think we're seeing a 96-LUN (plane) limit here. Micron released information on the flash late last year and Phison will have more on these in a week. I guess we'll see how new SKUs will be marketed!
 
So when will we see drives using this? I am looking to get a 5800x soon and want to get another 1TB nvme.

EDIT: As of this second, the only one available to consumers right now is the Gigabyte 7000s that just launched today.

EDIT2: nevermind the 7000s dont use this specific E18 controller either.
 
Last edited:
You're wrong. Looking at even the most basic of test i.e manufacturer specification show transfer speed and IOPS differences between two models of same drive 1/2tb.

Actual benchmarks show more details.
Care to post an example? I'm not seing that anywhere.

Samsung 980Pro & 970EVO /Sabrent Rocket & RocketQ / Crucial P1 and P5 all list indentical performance specs between the largest models and next size down which would make you wrong.

Samsung go as far as providing various IOPS specs too, and it's only the smallest models that suffer. The larger models saturate all channels on the controller at higher capacities.

An example of a difference between 1TB and 2TB variants is the Corsair MP400 but that's for the exact reasons I'm talking about - the 1TB model is the smallest, baby model in the range, and the 4TB and 8TB models are the ones that have enough NAND pacakges to fully use all of the controller channels.
 
Care to post an example? I'm not seing that anywhere.

Samsung 980Pro & 970EVO /Sabrent Rocket & RocketQ / Crucial P1 and P5 all list indentical performance specs between the largest models and next size down which would make you wrong.

Samsung go as far as providing various IOPS specs too, and it's only the smallest models that suffer. The larger models saturate all channels on the controller at higher capacities.

An example of a difference between 1TB and 2TB variants is the Corsair MP400 but that's for the exact reasons I'm talking about - the 1TB model is the smallest, baby model in the range, and the 4TB and 8TB models are the ones that have enough NAND pacakges to fully use all of the controller channels.
1621961389656.png
 
That is all highly controller specific. Look at comparisons between Samsung 980 Pro and initial E18 drives. Samsung Elpis controller does well regardless of NAND capacity, where as E18 drives that first came out, the 500GB to 1tb/2tb difference was pretty large. Even 1tb to 2tb i think there was a difference with E18 drives.

1621961781474.png
 
DDR4 2666
That can't be right even for sequential. This drives averages 5500MB/s DDR4 2666 is 21333.33.
DDR4 2666 is 2666.67 MT/s this drive is 65312 IOPS. If these are comparable units then this DRAM is still over 40000000 times faster?
 
Last edited:
That can't be right even for sequential. This drives averages 5500MB/s DDR4 2666 is 21333.33.
DDR4 2666 is 2666.67 MT/s this drive is 65312 IOPS. If these are comparable units then this DRAM is still over 40000 times faster?

Not sure what you mean. Look at the table on the first page of the review:

Test System uses:
Zadak Spark RGB, 16 GB DDR4
@ 3200 MHz 16-18-18-38

1621963815210.png
 
Very interesting. Definitely looking forward to new options arriving in the market.
Like, really? The thing comes with a fairly big heatsink.
This is a preview drive, mostly to see where new drives would land. I think it's important to point out that a heatsink could be fairly necessary to maintain smooth operation, since there likely will be some cheap option out there that will not have a heatsink.
 
This is a preview drive, mostly to see where new drives would land. I think it's important to point out that a heatsink could be fairly necessary to maintain smooth operation, since there likely will be some cheap option out there that will not have a heatsink.

But that's not the point or reason for this NVME drive in particular. It needs a heatsink in order to sustain the provided or advertised speeds. When you remove it (Duh) it will throttle. Most NVME ssd's long-term will throttle. The controller is just very busy and puts out fairly amount of heat that needs to be cooled down.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top