Talk:MRAM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] "faster than SRAM"
Is it really supposed to be faster than the SRAM used for CPU caches? The main part of the article only mentions that it should be denser than SRAM. Amaurea 17:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, could do with scientific references here to justify these statements. A quick google gives me an article from this April in Science [1], which says "IBM has obtained read times of 3ns in 1kb research memories, Freescale has demonstrated a 25-ns cycle time for its 4-Mb MRAM, and Cypress Semiconductor is targeting a 70-ns cycle time for its 256-kb MRAM." The article in Science states that there is recent research which indicates that much faster MRAM may be produced in future. So I think it depends on whether you're talking about the situation right now (I think 10ns cycle time SRAM is available currently), or what the potential of the technology is.
- Freescale Semiconductor data sheet for MR2A16A, see www.freescale.com and enter Part Number MR2A16A.
- Cypress Semiconductor datasheet for CY9C62256, see www.chipcatalog.com/Cypress/CY9C62256-70SC.htm.
Average Earthman 18:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
i beleive the "faster than SRAM" was a misquote by wired.com from IBM, who quoted it as being 6x faster than DRAM.. (corrected)
was this page taken from www.mrsci.com/Computer-Memory/MRAM.php , or did they steal it from wikipedia?? - 2nd feb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.148.8 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- They copied it from Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia is not copyrighted. Average Earthman 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it is under the GFDL, so they should give credit to Wikipedia and mention the license, ideally. I know some people here feel quite strongly about that (I don't though), and we have a page for listing noncompliant sites. mrsci does not seem compliant, and actually claims all rights for itself. Amaurea 10:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] needs expansion of info
Note: the description section needs to be expanded to include all the various types of MRAM. The comparison section needs to add other forms of memory such as FRAM. Earthsound 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] history?
so..what happened between 1989 and 2000?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MRAM&oldid=63136685#Current_History
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 00:03, 11 July 2006 (talk • contribs) 71.103.116.182.
I'm pretty sure that Gary Prinz of the Naval Research Lab actually wrote the patent for MRAM in the 90s. The article reads like it is written by someonefrom IBM...pretty typical to leave off the accomplishments of others.
[edit] Core memory
Sounds like MRAM is a much-refined reincarnation of the old core memory used back in 1401 and 1620 days. Jm546 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- No more so than a hard drive – that's magnetic too. Note that MRAM, unlike core, has a non-destructive read. This leads to overall operation considerably different than core. On the other hand, FeRAM uses ferromagnetic elements, but does operate like code. There's no simple comparison here. Maury 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)