Today at MWC Shanghai, SanDisk announced a follow-up to their iNAND 7132 eMMC solution, the iNAND 7232. For those that are unfamiliar with the iNAND 7132, I would refer to our previous coverage on that storage solution. At a high level, the real importance of that product launch was that SanDisk was able to use TLC NAND to provide relatively low-cost storage with high performance using SLC caching much like their consumer SSDs. Peak sequential reads on the earlier 7132 series could reach 280 MB/s, and peak sequential writes also reached 125 MB/s on an eMMC 5.0 HS400 interface. There were 16, 32, and 64 GB SKUs which didn’t do much to push the bar in terms of on-device storage, but there are some real cost and performance benefits for certain scenarios that could provide an advantage over traditional MLC eMMC solutions at the high end which would go a long way to killing the 16GB SKU that has plagued the high-end smartphone for so long.

The iNAND 7232 is an obvious successor to the 7132, as it’s built on SanDisk’s 15nm process with TLC NAND and an SLC cache somewhere in the range of 500MB to 1GB, but this will depend upon the SKU. However, unlike the 7132 SanDisk has finally eliminated the 16GB SKU so the only available storage capacities are 32, 64, and 128 GB. This new solution also supports eMMC 5.1 with a command queue to improve random IO read speeds. Sequential read speeds are unchanged with a maximum of 280 MB/s, but sequential write improves to hit up to 150 MB/s from the 125 MB/s on the 7132. The iNAND 7232 is currently sampling to OEMs, and it’s likely that we’ll see devices shipping with this solution in the fall.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • close - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    You'll get a 32GB chip with 16GB disabled ;). The problem wasn't the BoM as much as the fact that manufacturers want to squeeze as much money as possible from you starting with normal price for the most basic of configurations then charge a premium for higher capacities.
  • jjj - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    "but there are some real cost and performance benefits for certain scenarios that could provide an advantage over traditional MLC eMMC solutions at the high end which would go a long way to killing the 16GB SKU that has plagued the high-end smartphone for so long."

    You lost the plot there a little bit, this is midrange at best and will have no impact on high end.
    Truth is that this year it's too early to drop 16GB for many including Apple. If Apple goes 32GB they lose well over 1 billion in income in a year (and that includes projected costs decline for NAND). The iphone 6 BOM should be maybe 150$ now, adding 1GB of RAM and after that adding some 6$ on 16GB more NAND would also be too much for their launch margins and Wall Street would get nervous. Given the weak demand maybe next year prices will be low enough for a lot more devices to drop 16GB but we are just not there yet.

    Also you've missed the Hynix announcement a few days ago and that one was more interesting.
    Hynix announced that they are shipping UFS 2.0 eMMC with claimed perf at 780MB/s and 160MB/s seq read/write and 32,000 IOPS/17,000 IOPS random read/write.
  • MrSpadge - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    I'm sure Apple is more than happy to charge 100$ for each incremental NAND upgrade. And sell iCloud subscriptions to make up for the small space. The point here is not really the BOM of the hardware, but rather "how long can they get away with it?" As long as people keep buying, they'll hardly change this.
  • jjj - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    The point is always the BOM or most phones would have 4GB now. It's about how much value it creates and how much you can afford to fit inside the targeted BOM. 16GB is popular now even in midrange because the cost difference between 8 and 16GB got small enough recently and price per GB favors 16GB in a big way. That's what is needed for 16-32GB, price needs to be low enough and per GB to favor 32GB in a significant way. Most high end devices went to 32GB already anyway, so now it's about lesser devices including the iphone (the iphone is not high end, only the SoC is that, every other part is midrange at best - good screen but midrange res, good cam but low res, average wifi, touch controller lacking key features, 1GB RAM, 16GB NAND, only cat 4 LTE, like a pimped out 100$ device with metal casing and a fast engine).
    Die capacity has it's role to play too since it dictates pricing, smaller dies are less efficient so price per GB is higher and the best value capacity keeps going up.
  • fokka - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    the specs of the iphone might not be high end compared to the competition, but the iphone is very much marketed and prices as high end. i think apple could very much afford starting with 32gb without making "the investors nervous".
  • Stochastic - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    Meanwhile, you've been able to buy a 64GB Oneplus One for months at $300.
  • mkozakewich - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    You're epitomizing the concept of brain-dead consumers! Numbers aren't everything. I was examining the images from an iPhone 6, and it manages to keep a lot of quality. Samsung devices usually have really bad image quality, and all those megapixels are actually upres'd images. Sensors have barely gotten better over the years.
  • mdriftmeyer - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    The new Sony sensors will make Android fans cry when they are in the new iPhone 6S.
  • Impulses - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link

    S6 is pretty neck and neck with an iPhone 6, they're both still crap compared to a large sensor compact or a cheaper MILC even with a slow lens. At some point people will realize that if a better camera is the sole/main reason to upgrade a $500-750 phone, there's far better ways to put that money towards vastly better IQ.

    Camera companies are doing an absolutely dreadful job of getting that point across tho, never mind actually making cameras more inviting or connected (they're fine for an enthusiast but not mom and dad or six pack Joe).
  • LordConrad - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    In future device reviews, Hopefully Anandtech will specify whether internal storage is MLC or TLC (and the lithography if possible). Using a device that utilizes 1x nm TLC storage is just asking for trouble, just ask Samsung about their 840 EVO.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now