News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by fluoridation on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @05:33AM (#34802089)
It's clearly stated. One is 16 billion bytes, the other is 15.4 billion bytes.
Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by Dylan16807 on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @05:53AM (#34802216)
They got two new ones.

But it would be very weird if different drives in the same batch had different capacities. That's a lot of wasted effort.

Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by danielheath on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @06:11AM (#34802348)
Not strange at all; first they make the batch, then they test them to see how many of the bits are actually writable, and sort them according to how well they turned out.

This is also how phone screens are made (a huge panel is produced, then lit up; some pixels are stuck, but phone-screen-sized pieces can be cut out of it where there's enough good pixels).

This is also how most CPUs and GPU models are made - test each sub-component, disable the parts that fail testing, then price the result according to how much of it works.

Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by sseagull on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @07:09AM (#34802733)
Yep. This is very common and is called binning:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning

Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by Dylan16807 on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @12:16PM (#34807139)
But they were in the same bin.
Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by danielheath on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @10:14PM (#34814531)
Right, but all that means is they met the minimum standards for that bin and didn’t meet the minimum standards for the next one.
Re:Shrinkflation, SanDisk Style by leoedin on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @06:07AM (#34802327)
As far as I can see the author now owns 4 memory sticks, but only looked at the flash on 2 of them.