Breaking News
Memory Designline Blog

Industry View: Objective Analysis on Cypress, Ramtron

Kristin Lewotsky
10/15/2012 08:23 PM EDT

 5 comments   post a comment
NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
lobomerchant
User Rank
Author
re: Industry View: Objective Analysis on Cypress, Ramtron
lobomerchant   10/19/2012 6:44:09 AM
NO RATINGS
So true is said by @Michael Lorello...many would look for some better simplified applications and other better stuff!!

Michael Lorello
User Rank
Author
re: Industry View: Objective Analysis on Cypress, Ramtron
Michael Lorello   10/18/2012 12:17:52 PM
NO RATINGS
I would definitely like to see memory technology like FRAM become more popular and cheaper. The benefits such as speed and EEPROM-like behavior such as byte-level modification but with orders of magnitude better endurance could greatly simplify applications that normally require wear-leveling and page-erase handling algorithms. Let's hope Cypress doesn't do anything to mess things up.

TarraTarra!
User Rank
Author
re: Industry View: Objective Analysis on Cypress, Ramtron
TarraTarra!   10/17/2012 11:42:07 PM
NO RATINGS
T.J Rodgers understands this market very well, I would not be surprised if he pulls off a sunpower with this deal.

Roadman0
User Rank
Author
re: Industry View: Objective Analysis on Cypress, Ramtron
Roadman0   10/17/2012 5:21:37 PM
NO RATINGS
Discrete SRAM market is a rapidly shrinking, even Samsung & NEC left the market, only GSI and Cypress are left. Cypress as company has issues, Ramtron is not a cure for this. Problems at company are large in scale around PSUC, PSUC is not a competitive product against fixed function MCU.

vapats
User Rank
Author
re: Industry View: Objective Analysis on Cypress, Ramtron
vapats   10/16/2012 11:21:48 AM
NO RATINGS
So, alternative memories remaining expensive and low-density is a self-fulfilling prophecy of the market? Or are these technologies (like FRAM) truly viable?

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed