Kingston, the big OEM supplier that it is, had no issue with making the tradeoff of slower NAND speeds for better long-term reliability with early production BiCS4 96L TLC, but while the company optimized the KC2000 from a reliability standpoint, it failed to keep up with some of the more responsive competitors in testing. Mainly, the NAND’s operation speeds were set to slower frequencies than what competitors were operating at, and the fact that the Kioxia NAND was of a 2-plane design, rather than 4-plane like Micron’s and Samsung’s, potentially losing out on some performance under mixed workloads. The reasoning? While Kingston was using a pretty potent component combo, there were some limitations to its design. Kingston’s KC2000 was a rather good performer when it went through our benchmarks the last go-round, although, it wasn’t one of the best SSDs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |