3D NAND in Numbers: Is it Economical?

As with all new semiconductor technologies, the one big question is whether it is economical. There are a ton of memory technologies that have better characteristics than 2D NAND (MRAM and ReRAM to name a couple) but none of them is currently scalable enough to challenge NAND in cost. IMFT's 16nm node is the smallest node shipping in volume, so let's compare Samsung's second generation V-NAND to that to see how it stacks up.

I am basing my analysis on Andrew Walker's blog post from 3DInCites. He is a respected analyst in 3D technologies and his blog post is based on Samsung's and Micron's presentations at the 2014 International Solid-State Circuits Conference, so the data should be as accurate as it can be.

Update 7/8: I was able to find some more accurate data regarding the die size, so I've updated this section with the new data.

  Samsung 2nd Gen V-NAND Micron 16nm NAND
Process Node 40nm 16nm
# of Layers 32 -
Die Capacity 86Gbit 128Gbit
Die Size 95.4mm2 173mm2
Cell Size 40,300nm2 1,312nm2

The only downside of Walker's data is that it only covers Samsung's first generation V-NAND, which was a 24-layer design with a die size of 133mm2 and capacity of 128Gbit. Fortunately, the second generation V-NAND is using the same 40nm node, so the only substantial difference between the first and second generation is the number of layers. The 86Gbit die capacity is certainly a bit odd but it actually makes sense as it is simply the first generation die cut in half with the added layers [(128Gbit / 2) * (32 / 24)]. As such, it is relatively safe to assume that the other variables (cell size etc.) are the same as with the first generation and that is what the table above is based on.

Update 7/8: Actually, the peripheral circuitry does not scale with the memory array, meaning that the die size is actually quite a bit larger than I originally thought.

Before we go deeper with the density analysis, I want to explain how cell size is calculated. As you can see, the figures are way too big to make any sense if you just look at the 40nm and 16nm figures because no matter how you try to multiply them, the results do not make sense. 

Oftentimes when cell size is discussed, it is only the actual size of the cell that is taken into account, which leaves the distance between cells out of the conclusion. However, the so called empty parts (they are not really empty as you saw in the X-ray a couple of pages back) take a part of the die area similar to the cells, meaning that they cannot be excluded. The appropriate way to measure cell size is from the inner corner of a cell to the outer corners of neighbouring cells in both X and Y axes. This is demonstrated by the black square on the above graph.

With the proper measurements, this is how V-NAND compares to 16nm NAND when just looking at cell size alone (i.e. excluding how the layers impact density). Doesn't look too good, huh?

If you are wondering where the 16nm comes from, it is mostly just marketing. 16nm refers to the smallest length (or resolution as it is often called) in the die, meaning that it is the finest line that can be printed. In the case of NAND, that can either be the wordline or bitline, or the distance between them. With Micron's 16nm NAND, that is likely the length of the wordline and the distance between two wordlines as the two are 32nm when combined (i.e. 16nm each). 

The actual cell size did not make justice to V-NAND because the whole idea behind the move to 3D NAND is to increase the cell size and distances between cells to get rid of the issues 2D NAND has. In the graph above, I took the amount of layers into account because you essentially need 32 2D NAND cells to achieve the same density as with 32-layer V-NAND and the game totally changes. 

The math behind that graph is just a couple of simple arithmetic equations. The actual cell area is 40,300 (155nm*260nm), meaning that the relative cell area is simply the actual cell area divided by the number of layers. That gives us 1,259nm2(40,300nm/ 32). To get the relative dimensions, the actual dimensions are divided by the square root of the number of layers (e.g. 155nm / √32 = 27nm).

NAND Cell Size - Relative

In the end, the relative cell size turns out to be smaller than Micron's 16nm NAND. The difference is not huge (~4%) but when the performance, power consumption and endurance advantages are taken into account, V-NAND is a clear winner. 

Bit Density

Another way to look at cost efficiency is the bit density. While cell size is a good measure, it does not take peripheral circuitry and ECC/spare bytes into account, which take a part of the die as well. Bit density is simply die capacity divided by die size and it gives us a number for quick and easy comparison. 

In this comparison, V-NAND is the leader without any doubts. The bit density is as much as 73% higher, resulting in a much more cost efficient design. The reason why the difference between cell size and bit density is so large is that 2D NAND requires a lot more die area for ECC bytes because it is more error prone. With V-NAND there is less ECC needed thanks to its higher reliability. In addition, Micron's peripheral circuitry design is relatively die consuming, so I wonder how Toshiba's/SanDisk's 15nm stacks up with V-NAND as they are claiming to have a more efficient peripheral circuitry design.

Update 7/8: V-NAND is still denser than the latest 2D NAND nodes but the difference is not overwhelming. 

All in all, there is a lot more than just cell area and bit density when it comes to cost efficiency. Yield and equipment cost are two major factors, which are both better for 2D NAND as it is a well known technology and some of the machinery can be reused when moving from one node to another. 

3D NAND: Hitting The Reset Button on Scaling RAPID 2.0: Support For More RAM & Updated Caching Algorithm


View All Comments

  • Cerb - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    As soon as it is cheap enough. But, don't get your hopes up about performance. SD cards are mostly limited by the controllers being slow, and in the tiny package they fit in, with the narrow margins they have, there's not a lot of room, physically and economically, to give them fast controllers, even if you get a big one that must have several NAND dies, and are talking about full-size SD, where multiple channels might be viable. It sucks, and I dislike shopping for SD cards as much as anybody, but today, that's how it is. Reply
  • frenchy_2001 - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    I think he was talking about V-NAND (3D cells) which is independent of the controller.
    I would guess it will, as density will continue to scale up which will make it the cheaper technology.
    It is cutting edge now, but will let Samsung scale higher densities very aggressively in the coming years, replacing all their 2D NAND production (they announced it when presenting the 3D cells).
  • Harry Lloyd - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Personally I have no interest in this kind of performance, and I really hope they focus on reducing prices and increasing capacities. The MX100 is just great for home usage (system and gaming), and I would like to see a 512 GB equivalent for around 100 $ by the end of 2015. Reply
  • Spatty - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    "Oftentimes when cell size is discussed, it is only the actual size of the cell that is taken into account, which leaves the distance between cells out of the conclusion."

    Incorrect. Oftentimes what is being discussed is the half pitch. The 16nm, 19nm, 20nm, etc of the die. That is not the cell. The cell is Always defined as the repeatable structure in a memory device, and this includes the space between cells as described. The cell size is incorrectly referenced as being the half pitch.

    Then there is marketing gimmick by companies who call their products 19nm when it is really 19nm by 2xnm. A rectangle and not a true 19nm square half pitch.
  • Larry Endomorph - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Good review. Bad charts. All of these are useless to color blind people:
  • Cerb - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    I never paid much attention, but you're right. If they changed the point shapes, and maybe dashed a couple of the lines, they could take care of that easily. Reply
  • fokka - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    it's great to see a new drive from samsung and even greater seeing them advancing ssd tech and performance in such substantial ways. keeping that in mind i'm not really surprised about the msrp sammy is asking for its drives. and as always when new devices hit the scene, we're comparing msrp with real market prices here, so the difference should be a bit lower in a couple weeks when enough stock is available.

    that said, even if sata3 remains the most important storage interface today, it's kind of a shame seeing such a beautiful drive limited by this "old" interface. i know the new standards like m2, sata3.2 and pci-e-drives are still kind of a mess, but we already saw what higher throughputs in combination with more efficient interface protocols can do and seeing an expensive enthusiast drive like the 850 pro connected to sata3 just makes it seem more limited than it needed to be.

    all that said, it doesn't change much for the average user, or advanced users even, since for most people a good sized evo or crucial is all they ever need in the years to come. upgrading to expensive drives like the 850 will only make sense for the most demanding users, for the rest it will only get interesting again when pci based storage gets more affordable.
  • Daniel Egger - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Minor nit: There's no such thing as "pentalobe torx" it's either one or the other but I'm guessing that it might have been torx security since pentalobe screws have only been used by Apple a couple of years back. Reply
  • iwod - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Its great to see its doing well in power consumption area. Which is important in Notebook. I hope we could bring this down to 2W or even 1.5W during operation.

    I really do think our SSD storage tier deserve a PCI-E lane direct from CPU. It would be great if the market just settle on 2x PCI-E 3.0 from CPU. We get 2GB/s out of it. That is plenty of headroom to grow until we move to PCI-E 4.0
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - link

    Thats what sata-express is doing Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now