HP, Hynix Not Commercializing ReRAM Until 4Q13

Status
Not open for further replies.

tanjo

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2011
272
1
18,810
Replace SSD, flash, yes... and maybe DRAM for gadgets. Unfortunately, memristors, like flash have write endurance. So, no, I don't want that in my desktop's RAM slot.
 

Estix

Honorable
Apr 12, 2012
250
0
10,810
[citation][nom]tanjo[/nom]Replace SSD, flash, yes... and maybe DRAM for gadgets. Unfortunately, memristors, like flash have write endurance. So, no, I don't want that in my desktop's RAM slot.[/citation]
A good point, but, personally, I don't care about write endurance, so long as the expected life of the component is at least as long as the service life of the device.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
[citation][nom]tanjo[/nom]Replace SSD, flash, yes... and maybe DRAM for gadgets. Unfortunately, memristors, like flash have write endurance. So, no, I don't want that in my desktop's RAM slot.[/citation]

for me, depends entirely on how many cycles it has.

seeing as you could do a fullshutdown to full windows boot exactly how you left it in less than 10 seconds, im at least intrested, granted, it needs to either have a few million writes, or be a backup for ram, like if i "shut down" the computer, ram gets dumped to that ram, and it boots from that ram while everything is moved to normal ram.
 

Mathos

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
584
0
18,980
If it's usable to replace SRam the endurance is likely going to be pretty high. Considering Sram is what they use for Cache memory in most processors.
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
[citation][nom]tanjo[/nom]Replace SSD, flash, yes... and maybe DRAM for gadgets. Unfortunately, memristors, like flash have write endurance. So, no, I don't want that in my desktop's RAM slot.[/citation]

There are plans of pushing memristors into other microchips to replace transistors, possibly including CPU and GPU.
 

nurgletheunclean

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2007
150
0
18,690
[citation][nom]tanjo[/nom]Replace SSD, flash, yes... and maybe DRAM for gadgets. Unfortunately, memristors, like flash have write endurance. So, no, I don't want that in my desktop's RAM slot.[/citation]
I have serious doubts their DRAM implementation would include desktop system memory replacement. There's no way it will be fast enough. Consider that DDR3 1600 is 12,800MB/s vs a fast toggle NAND is ~60MB/s If they could get even close to 5% that level of performance from ReRAM, they would release it as soon as possible since you wouldn't need any complicated controller (marvell/sandforce) to fully saturate a SATA3 interface. A USB3 thumb drive would be as fast at the fastest SSDs today.

And for the people thinking that write endurance wouln't be an issue for system memory you are flat out wrong. DDR's number of write operations are far more frequent than disk writes, you don't "feel" them because they happen so fast. Typically you would write to memory 10x+ as often as a disk, as all disk reads are going to be memory writes, as well as all the different transformations, moves, copies, decompression, etc all are memory write operations.
 

tanjo

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2011
272
1
18,810
@nurgletheunclean:
I've read that Elpida made a ReRAM prototype (64Mb) with a write speed of 10ns (which they say is 10x faster than the best NAND) with a million times write endurance.

Then again no, I really don't want that as RAM. But they do obliterate flash hands down. Ultra low power plus x times faster. The problem is compatibility with current devices with flash based card readers. But upcoming tablets/smartphones can use this as internal storage no problem. (And maybe make it viable to turn off tablets if they can make it boot under 10 secs :))

I wonder what the price/GB would be?
 
G

Guest

Guest
sdram from like 15 years ago was ~10 ns latency. DDR was slower, ddr2 was slower still, ddr3 was slower still.

So, no its not 10x faster, nor is it 1000x faster....

It would be great to have faster latency ram. Bandwitch has been going up a lot over the last 1-2 decades, but latency has suffered for it.

If its 10ns at the same bandwitch as ddr3 then that would be great. But im not holding my breath.
 

saturnus

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
212
0
18,680
Current memristor technology based on titanium dioxide will not and is not targetted at replacing DRAM but flash RAM. It's far too slow to be used as DRAM, both in latency and potential bandwidth. Both are faster than flash by a factor of at least 10 though.

The crucial part is that memristor with current technology easily shrinks die sizes as each memristor can easily hold at least 8 bit, and with adequate refinement of the technology potentially much more.

Write endurance is also in the factor of 100s or 1000s above flash RAM. Seeing that current flash drives offer MTBF of 2 million+ hours, it's going to outlive any of us us by many years.
 

billyboy999

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2011
34
0
18,530
[citation][nom]akljk2lkl2lk2[/nom]sdram from like 15 years ago was ~10 ns latency. DDR was slower, ddr2 was slower still, ddr3 was slower still.So, no its not 10x faster, nor is it 1000x faster....It would be great to have faster latency ram. Bandwitch has been going up a lot over the last 1-2 decades, but latency has suffered for it.If its 10ns at the same bandwitch as ddr3 then that would be great. But im not holding my breath.[/citation]
LOL... troll or ignorant at best. RAM has never been as fast as 10ns, if you're talking about total time to read a word, RAM from 15 yrs ago, or from now. Latency has not gone up much but it certainly hasn't degraded.
The Pentium Pro was a CPU you could expect to find 15 years ago. Clocked at 150-200mhz, that gives it's L1 cache 7-5ns access time at best. You must be kidding if you think RAM was anywhere as fast as L1.
SDRAM ran at 100MHz back then. Cas latency of 1 or 2 doesn't mean it takes one cycle to access a value.
 

luciferano

Honorable
Sep 24, 2012
1,513
0
11,810
[citation][nom]akljk2lkl2lk2[/nom]sdram from like 15 years ago was ~10 ns latency. DDR was slower, ddr2 was slower still, ddr3 was slower still.So, no its not 10x faster, nor is it 1000x faster....It would be great to have faster latency ram. Bandwitch has been going up a lot over the last 1-2 decades, but latency has suffered for it.If its 10ns at the same bandwitch as ddr3 then that would be great. But im not holding my breath.[/citation]

[citation][nom]billyboy999[/nom]LOL... troll or ignorant at best. RAM has never been as fast as 10ns, if you're talking about total time to read a word, RAM from 15 yrs ago, or from now. Latency has not gone up much but it certainly hasn't degraded. The Pentium Pro was a CPU you could expect to find 15 years ago. Clocked at 150-200mhz, that gives it's L1 cache 7-5ns access time at best. You must be kidding if you think RAM was anywhere as fast as L1. SDRAM ran at 100MHz back then. Cas latency of 1 or 2 doesn't mean it takes one cycle to access a value.[/citation]

Latencies for system memory have been improving over the years last I checked, not degrading. A timing of say 9 on DDR3-1600 is still lower latency for that timing's operation than a timing of 3 on SDRAM that runs at 133MHz. Timings increase, but the frequency increases are enough to counteract that (although early modules of a new RAM interface often have higher latency than the previous modules of the same transfer rate, probably caused by the chips being more complex and also immature process shrinks, as they mature, they improve).

I think that billyboy999 is correct in that DRAM access latency for system RAM was never anywhere near 10ns. Iit's something like 150-250 in most systems right now IIRC, but that's probably mostly caused by the system memory being several inches away instead of several micrometers away from components in the CPU, not the difference in performance between CPU cache SRAM and DRAM. A specific timing such as CAS can get around 10ns, but I don't think that it was near 10ns with any of the older SDRAM. SDRAM had higher CAS duration than that IIRC, let alone full access time with the other timings included.

ReRAM can probably be fast enough to replace SRAM. Remember, a huge part of SRAM's performance comes from the process that it is built on. eDRAM can be pretty darned close and the difference between it and DRAM is just that eDRAM is built on the same process technologies as CPUs and such instead of the processes that are used for DRAM chips that are focused on capacity and density instead of performance. ReRAM, when manufactured in a CPU, can probably be faster than the SRAM that is currently used in the caches. Also, if ReRAM is much denser than SRAM, then interleaving and such can be used to great extents to possibly beat SRAM in at least some metrics. ReRAM might not be fast enough for L1 cache, but even if its not, then it might be great as L2, L3, or L4.
 

yourma2000

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2009
19
0
18,510
"Hynix Not Commercializing ReRAM Until 4Q13"
Until? It was pushed back to 2014 so if anything it's back on track
Also memristor write cycles are meny magnitudes higher than flash
youtu.be/n3XzuBt54ig?t=51m56s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.