Originally Posted by JackDiesel14
Which drive manufacturers use Toshiba NAND?
Many. Too Many MFG use it so your better looking at the individual models. If a MFG uses it but you buy a drive without it it means nothing.
Not sure listing them would help because many MFG use both Toshiba NAND and also others kinds too. I would look into specific models instead of MFG.
Toshiba NAND is considered premium high performance option in many MFG drive lines.
There is different kinds of NAND. Example: Sync vs Async vs TOGGLE. You see things like "ONFI" and such listed often
There is a large difference in speed and performance between various types of NAND.
TOSHIBA TOGGLE NAND is considered a premium option.
To answer your question better you would have to look at a specific MFG since many MFG choose to use it and also not use it across the product lines.
EXAMPLE USING OCZ:Agility uses the cheapest lowest performing NAND.
Why they are the cheapest and also the slowest. (Still pretty fast and great value)
OCZ has started publishing both peak and incompressible write performance data, but only on its product sheets. While peak performance isn't affected, incompressible performance is. Using AS-SSD as a benchmark, OCZ claims the Agility 3 is only able to muster about 200MB/s for peak sequential reads/writes on the 240GB drive - that's less than half the score the Vertex 3 gets in AS-SSD's read test. Our benchmarks, as you'll soon see, confirm the deficit.
If it's not the controller causing this, and it's not the firmware - then it's the NAND. The Agility 3 (and Solid 3) both use asynchronous NAND
Asynchronous NAND: An ONFi History Lesson
It takes 50µs to read 8KB from a 25nm Intel NAND die. That works out to a staggering 156MB/s, from a single NAND die. Even the old 50nm stuff Intel used in the first X25-M could pull 4KB in 50µs or ~78MB/s. The original X25-M had 10 channels of NAND, giving it the ability to push nearly 800MB/s of data. Of course we never saw such speeds, as it's only one thing to read a few KB of data from a NAND array and dump it into a register. It's another thing entirely to transfer that data over an interface to the host controller.
Back in 2006 the Open NAND Flash Interface (ONFi) workgroup was formed with the task of defining a standardized interface for NAND Flash. Today, Intel and Micron are the chief supporters of ONFi while Toshiba and Samsung abide by a separate, comparable standard.
As is typically the case, the first standard out of the workgroup featured very limited performance. ONFi 1.0 topped out at 50MB/s, which was clearly the limiting factor in NAND transfer speed (see my example above). The original ONFi spec called for an asynchronous interface, as in one not driven by a clock signal. Most logic these days is synchronous, meaning it operates off of a host clock frequency. Depending on the architecture, all logic within a synchronously clocked system will execute/switch whenever the clock signal goes high, low or both. Asynchronous logic on the other hand looks for a separate signal, similar to a clock, but not widely distributed - more like a simple enable pin. In the asynchronous NAND world this is the role of the RE, WE and CLE (read/write/command-latch enable) signals.
ONFi 2.0 brought the move to source synchronous clocking, as well as double data rate (DDR) operation. Not only were ONFi 2.0 NAND devices tied to a clock frequency, transfers happened on both rising and falling edges of the clock - a similar transition was made in SDRAM over a decade ago. While ONFi 1.0 NAND was good for up to 50MB/s, ONFi 2.0 increased the interface speed to 133MB/s. Present day synchronous ONFi 2.1/2.2 NAND is no longer interface limited as the spec supports 166MB/s and 200MB/s operating modes. Work on ONFi 3.0 is being done now to take the interface up to 400MB/s.
The above benchmark is 22 minutes long and it consists of 128,895 read operations and 72,411 write operations. Roughly 44% of all IOs were sequential. Approximately 30% of all accesses were 4KB in size, 12% were 16KB in size, 14% were 32KB and 20% were 64KB. Average queue depth was 3.59.
Here is another comparision for you:Above is the Overall System Performance using PCMark Vantage:
PCMark Vantage, another system-wide performance suite. For those of you who aren’t familiar with PCMark Vantage, it ends up being the most real-world-like hard drive test I can come up with. It runs things like application launches, file searches, web browsing, contacts searching, video playback, photo editing and other completely mundane but real-world tasks. I’ve described the benchmark in great detail before but if you’d like to read up on what it does in particular, take a look at Futuremark’s whitepaper on the benchmark; it’s not perfect, but it’s good enough to be a member of a comprehensive storage benchmark suite. Any performance impacts here would most likely be reflected in the real world.Next,Vertex 3 drives use Intel 25nm MLC NAND, as seen below:
This is better than Async found in the Agility. It is why with the same controller the VERTEX3 has better and faster performance and specs.VERTEX3 MAX IOPS EDITION uses TOSHIBA TOGGLE NAND:
Superior in performance (and cost) to both sync and Async in the above lines.
Not wanting to be completely married to Intel NAND production, OCZ wanted to introduce a version of the Vertex 3 that used 32nm Toshiba Toggle NAND; Rather than call the new drive a Vertex 3 with a slightly different model number, OCZ opted for a more pronounced suffix: MAX IOPS
The largest NAND die you could ship at 32/34nm was 4GB - the move to 25nm brought us 8GB die. What this means is that for a given capacity, the MAX IOPS edition will have twice as many MLC NAND die under the hood. The standard 240GB Vertex 3 has 32 die spread across 16 chips. The MAX IOPS version doubles that to 64 die in 16 chips. The 120GB Vertex 3 only has 16 die across 16 chips while the MAX IOPS version has 32 die, but only using 8 chips. The SF-2281 is an 8-channel controller so with 32 die you get a 4-way interleave and 8-way with the 64 die version. There are obviously diminishing returns to how well you can interleave requests to hide command latencies - 4 die per channel seems to be the ideal target for the SF-2281.This is basically why an Agility, a Vertex3 and a Vertex3 MAX IOPS all use the same exact controller in them but deliver different levels of performance. The difference is the NAND inside (Memory)
Here is a chart that includes the MAX IOPS:
If your keeping score from the first above comparing the Agility and the Vertex3 here is the MAX IOPS added in:
SCORES (most real world test IMO to show difference between drives)
Agility 3 240GB: 18968
Vertex3 240GB: 19161
Vertex3 120GB: 17400NOW IS SHOULD BE NOTED THAT LARGER SSD DRIVES ALWAYS PERFORM BETTER THAN SMALLER ONES AND HAVE INCREASED SPEED / PERFORMANCE.
That is why the 120GB Vertex3 scores lower than the same Vertex3 in 240GB size. Only difference is more chips.
120GB MAX IOPS VERTEX3: 19215. Yes. higher than the 120GB Vertex3's 17400, and also higher than both the 240GB drives at double the capacity. Also faster than a 256GB Crucial M4, even at only 120GB size. Conclusion, the NAND inside a drive can infact directly effect performance. You should look at more than just the brand or MFG. You should compare the price relative to the performance. While the TOSHIBA TOGGLE NAND MAX IOPS is faster, it's not the best value or a good choice for normal users since you pay more for it. A much better value is in a slightly slower, but still very fast and inexpensive Vertex3. You can steal a 120GB for $69 on sale, and $79-$89 all day long regular price. Fast enough over the Agility to make it worth the $10 more, and plenty fast and cheaper than the MAX IOPS to be a much better value.
I hope this helps answer your question.