backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by Spyvie.. on Mar 12 at 3:58 PM


Phase change memory wafer manufactured at 90nm
Intel claims it will mass produce phase change memory before the end of 2007

This week Intel privately shared parts of its roadmap for memory technologies through 2008. Intel’s progress on phase-change memory, PCM or PRAM, will soon be sampled to customers with mass production possible before the end of the year.

Phase-change memory is positioned as a replacement for flash memory, as it has non-volatile characteristics, but is faster and can be scaled to smaller dimensions. Flash memory cells can degrade and become unreliable after as few as 10,000 writes, but PCM is much more resilient at more than 100 million write cycles. For these reasons, Intel believes that phase-change memory could one day replace DRAM.

“The phase-change memory gets pretty close to Nirvana,” said Ed Doller, CTO of Intel’s flash memory group. “It will start to displace some of the RAM in the system.”

For its implementation of phase-change memory, Intel has since 2000 licensed technology from Ovonyx Inc.. The Ovonyx technology uses the properties of chalcogenide glass, the same material found in CD-RW and DVD-RW, which can be switched between crystalline and amorphous states for binary functions.

Every potential PCRAM memory maker thus far licenses Ovonyx technology. According to Ovonyx’s Web site, the first licensee of the technology was Lockheed Martin in 1999, with Intel and STMicroelectronics in the following year. Four years after that, Nanochip signed an agreement.  Elpida and Samsung were the next two in 2005, and Qimonda marks the latest with a signing this year.

IBM, Macronix and Qimonda detailed last December its recent developments on phase-change memory. Researchers at IBM’s labs demonstrated a prototype phase-change memory device that switched more than 500 times faster than flash while using less than one-half the power to write data into a cell. The IBM device’s cross-section is a minuscule 3 by 20 nanometers in size, far smaller than flash can be built today and equivalent to the industry’s chip-making capabilities targeted for 2015.

Intel’s initial phase-change technology, however, is already a reality, as the chipmaker revealed that it has produced a 90 nanometer phase-change memory wafer. At the 90 nanometer process size, the power requirements to write are approximate to that required for flash. Intel said that its early test work shows data retention abilities of greater than 10 years even at temperatures of 85 degree Celsius.

Intel touts PCM as a “new category of memory,” as its attributes are distinctly different, and typically superior to many of the memory technologies today as it combines the best attributes of RAM, NOR and NAND. Intel wouldn’t give a firm date on the availability of its phase-change memory as several details still need to be finalized after the sampling process.

“We're going to be using this to allow customers to get familiar with the technology and help us architect the next generation device.” Doller said. “We're hoping we can see [mass] production by the end of the year, but that depends on the customers.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Promising
By darkpaw on 3/9/2007 4:20:17 PM , Rating: 4
Yah, cause they sorta underestimated the willingness of everyone to rebuild all of their x86 based programs to a completely different architecture.

It was really a bad idea from the start, since it had 0 backwards compatibility.


RE: Promising
By zsdersw on 3/9/2007 6:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
The architecture was not a bad idea at all. Attempting to take it where it wouldn't fit right was the only bad idea.


RE: Promising
By iollmann on 3/11/2007 12:09:42 AM , Rating: 3
AMD is to blame here, as they admitted when they introduced the x86-64 ISA. Transitioning CPU architectures is possible. Apple has brought its users kicking and screaming (or drooling impatiently as the case may be) through two CPU architecture switches over the years, and is in the midst of a 64-bit transition, which will likely play out without a hitch. x86 has no backward compatibility features for PowerPC. PowerPC had only minimal similarity to mk68k

The difference between the Windows and MacIntosh experience is that in the Mac case, users had no choice. With each switch, Apple lost a few old customers, but picked up a bunch of new ones.

Apple also controls the operating system. I have no information about Microsoft's level of enthusiasm for EPIC. Microsoft is in a position that they could convince business users that they have no choice. (Evidence of industry boycotts of Vista notwithstanding.) However, whether they wanted to go through the effort to write and support a emulator is another question. Microsoft is playing a defensive game in the operating systems market. Bold moves don't do much except endanger their position of dominance. Itanium is likely nothing but a big giant expense for Microsoft.


RE: Promising
By oTAL on 3/12/2007 11:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
Ok...
Two points are worth mentioning about Itanium...

1. It is STILL a promissing technology... anyone who can't see that needs a pair a glasses... will it ever deliver on the promise? No one really knows... (anybody who thinks he knows is wrong...)

2. Yes, It competes with x86-64. Two different architectures can compete the same way macs and pcs compete for a place in your desk. The latest failures for Itanium came when Opterons and low priced Xeons (prices forced by AMD competition) started eroding into existing and potential costumers.

One of the largest semiconductor companies asked my company for an opinion on the possibility of architecture shift on some software we deliver (decision support software, high power necessities - large databases). Lots of different SOs and architectures have been used by this company - the code I work on has flags (currently never used) for stuff like Alpha, Spark, etc. They use HP-UX, they have unix systems, windows systems and I believe they may still have some Solaris stuff. These technologies compete with each other! Maybe with higher inertia since there are very large investments at stake, but this competition exists.
When we were asked we answered - there are some choices... each have ups and downs... our opinion is still that x86 is here to stay and it requires the smallest investment on almost every level...
Still, I can see Itaniums being usefull for many things... and they do offer blistering speed for optimized code... it's just too much of an investment to buy expensive hardware and develop expensive software...

On a side note...
quote:
AMD is to blame here, as they admitted when they introduced the x86-64 ISA.


I'm going out on a limb here and say that AMD is probably quite proud of carrying that blame... ;)


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles
Solid-state Drives Ready for Prime Time
November 15, 2006, 3:45 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki