From WikiChip
Editing nanotube-ram

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

This page supports semantic in-text annotations (e.g. "[[Is specified as::World Heritage Site]]") to build structured and queryable content provided by Semantic MediaWiki. For a comprehensive description on how to use annotations or the #ask parser function, please have a look at the getting started, in-text annotation, or inline queries help pages.

Latest revision Your text
Line 24: Line 24:
 
NRAM has a 3-5ns read/write access time, making it significantly faster than [[DRAM]] and even a viable [[last level cache]]. It's worth noting that writes are faster than reads. From a power perspective, NRAM consumes around 4-5 fJ/bit, slightly better than DRAM (5-7 fJ/bit). Additionally, since there is no capacitors involved, no refresh is necessary therefore the effective bandwidth over comparable DRAM products is higher.
 
NRAM has a 3-5ns read/write access time, making it significantly faster than [[DRAM]] and even a viable [[last level cache]]. It's worth noting that writes are faster than reads. From a power perspective, NRAM consumes around 4-5 fJ/bit, slightly better than DRAM (5-7 fJ/bit). Additionally, since there is no capacitors involved, no refresh is necessary therefore the effective bandwidth over comparable DRAM products is higher.
  
For this reason, NRAM offers an attractive forward scaling path beyond what DRAM can deliver. Though it would appear that DRAM should scale similarly to NRAM, in practice there is a minimum size at which DRAM can be designed. Below that size, the [[storage capacitor]] is not capable of storing enough charge. NRAM, on the other hand, keeps its state in terms of resistance levels meaning it's limited only by lithography. Scaling down to [[5 nm]] is well understood and it is thought that NRAM can scale down to a [[1 nm process]].
+
For this reason NRAM offers an attractive forward scaling path beyond what DRAM can deliver. Though it would appear that DRAM should scale similarly to NRAM, in practice there is a minimum size at which DRAM can be designed. Below that size, the [[storage capacitor]] is not capable of storing enough charge. NRAM, on the other hand, keeps its state in terms of resistance levels meaning it's limited only by lithography. It is thought that NRAM can scale down to a [[1 nm process]].
 
 
== Scaling ==
 
There are a number of ways in which NRAM can scale. Process scaling is largely a function of the number of CNTs per bit. Switching is well understood with just a few 100s CNTs, therefore, NRAM can scale down to well below the [[5 nm process]]. In addition to traditional lithography scaling, since NRAM is embedded into the [[BEOL]], it can be built right on top of memory or logic (e.g., NRAM on top of a [[CPU]] [[core]]) or even analog (in fact the type of device does not matter). It's worth noting that this can actually be repeated as many times as desired, forming multiple layers vertically. As with other technologies, NRAM can also be scaled through [[TSV]]s and [[die stacking]]. Although Nantero did not fully disclose the specifics, NRAM can be further scaled in terms of density through the use of multi-level cells as a function of the pulse.
 
  
 
== Bibliography ==
 
== Bibliography ==

Please note that all contributions to WikiChip may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see WikiChip:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: