3 ms·
If I'm not misunderstanding, in the full 45-minute keynote, he mentions endurance a bunch of times. Apparently, on the newer memristor devices they came up with
by ehsanul 16y ago
If I'm not misunderstanding, in the full 45-minute keynote, he mentions endurance a bunch of times. Apparently, on the newer memristor devices they came up with, the lifetimes of the devices are on a "geological" timescale, and could "theoretically" last forever. Of course, theory != practice. But there was quite a bit of time spent talking about this issue.
Edit: Also, I would highly recommend those with the time to watch the 45-minute keynote, and not just the condensed explanation. It really is worth it.
- Tuna-Fish 16y agoWhen he was talking about geological timescales, what he meant was how long a memristor retains it's state after being switched, while I'm more interested in how many times can he safely switch the device.
- Aron 16y agoHe indicates at 0:33.30 that the endurance is slightly better than flash.
- modeless 16y agoYes, and what I'm wondering is if that's a fundamental limitation or if it's something that can be easily improved. The endurance of DRAM is essentially infinite and I have a feeling that's going to be tough to reach with memristors.
- Aron 16y agoWilliams discusses briefly here (at 50 min) his hope that endurance would be significantly improved by moving from the lab equipment they use for fabrication to a more commercial quality system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJvp5MybkM&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJvp5MybkM&feature=chann... Sounds a bit wishful in thinking, but I have no experience in the matter. The center panelist then seems to indicate that Intel is more interested in the phase change version because they want 'a rock that can switch 10^6 times..'. So I think you might be right that this is a significant issue (particularly into DRAM or computation).