But with comparative markting what you compare against is the trick.
So memory geometry and energy/bit have been reducing for years as a natural consequence of Moore's law miniaturization. I would argue that for an engineering audience this "downward escalator" is a built-in assumption.
And bear in mind the per bit energy needs to reduce because we keep choosing multimedia standards and applications that require more and more bits.
To say that the y generation memory consumes less per bit than the x generation memory and is therefore "green" seems to be a stretch. If very specific other things were done to make the compoment greener, reduce its carbon footprint during manufacture etc, I would better relate to the green label.
But yes every little bit helps....and the software programmers also need to understand that.
Peter, don't you think "green" is an analog quantity and that every little bit helps? Perhaps they should use the word "greener" to indicate improvement. Whether it is reducing the quantity of gases used in IC manufacturing or a memory that uses a little bit less energy than its predecessors, these are all good things, and I don't mind that the PR guys like to point that out when a change is made that means less environmental impact or energy use.
SRC's Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Manufacturing efforts are exemplary of what responsible chip makers should be doing. The effort is also researching all types of "greener" chemistries to clean up chip making further:
Hear, hear! SRC is doing important work here. The industry already has a well-deserved black eye for its impact on the groundwater of Silicon Valley. Environmental planning must become the part of any future chipmaking effort that hopes to be considered a success. End of story.
There's no getting around the fact that chip building is not exactly an environmentally friendly industry. I think we should applaud the development of any technology that can offset that, even in a small way.