> Where does that come from? From everything I've read is that its structure is fairly analogous to DRAM, "simply" replacing the capacitor with the magnetic tunnel junction, which has its component layers stacked vertically, thus not really taking up any extra space.
I did some searching; older references show an 8-12F2 size, for e.g. the Everspin parts. Grandis claims a 6F2 size which is indeed comparable to DRAM.
>> people who make the exact same claims about RRAM as you quote for MRAM, which 3d-xpoint appears to be.
> At least the xpoint incarnation still seems to be slower than DRAM according to that article, while MRAM is being offered as SRAM/battery-backed DRAM drop-in replacement.
Right, the product they are claiming they will manufacture next year is slower than DRAM and less dense than flash. (Frustratingly I couldn't find a reference for if they are talking about latency or throughput when they say "slower"; it makes a big difference for which applications will be hurt by the performance mismatch).
However, there doesn't appear (yet) to be a fundamental reason why resistive ram must always be slower than DRAM, nor a fundamental reason why they couldn't do MLC tricks with it, so you can't say all RRAM will be slower than DRAM and less dense than NAND.
> Where does that come from? From everything I've read is that its structure is fairly analogous to DRAM, "simply" replacing the capacitor with the magnetic tunnel junction, which has its component layers stacked vertically, thus not really taking up any extra space.
I did some searching; older references show an 8-12F2 size, for e.g. the Everspin parts. Grandis claims a 6F2 size which is indeed comparable to DRAM.
>> people who make the exact same claims about RRAM as you quote for MRAM, which 3d-xpoint appears to be.
> At least the xpoint incarnation still seems to be slower than DRAM according to that article, while MRAM is being offered as SRAM/battery-backed DRAM drop-in replacement.
Right, the product they are claiming they will manufacture next year is slower than DRAM and less dense than flash. (Frustratingly I couldn't find a reference for if they are talking about latency or throughput when they say "slower"; it makes a big difference for which applications will be hurt by the performance mismatch).
However, there doesn't appear (yet) to be a fundamental reason why resistive ram must always be slower than DRAM, nor a fundamental reason why they couldn't do MLC tricks with it, so you can't say all RRAM will be slower than DRAM and less dense than NAND.