Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Blog

Crossbar RRAM Aims for 1TB

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Why include transistors?
resistion   7/8/2014 6:40:01 PM
NO RATINGS
The sign of applied compliance is the abrupt current jump in SET discontinuous with dI/dV afterward

EE_engineer
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Why include transistors?
EE_engineer   7/8/2014 1:33:57 PM
NO RATINGS
to resistion -  it seems that they are using a passive crosspoint structure ("transistor-less" crossbar array) considering the core memory circuit pic shown above.

I guess they are refering to mux/demux transistors outside of the passive crosspoint memory structure (a circuit designer's point of view).

 

EE_engineer
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Why include transistors?
EE_engineer   7/8/2014 1:26:58 PM
NO RATINGS
to resistion - I am not sure about that. Looks like current still increases as voltage increases after the programming. And the device seems to be programmed w/o external current compliance, which is good.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: HSR too close to cliff
resistion   7/4/2014 7:23:09 PM
NO RATINGS
Their selector is or closely resembles the threshold switching device like the ovonic type.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Why include transistors?
resistion   7/2/2014 7:53:15 AM
NO RATINGS
Ah, I see the I-V indicates no self-compliance. That makes it transistor-bound. It's a waste of the built-in HSR.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Why include transistors?
resistion   7/2/2014 12:41:19 AM
NO RATINGS
I had thought Crossbar utilized transistor-less "crossbar" arrays. Adding the transistor only worsens the density, compared to without.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
HSR too close to cliff
resistion   7/2/2014 12:31:02 AM
NO RATINGS
That HSR definition looks too close to the cliff!

Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week