datasheets.com EBN.com EDN.com EETimes.com Embedded.com PlanetAnalog.com TechOnline.com  
Events
UBM Tech
UBM Tech

Design Article

The Future of NOR flash memory

Cliff Zitlaw, Spansion Inc.

5/2/2011 8:08 AM EDT

Shared memory bus results in lower active signal counts
Minimizing system level active signal count within the memory sub-system is important for a number of reasons.  
  1. A lower active signal count memory can often be placed in a less expensive package.
  2. PCB area and perhaps the number of PCB layers may be reduced when there are fewer traces to route.
  3. A lower active signal count memory subsystem allows the host SoC to either reallocate pins for alternate purposes or to reduce overall pin count.
  4. Lower active signal counts often allow memory manufacturers to test more devices simultaneously, which results in reduced testing costs.
Memory subsystem active signal count is minimized when both the volatile and non-volatile memories reside on the same bus.  Consolidated busses include the Parallel NOR bus (ADP – address data parallel) and the multiplexed NOR bus (ADM – address data multiplexed).  Note that the Burst ADM bus is the most attractive from a active signal count perspective (Table 1).  Shared ADP/ADM NOR buses often use PSRAM devices that have a cost advantage over PC-DRAM at lower densities.  At higher densities commodity PC-DRAM provide a lower cost volatile memory alternative.

PC-DRAM devices have interface characteristics that are incompatible with available non-volatile memories.  If a system is to take advantage of the low cost and high performance characteristics of higher density PC-DRAM products, a split bus approach is used with independent volatile and non-volatile memory buses.  This split bus approach results in a higher overall active signal count for the memory subsystem.  PC-DRAM based systems use a shadowing model where the content of the non-volatile memory is copied to DRAM either during the boot process or when needed during normal operation.  In these PC-DRAM based systems, execute in place functionality is not a requirement and a serial non-volatile memory interface (SPI NOR or NAND) becomes attractive from a active signal count perspective.  In this split bus implementation the non-volatile SPI bus provides the lowest overall active signal count (Table 1).


TABLE 1: System Level Signal Count of Memory Combinations (Volatile + Nonvolatile). Click image to download larger version.

NOR’s system responsiveness essential in many applications
System responsiveness is largely dependent on the memory subsystem’s initial latency and bus throughput.  NOR devices have significantly shorter initial access times than NAND products (Figure 3).  NOR’s initial access time advantage is up to 250x when compared to SLC NAND (100ns vs. 25us) and up to 750x for MLC NAND (100ns vs. 75us).  The advantage that NOR has over NAND is compounded when the virtual to physical address translation that is required in most NAND implementations is considered.  In particular, the Managed NAND usage model stores the virtual to physical translation table in the NAND device and requires one or more additional read operations to identify the physical address of the desired target data.  NOR based implementations often use a direct mapping of data where a virtual to physical translation is not required.


FIGURE 3: Initial Latencies

Throughput is dependent on several factors, including: how fast data can be transmitted and received on each data signal, the data bus width, and how effectively the memory device can pipeline accesses (Figure 4).  PC-DRAM and LP-DRAM (LPDDRx) devices combine a low latency array structure, a high-speed signaling interface and the ability to pipeline read/write accesses.  NOR devices have higher bus throughputs than legacy NAND products.  While a DDR interface has been developed for NAND products, penetration into the embedded world has not yet become widespread.
 
NOR’s short initial latency and competitive bus rates allow for direct code execution as well as low latency data storage.  This combination (low latency, high bus rates) is NOR’s fundamental technical value proposition that remains relevant, even after over 20 years of market acceptance.


FIGURE 4: Throughput on Each Data Bus Signal

Next: Usage Model




janine.love

5/2/2011 8:45 AM EDT

Spansion will be presenting a version of this paper this week at ESC. If you have any questions for the author, feel free to post a comment below.

Sign in to Reply



ManasK.RayChaudhuri

12/6/2011 11:41 PM EST

Please give a detailed presentation & not a sketchy one.

Sign in to Reply



resistion

5/2/2011 11:26 AM EDT

Good to see an assertion of NOR applications. But is the market size large enough to drive any significant usage changes?

Sign in to Reply



Cliff.Zitlaw

5/3/2011 1:59 PM EDT

One significant NOR usage change is the continuing proliferation of high density SPI. As a NVM product catagory, NOR revenue is more than adequate to fund next generation process development and new product catagories.

Sign in to Reply



cdhmanning

5/2/2011 3:02 PM EDT

Read, read, read... No mention of write. Has NOR write time improved or is it as bad as it always has been?

Sign in to Reply



Cliff.Zitlaw

5/3/2011 2:12 PM EDT

We have made significant improvements in programming performance. Spansion's GL-S product family programs at 1.2MB/s compared to the previous generation GL-P programming rate of 130KB/s.

Sign in to Reply



nosubject

5/2/2011 4:29 PM EDT

In the last comparison,

100MHz NOR bus rate (16b bus)
50MHz NAND bus rate (8b bus)

Why don't use the same freq and bus width to do comparison?

Sign in to Reply



tb1

5/2/2011 7:05 PM EDT

NAND parts typically don't come with a 16 bit bus and their bus rate is typically slower than the NOR parts. So the comparison seems to take these differences into account.

Sign in to Reply



cdhmanning

5/3/2011 6:35 PM EDT

16 bit buses are quite common on NAND.

Sign in to Reply



Cliff.Zitlaw

5/3/2011 2:03 PM EDT

I tried to use a typical usage case scenarios. As tb1 mentions x16 NAND is getting hard to find and commands a significant price premium. Note that even if the NAND transfer time were eliminated altogether the NOR:NAND comparision would be 50:1.

Sign in to Reply



cdhmanning

5/3/2011 6:41 PM EDT

I think the major flaw in that argument is that NAND and NOR are typically used for very different purposes and there are very few typical user scenarios for both beyond holding boot code/data.

Trying to compare them is like trying to compare a Ford F250 with a Porche.

NAND is prefered for general r/w file system usage - for which NOR is pretty terrible.

NOR is prefered for boot code and data, but many systems are dropping the NOR and using NAND to reduce costs. That slows boot, but is a compromise.

Sign in to Reply



hank.carey

5/3/2011 1:21 PM EDT

Posted article was truncated. From the concluding sentence: "...pin count interfaces, long product life cycles and superior..."

Sign in to Reply



janine.love

5/3/2011 1:34 PM EDT

Fixed! Thanks for letting me know.

Sign in to Reply



t.alex

5/6/2011 8:42 PM EDT

Is there any chance NOR will replace NAND in the near future?

Sign in to Reply



Cliff.Zitlaw

5/13/2011 11:49 AM EDT

NAND array architecture is fundamentally more efficient (bits/area) than NOR at a given process node. This array efficiency advantage outweighs NOR's smaller peripheral area as densities increase. From a silicon cost perspective NAND will always be less expensive at the highest densities, NOR will always be less expensive at the lowest densities. So from a cost perspective both NOR and NAND will continue to be viable for the foreseeable future.
From a performance perspective both technologies have characteristics that are essential in different applications. (NOR - low latency reads, NAND - fast program/erase rates)

Sign in to Reply



Please sign in to post comment

Navigate to related information

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)