That's how it has to work. To increase capacity you have to make smaller cells where charge may easier diffuse from one cell to another. Also to make drive faster, stored charge has to be smaller, which also decrease endurance. With SLC and QLC comparison is even worse as QLC is basically clever hack to store 4 times more data in the same number physical cells - it's tradeoff.

▲

bullen 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but that tradeoff comes with a hidden cost: complexity!

I much rather have 64GB of SLC at 100K WpB than 4TB of MLC at less than 10K WpB.

The spread functions that move bits around to even the writes or caches will also fail.

The best compromise is of course to use both kinds for different purposes: SLC for small main OS (that will inevitably have logs and other writes) and MLC for slowly changing large data like a user database or files.

The problem is now you cannot choose because the factories/machines that make SLC are all gone.

▲

userbinator 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is now you cannot choose because the factories/machines that make SLC are all gone.

You can still get pure SLC flash in smaller sizes, or use TLC/QLC in SLC mode.

I much rather have 64GB of SLC at 100K WpB than 4TB of MLC at less than 10K WpB.

It's more like 1TB of SLC vs. 3TB of TLC or 4TB of QLC. All three take the same die area, but the SLC will last a few orders of magnitude longer.

	▲	karczex 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		SLC are produced, but the issue is that there is no (I'm aware of) SLC products for consumer market

▲

mort96 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

My problem is: I have more than 64GB of data