Ten Year Anniversary of Core 2 Duo and Conroe: Moore’s Law is Dead, Long Live Moore’s Law
by Ian Cutress on July 27, 2016 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Core 2 Duo
- Conroe
- ITRS
- Nostalgia
- Time To Upgrade
Looking To The Future: NAND Flash Scales Up to 64 TB SSDs in 2030
Over the past few years, the NAND Flash industry has gone through two major shifts in technology: the movement from 1 to 2 to 3 bits per cell, which directly increases bit density and capacity, and also moving from planar flash to variants of 3D stacking. Stacking can refer to individual NAND dies, as well as stacking those dies into a single package: both of these features are being extensively investigated to increase density also. There are two main drivers for this: reduction in cost, and capacity. However, despite this, the predictions in the ITRS report for NAND flash are primarily looking at improvements to numbers of layers rather than lithography changes or moving to more bits per cell.
As we can see, TLC (according to the report) is here to stay. QLC, or whatever you want to call it, is not mentioned. The two changes are the number of memory layers, moving from 32 today to 128 around 2022 and then 256/512 by 2030, and the number of word-lines in one 3D NAND string. This gives a product density projection of 256 Gbit packages today to 1 Tbit packages in 2022 and 4 Tbit packages in 2030.
If we apply this to consumer drives available today, we can extrapolate potential SSD sizes for the future. The current Samsung 850 EVO 4 TB uses Samsung’s 48-layer third generation V-NAND to provide 256 Gbit TLC parts. Alongside the 4 TB of memory, the controller requires 4 GB of DRAM, which is another concern to remember. So despite the report stating 256 Gbit in 32-layer, we have 256 Gbit in 48-layer, which is a difference primarily in die-size predictions for the report. Still, if we go off of the product density we should see 12 TB SSDs by 2020, 16 TB in 2022, 48 TB in 2028 and 64 TB drives in 2030. It’s worth noting that the ITRS report doesn’t mention power consumption in this table, nor controller developments which may be a substantial source of performance and/or capacity implementations.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
158 Comments
View All Comments
perone - Friday, July 29, 2016 - link
My E6300 is still running fine in a PC I have donated to a friend.It was set to 3GHz within a few days from purchase and never moved from that speed.
Once or twice I changed the CPU fan as it was getting noisy.
Great CPU and great motherboard the Asus P5B
chrizx74 - Saturday, July 30, 2016 - link
These PCs are still perfectly fine if you install an SSD. I did it recently on an Acer Aspire t671 desktop. After modding the bios to enable AHCI I put an 850 evo (runs at sata 2 speed) and a pretty basic Nvidia GFX card. The system turned super fast and runs Windows 10 perfectly fine. You don't need faster processors all you need is get rid of the HDDs.Anato - Saturday, July 30, 2016 - link
I'm still running AMD Athlon x2 4850 2.5GHz as a file server + MythTV box. It supports ECC, is stable and has enough grunt to do its job so why replace. Yes, I could get bit energy efficiency but in my climate >50% of time heating is needed and new hardware has its risks of compatibility issues etc.+10 for anandtech again, article was great as always!
serendip - Sunday, July 31, 2016 - link
I'm posting this on a Macbook with an E6600 2.4 GHz part. It's still rockin' after six years of constantly being tossed into a backpack. The comparisons between C2D and the latest i5 CPUs don't show how good these old CPUs really are - they're slow for hard number crunching and video encoding but they're plenty fast for typical workday tasks like Web browsing and even running server VMs. With a fast SSD and lots of RAM, processor performance ends up being less important.That's too bad for Intel and computer manufacturers because people see no need to upgrade. A 50% performance boost may look like a lot on synthetic benchmarks but it's meaningless in the real world.
artifex - Monday, August 1, 2016 - link
"With a fast SSD and lots of RAM, processor performance ends up being less important."I remember back when I could take on Icecrown raids in WoW with my T7200-based Macbook.
And I actually just stopped using my T7500-based Macbook a few months ago. For a couple years I thought about seeing if an SSD would perk it back up, but decided the memory bandwidth and size limitation, and graphics, was just not worth the effort. Funny that you're not impressed by i5s; I use a laptop with an i5-6200U, now. (Some good deals with those right now, especially if you can put up with the integrated graphics instead of a discrete GPU.) But then, my Macbooks were about 3 years older than yours :)
abufrejoval - Sunday, July 31, 2016 - link
Replaced three Q6600 on P45 systems with socket converted Xeon X5492 at $60 off eBay each. Got 3.4GHz Quads now never using more than 60 Watts under Prime95 (150 Watts "official" TDP), with 7870/7950 Radeon or GTX 780 running all modern games at 1080p at high or ultra. Doom with Vulkan is quite fun at Ultra. Got my kids happy and bought myself a 980 ti off the savings. If you can live with 8GB (DDR2) or 16GB (DDR3), it's really hard to justify an upgrade from this 10 year old stuff.Mobile is a different story, of course.
seerak - Monday, August 1, 2016 - link
My old Q6600 is still working with a friend.The laugher is that he (used to) work for Intel, and 6 months after I gave it to him in lieu of some owed cash, he bought a 4790K through the employee program (which isn't nearly as good as you'd think) and built a new system with it.
The Q6600 works so well he's never gotten around to migrating to the new box - so the 4790k is still sitting unused! I'm thinking of buying it off him. I do 3D rendering and can use the extra render node.
jeffry - Monday, August 1, 2016 - link
Thats a good point. Like, answering a question "are you willing to pay $800 for a new CPU to double the computers speed?" Most consumers say no. It all comes down to the mass market price.wumpus - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Look up what Amazon (and anybody else buying a server) pays for the rest of the computer and tell me they won't pay $800 (per core) to double the computer's speed. It isn't a question of cost, Intel just can't do it (and nobody else can make a computer as fast as Intel, although IBM seems to be getting close, and AMD might get back in the "almost as good for cheap" game).nhjay - Monday, August 1, 2016 - link
The Core 2 architecture has served me well. Just last year I replaced my server at home which was based on a Core 2 Duo E6600 on a 965 chipset based motherboard. The only reason for the upgrade is that the CPU was having a difficult time handling transcoding jobs to several Plex clients at once.The desktop PC my kids use is Core 2 based, though slightly newer. Its a Core 2 Quad Q9400 based machine. It is the family "gaming" PC if you dare call it that. With a GT 730 in it, it runs the older games my kids play very well and Windows 10 hums along just fine.