Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!sun!imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!mslater
From: mslater@cup.portal.com (Michael Z Slater)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: FRAM
Message-ID: <19705@cup.portal.com>
Date: 20 Jun 89 17:38:16 GMT
References: <1012@aber-cs.UUCP> <1415@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>  <19507@cup.portal.com> <12110@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 20

>  Evans works for Krysalis. Their K28C16 2Kx8 UniRAM nonvolative SRAM
>with 250ns cycle time "is designed to allow 10**9 power cycles and have
>one-year retention of state powered-down." The ferroelectric memory is
>only accessed during power-up or power-down. Evans notes "10**12 accesses
>in 10 years requires 3000 accesses per second constantly on a single byte."

Krysalis is not going into production with their K28C16.  They had a number
of problems with it, and have decided to target smaller devices first.
   
>In addition, FRAM density should be superior to EEPROM. These companies
>currently need to work on manufacturing processes. I think I read some-
>where that these companies have signed on a few heavy-weights to help
>develop the products and bring them to market (eg. ATT?).

That's ITT, a West German company, not ATT.

FRAMs have tremendous long-term potential.  Unfortunately, the short term
goals seem to keep slipping.  

Michael Slater, Microprocessor Report    mslater@cup.portal.com