Slashdot Mirror
Nanotube Memory Finally Beats Flash For Speed
holy_calamity writes "Although flash memory that stores each bit on a single nanotube has been tinkered with in the lab for years, it has always been much slower than the devices in use today. A Finnish team has now cracked that, demonstrating single bits of nanotube memory that can be written in just 100 nanoseconds. Existing flash memory takes tens of microseconds."
what will we do when these "tubes" become clogged, and we can't get our email?
meh
This should be very beneficial to netbooks! A lot of the current crop end up having pretty slow solid state drives.
Call me back when it's available at Costco for 100$ per Terabyte.
I can already see the craigslist ads..."Wanted: Computer geek to come snake out my RAM."
That should be faster than anybody would ever need...
100 nanosecond are more than 10 nanosecond...
Been hanging out with the GNAA again, have you?
... that Ted Stevens is a prophet and the internet WILL be a series of tubes?
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Is this like some sort of scaled down version of the internet?
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
=0.1 library's of congress
"The device managed to withstand 18,000 operations, which is a reasonable lifetime for a memory device, she adds."
Is that good for experimental chips or do I not understand how such a low number is reasonable?
Jay Garrick isn't as fast as Wally West or Barry Allen...
ENIAC was orders of magnitude faster. These guys do 100 nanoseconds/nanotube -> 100 seconds/tube!
What ever happened to Nantero? Weren't working on this a few years ago?
Are we going back to analog?
How much latency does that algorithm add? They are only testing one bit. Won't a controller and the wear-reducing slow it down a fair amount?
Still a ways to go:
"The next challenge is to join an array together into a working memory chip, as the team has so far only tested single carbon nanotube elements. And although they have only proved capable of "remembering" data for several days after the power is cut, the team are confident this can be extended."
Several days is a pretty short life for SSD...and longer than i want my RAM to last ;)
Say for about 1 million units a year, with continuous production ...
What, you can't get the loan for a fab plant for this non-production memory?
And it will take 4-5 years to build it?
I'm thinking we better make the plant design fusion powered ... cause it's going to be a while, and we might as well be pie in the sky about it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
(works up an old man's voice)
When you pry them from my cold, dead hands!
All that's left to see is how reliable it ends up being, and what outside forces can cause a data change and how easily.
Flash is only now starting to approach the reliability that it was advertised to have inherently when it was developed, so sorry for being a stick-in-the-mud.
Can't we keep the same unit when comparing something? e.g. " ... that can be written in just 100 nanoseconds. Existing flash memory takes 100,000 nanoseconds"
100s of nanoseconds? Luxury! When I were young you had to store your data as sound pulses in a tube full o' mercury. You had to wait 100s of milliseconds for the pulse to reach the other end. Tell that to kids nowadays, they won't believe you.
To be totally OT; 0.01 nanobits per nanosecond.