4 ms·
They do say "It can access that data 20 times faster than the best breed of flash memory" but a rate of 17 MB/s means this is incorrect.
by wging 13y ago
They do say "It can access that data 20 times faster than the best breed of flash memory" but a rate of 17 MB/s means this is incorrect.
- shenberg 13y agoThey're probably referring to latency, which is very low (30ns). It still is disingenuous, but that's marketing.
- vlasta2 13y agoI guess it is more accurate to talk about latency, because throughput can always be improved by accessing multiple cells in parallel.
- bostik 13y agoEven then the limit is unlikely to come from non-volatile storage itself. The current effective flash R/W speeds are pretty much limited by the controllers. I remember an article stating that embedded flash controllers typically have a 20MB/s speed limit. This in turn meant that wireless speeds beyond 200Mb/s were mostly worthless, because the devices simply could not utilise any more. If someone can find the article again, I would be delighted. However: if the reality with RRAM is even half as good as the claims go, then it would certainly encourage the hardware vendors to invest in somewhat better controllers. After all, what good is a new, hyperspeed storage medium if you can't access it any faster than the old one?