Slashdot Mirror
Intel Previews Potential Replacement for Flash Memory
GeeksAreSexy writes "Eweek has an article up about the invention of a new kind of nonvolatile memory technology that could one day replace traditional flash memory. Unlike traditional flash memory, chips using this new technology will be able to execute code with performance, and sustain millions of read/write cycles without dying." From the article: "This is a case in which 'Necessity is the mother of invention' is very true. We were forced to look for something else, completely different. That's why we decided to invest in PCM ... There are definitely limits to what you can do with our current flash methodology. There needs to be a complete quantum leap somewhere along the line to push everything forward. We believe PCM are going to be that quantum leap."
... and here I tought naively we could kiss goodbye to Macrobe Flash.
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Just my 2c worth but I remember seeing this in a story (from Samsung) using the same technology at least 12 months ago Is this a reissue?
So is this better or worse than that other "flash replacement" memory we heard about on /. the other week? You know, the one that's supposedly got the best parts of DRAM, hard disks and flash all in one?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Hardly news then, right?
Meta will eat itself
I predict a conflict between the Grammar Police and the Spelling Nazis on such a scale as to make World War II look like two toddlers fighting over Lego.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
that they were manufacturing this new memory out of the recycled parts from millions of discarded RDRAM chips.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
You realise that CPUs user the same material as most beaches, but they still manage to give them many more FLOPS than your average beach. It is almost as if it is more important the way the material is used - nah, that can't be true. If one product is made out the same material as another product, then it must be exactly the same!!!
...they'd end up on Enterprise.
These stories are free but worth money.
Flash memory, not web-animation-Flash. (Not The Flash who runs very fast, and not Flash Gordon who fights Ming the Merciless. Also, not Flash the bathroom-cleaning liquid).
The headline has been changed clandestinely and the word "memory" has been added... in case you are wondering about some of the comments before this one.
Like many people here, I too saw the headline and thought some replacement for macromedia flash was on its way...
Ummmm.....No. Beach sand is mostly silicon dioxide, whereas computer chips are fabricated starting from wafers of very pure silicon.
Diamond (pure carbon) and carbon dioxide don't have similar properites either.
Sorry to get pedantic, but I'm a materials scientist, and it really pisses me off when people get these things mixed up. It is even worse when people confuse silicon (the base material for computer chips) with silicone (a polymer material used in caulking and breast implants).
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
but there's no fundamental technical difference as far as I can see
Except that one is changed with a laser and the other is done electrically?
The laser is probably more powerful than it needs to be because it needs to pass through a (relatively) dirty lens, several mm of air, and a layer of plastic before altering the material. in order to do this reliably, they overpower the laser so that it can achieve the effect. The tradeoff is that the excess power wears the material out faster.
Now the material is integrated into a chip and uses simple thermal conduction instead of radiation to achieve the effect. The distances are much smaller and the environment is much more controlled, which means that you do not need to overpower the devices. This results in reduced wear, which means a longer life.
As the GPP said...
"It is almost as if it is more important the way the material is used".
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
I'm afraid >a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?k ey=64758&dict=CALD">it's too late.
Besides which, the "original" quantum leap isn't "the smallest possible leap", it's a movement of a particle that should be impossible - iirc, it's either when a particle moves from point A to point B without passing through the intervening space, or when it crosses a potential barrier that (classically speaking) it's impossible for it to cross.
The idea being not that it's a giant leap forward, but that it's an unexpected, seemingly impossible event; it has since come to mean an important improvement. It does grate a little on me too, to be honest.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Will people stop confusing the word "quantum" with "small"?
A quantum leap does not mean "the smallest possible leap"; it just so happens it is the smallest possible leap. However, it means a jump from one discrete energy level to another, without passing through anything in between.
To me, that makes "a quantum leap in technology" a perfectly resonable metaphor. Albeit completely overused by marketing droids.
Carpe Daemon
[snip] execute code with performance, and sustain millions of read/write cycles without dying.
Wow! That means that in the worst case, it will last SEVERAL seconds!!!
(Wouldn't it be better to have something like trillions of read/write cycles, so we know it will at least last a few years?)
I can see a day where this memory is used in place of DRAM and application files are permanently stored in memory even when the system is off.
I think when people talk about "quantum leaps", they are forgetting two things: (1) quantum leaps are usually tiny, and (2) it is unpredictable when they happen. Is that the metaphor Intel wants?
OK, I'll give you a big chunk of quartz (SiO2), and you make a transitor out of it.
There are a lot of materials that go into a computer chip, and SiO2 plays an important role (mostly as a gate dielectric), though as you say, other materials have started to be substituted in. But to say that SiO2 is the useful part? You can't make a transistor out of SiO2 only, it doesn't conduct electricity.
Take a look at the MOSFET illustrated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lateral_mosfet. svg. The oxide is SiO2, the material above that is polysilicon, but everything below that is doped single crystal silicon. You don't want grain boundaries in your transistor mucking up the electrical properties. The transistors are connected with metal interconnects, usually copper these days because it has the second-highest conductivity of all metals (only silver is better, but not by much).
Now, I'll admit that my specialty these days is oxidation of nickel-based superalloys, but I still have a Ph.D. in materials science. I'm sure someone out there knows the details of current transistor design, but I'm sure the core of it is all still silicon. The reason that you don't hear much about the silicon part is that there aren't many opportunities to improve that part of it, whereas there is a significant opportunity to make improvements to the gate dielectric. SiO2 is only used because it is easy to make by oxidizing silicon and it does not react with silicon. For a long time, it was "good enough". Low-k materials would be better, and that is why you hear about them more.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.