More Pandora 2 crap (MicroSD Split)

[Exophase]

Your argument that microSD is cheaper than SD does not seem to be supported by reality. You seem to think that in the future, it will be easier to fit more memory in a small volume than in a bigger volume. That would be strange.

You start with an X GB NAND chip and some controller and put it in a package. It doesn't matter if that package is SD or microSD, except for with the microSD package you win slightly on materials. microSD may well involve different packaging technologies to get it in a tighter space but there's no indication that this would be more expensive.


Regardless of what Grench says, they are in fact the same NAND chips and most likely the same controllers, simply in different arrangements. A 128GB SD card today probably has four times the same NAND chips used in a 32GB microSD card. But that doesn't mean a 32GB SD card has 4 times what an 8GB microSD card would have had when it was new - that may have been true back then but right now it makes no sense, because it'd be MUCH CHEAPER if the 32GB SD card uses the same NAND layout as the 32GB microSD card. Because the chips are SMALLER (because they're made using newer manufacturing processes). Die area is the biggest driving factor in manufacturing cost. If they need to use more of them in parallel to get higher speeds they'll STILL use the smaller ones, up to a point of diminishing returns. So a brand new 32GB SD card today is liable to take up much less than the full space of the card.

 

[Grench]

I think you're starting to get it.


Use the same chips/tech/lithography as you find in a 64GB microSD card and it is relatively easy to make a 128GB SD card that is twice as fast - using the same level of technology.


What an old SDHC card looks like on the inside:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SDHC_inside.jpg


It's pretty darn hard to find pictures of disassembled microSD cards. The way they're molded, it would probably take a fine-grain belt sander and a whole lot of patience to see the features.

 

[Exophase]

If you paid more attention you might have remembered where I posted those pictures of decapped microSDs the last time you were spouting off about what their internal design was.


Your concept immediately breaks down because you can take the same 64GB microSD and double the throughput by using twice as many half as large NAND chips. There is no size/speed tradeoff to be gained by rearranging NAND chips. Unlike your SD shot you don't even have package overhead because the microSD NANDs are bare dies.


Your only remaining theory is that the controller itself must be substantially larger to facilitate the faster speed. Since in my decap shots the controller only took up a small corner of the microSD and since read interleaving is not exactly a high logic operation I'm having a hard time buying this.


Now I will grant you that with the same NAND chips you should be able to do 4x as large full SD as microSD. That we got 64GB microSD before 256 SD just means that the manufacturers favor closing the gap with microSD over launching higher end cards, which makes sense since the market demand for 64GB microSD is probably higher than that for 256GB SD.

 

[Exophase]

In case you really can't google it:


http://bunniestudios.com/blog/images/microsd_lineup.jpg


See how it has two NAND dies and a controller - just like your SD shot?

 

[overgauss]

Your continuous restatement of false information does not make it true.

You have yet to prove that anything I have said is false. Your post is too long to destroy piecemeal so I'll just destroy your points all at once. You linked to this in a previous post that shows the technical comparisons are the same for these cards in terms of speed. The cards on the market now differ by what, 9mb/s on the top end? If you have info that shows otherwise (halving of speed for instance) I'd love to hear it. It would destroy your own argument that they use the same chips though :/


For instance

The SDA extended the SD specification in various ways:


It defined electrically identical cards in smaller sizes: miniSD and microSD (originally named TransFlash or TF). Smaller cards are usable in larger slots through use of a passive adapter. By comparison, Reduced Size MultiMediaCards (RS-MMCs)

If they used the same chips, they'd basically be the same except for reduced capacity. But that's not your argument is it? Also I grant that the specification said "cards" must be electrically identical. This SD card would seem to be able to hold much more than 2X the chips of a microSD!

SD insides

VS MicroSD Adapter insides

It's interesting that you mention photolithography yet fail to realize the importance of etch, diffusion and thinfilms when you shrink die/channel sizes. If you can't etch you can't define chip geometries, if you can't diffuse your, dopants aren't where they need to be, if thin films is wonky there goes your interconnections between layers and inputs and outputs. Congrats you just argued that the SD card should be cheaper than the same capacity MicroSD card at the same speed. Why not? They use the same chips (you claim) why not just use larger Nand that's easier to make? Why shrink down to the 20nm scale if you don't have to?


It's because they likely don't use the same chips, they use electrically similar chips. Prove me wrong. I'd love to hear it. For instance double data rate is mandatory for UHS-I microSD complaint cards but not for UHS-I compliant SD cards. Also there's a part I said earlier with the word "exaggeration" attached to it. It was meant to convey that what was previously said was an exaggeration. I thought you were all pro with that.

 

[Grench]

By that logic - and the information provided, it would take up to four (4) microSD slots in a RAID configuration to equal one (1) SD slot in highest end capability at this point in the product cycle (256GB SD coming on market).


My 2:1 was short changing it.


SD is four times better than microSD on a card to card basis and will be for the foreseeable future.


Next?

 

[Binky]

Are there any good reasons why cutting edge cards should not all have the same (or very similar) data density?


If not, then full SD being 4x the size will always max out at 4x the capacity of microSD

 

[thatgui]

i am thoroughly enjoy reading all of this, i do have a point to make myself.


On several occasions Craig has said that the basis for the P2 is to be the ICP2...

What's the point ? That Craig wants to use the ICP2 as a base for the P2 to save costs isnt very hard to guess. And it's understandable - from a salesmans point of view. But not from a customers point of view, and thats what all the useless fuzz around here is all about (as "history" dictates craigs decision is more or less set in stone)

We need to clearly state the pros and cons of the storage types first. ...

It always comes down to preferences, the pros and cons were already stated by exophase and others. My preference is to keep the level of versatility as high as possible. Having no SD-Slot in P2 will simply lower it. I neither have the technical expertise nor the slightest interest in debating wether the physical implementation differences between MicroSD and SD Cards are getting more or less meaningless in the (near) future. Its just the practical reasons that concern me:


As stated before MicroSDs are flimsy by design, and are not made to be changed often, something that happens quite often in my use case.


Also as stated before SD Cards aren't dying, and there is no reason to believe that they will in the near future. So having the ability no more to swap SD Cards between P2/Laptop/Camera/Carradio/etc will decrease versatility a lot.


I also can't see any sane reason to bring in tablets into the discussion. Tablets have totally different use cases. Even if you bring in Windows 8, its just Microsofts desperate attempt to not totally miss the current cattle that is driven to computer industries town. Outfitting tablets with MicroSD Card slots (if even) is also no miraculous sane decision that engineers made. It's just a merketing decision having Apple as Industry leader in making things sleek.


But comparing computer industries decisions directly with decisions made for the P2 isn't very clever in my opinion. If some big player like Samsung scraps a feature of the last generation for whatever reasons (valid or not), they maybe loose several thousand customers because of that, but thats just a low percentage of their overall sale volume. Having the P2 just loose 100 possible customers because of that could create a lot more mess.

 

[Grench]

Your continuous restatement of false information does not make it true.

You have yet to prove that anything I have said is false. Your post is too long to destroy piecemeal so I'll just destroy your points all at once. You linked to this in a previous post that shows the technical comparisons are the same for these cards in terms of speed. The cards on the market now differ by what, 9mb/s on the top end? If you have info that shows otherwise (halving of speed for instance) I'd love to hear it. It would destroy your own argument that they use the same chips though :/


For instance

The SDA extended the SD specification in various ways:


It defined electrically identical cards in smaller sizes: miniSD and microSD (originally named TransFlash or TF). Smaller cards are usable in larger slots through use of a passive adapter. By comparison, Reduced Size MultiMediaCards (RS-MMCs)

If they used the same chips, they'd basically be the same except for reduced capacity. But that's not your argument is it? Also I grant that the specification said "cards" must be electrically identical. This SD card would seem to be able to hold much more than 2X the chips of a microSD!

SD insides

VS MicroSD Adapter insides

It's interesting that you mention photolithography yet fail to realize the importance of etch, diffusion and thinfilms when you shrink die/channel sizes. If you can't etch you can't define chip geometries, if you can't diffuse your dopants aren't where they need to be, if thin films is wonky there goes your interconnections between layers and inputs and outputs. Congrats you just argued that the SD card should be cheaper than the same capacity MicroSD card at the same speed. Why not? They use the same chips (you claim) why not just use larger Nand that's easier to make? Why shrink down to the 20nm scale if you don't have to?


It's because they don't use the same chips, they use electrically similar chips. Prove me wrong. I'd love to hear it. For instance double data rate is mandatory for UHS-I microSD complaint cards but not for UHS-I compliant SD cards. Also there's a part I said earlier with the word "exaggeration" attached to it. It was meant to convey that what was previously said was an exaggeration. I thought you were all pro with that.

Kindly show me a 128GB microSD card that can read data at anything remotely resembling 90MB/sec.


http://www.amazon.com/Lexar-Professional-600x-UHS-I-LSD128CTBNA600/dp/B0090BEWKY/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1349903904&sr=8-10&keywords=128GB+sdxc


The only way to get that speed in microSDXC is to use 16GB cards. 1/8th of the capacity in order to be equal in speed.


http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-microSDHC-Packaging-SDSDQXP-016G-X46/dp/B008HK1YAA/ref=sr_1_sc_13?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1349904055&sr=1-13-spell&keywords=microsdxc+90mb


Next show me one that has 256GB of capacity. They're due out this month for SDXC.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/17/lexar-256gb-uhs1


Oh, thats right. They don't exist in microSD. The largest microSDXC is currently 64GB. One quarter the capacity.


You'll go back to comparing the hotest, biggest, fastest microSDXC card on the market today to SDXC cards that are 2+ years old. That's OK, we get it - you don't care about getting speed and capacity combined in a more sturdy format.

 

[overgauss]

By that logic - and the information provided, it would take up to four (4) microSD slots in a RAID configuration to equal one (1) SD slot in highest end capability at this point in the product cycle (256GB SD coming on market).

Glad to see you have been paying attention! 4xmicroSD at 300x (at 45mb/s) = 4*$139.99=$559.96.
(Or wait for the announced but not yet priced offering from Samsung at (70 mb/s).)


Vs.1xSD at 400x (at 60mb/s)= $899.99!!

My 2:1 was short changing it.

Agreed.

SD is four times better than microSD on a card to card basis and will be for the foreseeable future.

That's yet to be determined, proved false due to cost/needs of the average consumer, ignores size constraints/addition of features, and bases tomorrow on today.

Next?

I don't know. I seem to be doing fine. What did you have in mind? To be clear are you arguing for yourself or the typical pandora user?

 

[overgauss]

Kindly show me a 128GB microSD card that can read data at anything remotely resembling 90MB/sec.


http://www.amazon.co...ords=128GB sdxc


The only way to get that speed in microSDXC is to use 16GB cards. 1/8th of the capacity in order to be equal in speed.


http://www.amazon.co...=microsdxc 90mb


Next show me one that has 256GB of capacity. They're due out this month for SDXC.


http://www.dpreview....exar-256gb-uhs1


Oh, thats right. They don't exist in microSD. The largest microSDXC is currently 64GB. One quarter the capacity.


You'll go back to comparing the hotest, biggest, fastest microSDXC card on the market today to SDXC cards that are 2+ years old. That's OK, we get it - you don't care about getting speed and capacity combined in a more sturdy format.

Wait I thought we were comparing 256 gb SD at 60 mb/s. Now you're talking 90 mb/s. If you make up your mind we can have a better debate. And your fake goal post of 128gb at 90 mb/s was previously 4x64gb (which is incidentally faster per card than the $900 256gb monster you're going on about-70vs 60 mb/s). Since you speak of the future so much has it crossed your mind that naturally a 128gb microSD card will likely be released in the near future with adequate speeds for the typical user?

 

[overgauss]

It always comes down to preferences, the pros and cons were already stated by exophase and others. My preference is to keep the level of versatility as high as possible. Having no SD-Slot in P2 will simply lower it. I neither have the technical expertise nor the slightest interest in debating wether the physical implementation differences between MicroSD and SD Cards are getting more or less meaningless in the (near) future. Its just the practical reasons that concern me:


As stated before MicroSDs are flimsy by design, and are not made to be changed often, something that happens quite often in my use case.


Also as stated before SD Cards aren't dying, and there is no reason to believe that they will in the near future. So having the ability no more to swap SD Cards between P2/Laptop/Camera/Carradio/etc will decrease versatility a lot.


I also can't see any sane reason to bring in tablets into the discussion. Tablets have totally different use cases. Even if you bring in Windows 8, its just Microsofts desperate attempt to not totally miss the current cattle that is driven to computer industries town. Outfitting tablets with MicroSD Card slots (if even) is also no miraculous sane decision that engineers made. It's just a merketing decision having Apple as Industry leader in making things sleek.


But comparing computer industries decisions directly with decisions made for the P2 isn't very clever in my opinion. If some big player like Samsung scraps a feature of the last generation for whatever reasons (valid or not), they maybe loose several thousand customers because of that, but thats just a low percentage of their overall sale volume. Having the P2 just loose 100 possible customers because of that could create a lot more mess.

By bringing up Apple you just acknowledged that form factor is a consideration. Most of your preference issues can be solved with a usb cable or card adapter. With sufficient card slots on the P2 you wouldn't have to swap cards with your car radio. Just clone the data.


I brought up tablets because I'm sure those people probably weighed the issue too. Maybe even did some focus testing. That's why I'm asking for other metrics in addition to preferences to weigh in on the issue. Cost, size, functionality, usage etc. My preferences for instance, would be to forego SD if I could trade bluetooth, micro hdmi as well as micro usb 3.0 for it (if it turned out that would be the type of trade off I'd have to make).

 

[overgauss]

Now I will grant you that with the same NAND chips you should be able to do 4x as large full SD as microSD. That we got 64GB microSD before 256 SD just means that the manufacturers favor closing the gap with microSD over launching higher end cards, which makes sense since the market demand for 64GB microSD is probably higher than that for 256GB SD.

This document seems to imply that MicroSD drives the SD market. Meaning that SD chips may use the same chips as MicroSD chips more often than the reverse at this stage. Also we might expect higher prices in the MicroSD market in the future. Since there is SLC, MLC, and TLC nand chips I'm not quite ready to say that both technologies use the same chips. However I'm an inch closer believing that they do though. I think I'm conflating SD with SDXC and getting turned around somewhere in the discussion.

 

[Exophase]

Meaning that SD chips may use the same chips as MicroSD chips more often than the reverse at this stage.

The same chips are the same chips. They're not "microSD chips" or "SD chips", they're NAND chips. They're used a lot of other things too - like SSDs, USB flash drives, internal memory on phones, tablets, game consoles and all manner of embedded applications. I don't know what sells more, SD or microSD, but I'm willing to bet neither sell a majority of NAND chips.


And the vast majority of the market outside of enterprise uses MLC these days.

 

[overgauss]

Meaning that SD chips may use the same chips as MicroSD chips more often than the reverse at this stage.

The same chips are the same chips. They're not "microSD chips" or "SD chips", they're NAND chips. They're used a lot of other things too - like SSDs, USB flash drives, internal memory on phones, tablets, game consoles and all manner of embedded applications. I don't know what sells more, SD or microSD, but I'm willing to bet neither sell a majority of NAND chips.


And the vast majority of the market outside of enterprise uses MLC these days.

Click the document link for a sample of Samsung's flash products. Navigate to the SD and microSD section, look for the status header and note TBD vs MP, and observe TLC vs MLC. I'm not saying Samsung is the standard, only that it is a data point and I would appreciate your insight into what the document implies. Also different product numbers for the same chip might imply subtle changes (or not). Thoughts?


Edit: I'm also agreeing with you that the microSD market drives the SD market. They may use the same chips but not at the same time. Also there is the speed and ground pin difference that I'm unsure of.


2nd Edit: Looking again I see that the fastest classes of microSD use TLC whereas the fastest classes for SD use MLC. So there is a chip difference based on class. The MLC's used for micro have a class of 4 or less whereas TLC used for micro has a class of 4 or above. Additionally TLC is the newest tech although I've read reports that it isn't as reliable as MLC and perhaps that is the difference. Now we just need to find a data sheet from Micron or Sandisk and see if we can ferret out more suppositions. The class 10 micro uses 32nm TLC while the class 10 SD uses 27nm MLC. Why doesn't Samsung just use 27nm MLC in microSD chips everything being equal(I think it has something to do with size)?

 

[Exophase]

When I said 64GB microSD cards were a priority over 256GB SD cards what I really meant was that 64GB cards were a priority period. If you see one brand's larger SD and microSD being offered at nearly the same price then chances are good that they're both using the same chips. Samsung is I believe the world's largest NAND manufacturer, but I don't think they make a large chunk of the SD cards themselves. So third parties like Sandisk and Lexar are liable to be using Samsung's NAND as they please. The part numbers you see are numbers for Samsung's cards (not the NAND chips they contain), so of course they'll be distinct.


Having said that, I hadn't even heard of TLC until now. It looks like it's more dense but even less reliable and resilient than MLC. It's possible that companies would choose to push this into microSD first, since it trades reliability for density and that may be deemed as more appropriate for the product and market than it is for full SD.


If you scroll up to the moviNAND section you'll see that's what's getting their best technology first, instead of SD or microSD.

 

[overgauss]

It appears we're pretty much agreed then. I originally left out moviNAND because its purpose wasn't labelled. However it appears the technology was being used for microSD cards as well as MMC. I haven't seen anything in regards to them using it for SD cards. So it's back to size as they were stacking chips to get the capacity up in microSD. Thanks for clearing up the part number. I think TLC is stackable and this is the main reason why density was chosen over reliability. However as you pointed out moviNAND was the forefront of technology in 2010 and happened to be used in their newest microSD cards at the time.


Now Samsung claims to have improved TLC and it is likely their new tech.


Below dated 24 Sep 12 22:01

the consumer electronics giant Samsung has announced its 840 series of 7mm SSDs featuring its new MDX controller with three ARM Coretex-R4 300MHz cores. In another effort to squeeze yet more out the SATA3 interface, the 840 pro claims hefty random IOPS figures of 100,000 read and 90,000 write, with up to 540MB/s read and 520MB/s write, without relying on data compression. Even the basic 840 series has class-leading performance with random IOPS figures of 98,000 read and 70,000 write, however, sequential throughputs are a little lower than the 830 series with up to 520MB/s read and 400MB/s write.

While the use of different NAND grades between the two series is unsurprising, what is a surprise is the use of TLC NAND in the basic 840 series, which is lower grade of NAND typically used in low cost USB flash drives and memory cards. Most SSDs on the market use MLC NAND, which stores 2 bits per cell. TLC NAND stores 3 bits per cell, which while is denser, it is less durable than MLC. The new NAND is also fabricated with 21nm technology, which is also a reduction over 27nm used in its 830 series SSD and as we’ve noticed before, each stage of miniaturisation results in lower P/E cycle ratings.


Despite all the issues TLC NAND poses, Samsung claims to have improved its NAND fabrication and controller algorithm to the point where its TLC-based 840 are more reliable than many MLC SSDs on the market, not to mention the impressive random IOPS read/write figures this series boasts. For comparison, the 840 series claims read/write IOPS of 98,000/70,000, while the MLC-based 830 with toggle NAND claims 80,000/36,000. We’ll have to wait until the first reviews of the basic 840 series to see whether it lives up to its claims and time will tell how durable they really are in the long term.

Especially relevant per your claim that nand chips are just nand chips and that they are used in many things like SSD's, coupled with the fact that their SD offerings per the document use MLC with TLC in TBD status, while microSD uses TLC for it's fastest classes in MP status.

 

[_wb_]

Even in the highly unlikely case that somehow, SD will die in the next few years, and microSD will be the only thing left, then with a full SD slot, we can still use those microSD cards (with adapter cards, which is not too bad since it improves the mechanical integrity if you keep each microSD card in its adapter). We will have spent some PCB area that could have been trimmed away, but in return we get easier card handling.


So even in that worst case scenario, I would still argue that a full SD slot is a useful feature to have - sacrificing some board space for easier handling of the storage media.


However, I see no reason to believe that SD will not keep having higher speeds and bigger capacities earlier than microSD. E.g., I'm not aware of any professional camera manufacturer moving from SD to microSD, and those devices are pushing the markets to produce ever bigger and faster cards.


Full SD keeps all options open, regardless of whether current market trends continue or not. You can try to argue that in the future, there will be no important difference between full SD and microSD anymore, but I'm not willing to take that risk. And the difference in terms of mechanical strength and ease of handling will not change, at least not until mankind evolves to have fingers 1/4th their current size.

 

[overgauss]

Look I agree these points are valid. I'm asking if others exist besides cameras and ease of handling. Busted in class laters


Edit:


This is how I plan to use it without SD.


I'd have one micro dedicated to a P1 pnd for backwards compatibility. Another one for Android. A third (recall the volume of 1 sd card equals the volume of 9 micros, but that is unrealistic so go with 4) for media/games or whatever. The 4th...??


To transfer files I could use usb to connect to my laptop and plug an SD card into my laptop as well, or use one of the several usb hubs I have lying around that cost $4 or so. In this way I would never have to remove my micros. If I did and was forced to for some reason, I would use a microSD to SD adapter. But since I have extra SD cards lying around I would just clone the data and use the SD cards with devices that required it like cameras for instance. The microSDs just stay in the pandora. I see no reason to remove them.


SD is great. They just take up so much space for arguably little gain. You could have a clip on adapter that sits on the bottom with more SD slots than you could shake a stick at. But is that practical? Maybe. Perhaps what would be more practical would be to have at least one SD slot. OK fine. Let's go with that. What does that mean in regards to what has to be left out to make room for that slot? Could the slot(s) SD or otherwise be moved to the screen or somewhere else? What problems would that introduce?


What do we gain with going with SD, what do we lose doing the same? I don't know the details of what's going into the device so I don't know what we might lose with the lost space. For instance does losing space mean we have to use more expensive and smaller components or increase the size of the unit?


As far as why I like microSD I will list a few factors:


1. The consumer electronic industry for handheld devices itself is navigating towards microSD.


2. This will drive the evolution of the product and make it more ubiquitous as well as robust.


3. The form factor allows me to have more than 2 dedicated cards.


4. As my storage needs grow I can increase my storage without instantly making my older cards obsolete at a pace my wallet allows.


5. I can have slots dedicated to more than one OS, games, media and backwards compatibility with the precursor pandora.


6. I sacrifice immediate capacity (and arguably speed too but Samsung is releasing a faster 64gb microSD at 70/104! r/w! mb/s and resistant to water, magnetic fields and X-rays to boot) yet retain the ability to regain that capacity when prices fall.


7. Pandora's technology will not have to be sacrificed due to space considerations.


8. I don't need to carry around cards to swap in and out because more than two slots exist on the unit.


9. Instead of a usb drive I could just use my sleek and easily pocketable Pandora.


10. I could get (shortly) 4 64gb cards at 45 mb/s for $559.96, or pay $899.99(!) for the same 256 gb capacity SD card at 60 mb/s (or wait for Samsungs pricing details on their 64gb microSD at 70 mb/s). This goes with 6.


11. As my cards become obsolete (at a slower rate) I would use them in my phone or tablet device (likely Microsofts Surface. Surface Pro if I can afford it) or stick them in the adapter they came with and upgrade my camera (we're talking HD quality speeds at this point).


12. microSD might lag a bit when UHS-2 comes out in the future. But I can't really speculate on that.


All that said, I'm fine with SD as long as we don't gimp the P2 in the process.

 

[F_Slim]

Look I agree these points are valid. I'm asking if others exist besides cameras and ease of handling. Busted in class laters

I have 4 SD Cards for my Pandora1. One is almost constantly in use, and I could put all that stuff on a microSD instead.


Depending on what else I want to do I put in my "MP3 and Video" SD or my "PSX SD" or whatever. With micro-SD's this would turn into a nightmare because of their tiny size. To carry USB-cables and additional devices along kind of kills the idea of a portable device.


Sure I could get a microSD that is large enough to fit everything I have. But this is not only very expensive, it also means that all my menus are full with stuff I don't need most of the time.


So yeah, there are more reasons to have a normal SD slot besides easy file-transfer between other portable and non-portable devices, ease of handling, price and availability when it comes to capacity. Most of them are a matter of convenience, but in my opinion there is already enough competition on the marked between inconvenient devices