Comments on: Memristor-based memory prototype by 2009

By: zomgrussell

zomgrussell — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:02:49 +0000

Old news is old.

By: threepointone

threepointone — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:10:08 +0000

In the actual article, when they said 50ns, they meant 50ns access time, not refresh time. Since DRAM basically stores your data in a capacitor, and capacitors slow things down, it’s going to be difficult getting things faster than that without some better way of storing memory.

I’m no semiconductor researcher, but what exactly is the difference between the today’s MRAM designs and memristors? They sure sound similar ;P

By: ret784

ret784 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:36:53 +0000

besides this not being a hack (unless well, convincing molecules to exhibit memory counts as a hack, which it might), what’s with the claim of 50 _nano_second refresh period? does the author even realise how small a nanosecond is, and that a memory could not possibly require to be refreshed every 50ns, because it would spend all its time refreshing, instead of, you know, memorizing? from the wikipedia article that this post links to, a sane value would be 64ms per row, though in certain cases it could be seconds or even minutes. the snr around here is going down fast *whine whine* *bitch* *whine*.

By: stopwhining

stopwhining — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:43:06 +0000

this is not a hack
this is serious hi-sci-tech
i can't wait for had to do their first post on dna based cpus

i can see the comments now

"since when has bacteria been a hack? whine whine"

great stuff keep it up