3 ms·
So storage is 1x10^6 larger, and read/write speeds are 1x10^2 faster. So it'll take 1x10^4 times as long to copy the capacity.
by radicalbyte 12y ago
So storage is 1x10^6 larger, and read/write speeds are 1x10^2 faster.
So it'll take 1x10^4 times as long to copy the capacity.
- AnimalMuppet 12y agoI'll take that tradeoff in exchange for 10^6 larger capacity, any day.
- cmaggard 12y agoIt will take 1e4 times as long to completely fill that device proportionally to an older one, yes, but that's still two orders of magnitude faster than it would be to fill that equivalent amount of space with the older write speed.
- hoprocker 12y agoIf you're making comparisons based on physical displacement, sure. But it's probably more helpful to think about how fast it will copy an equivalent number of bits, and from this perspective it actually will, indeed, take 1x10^-2 the time of flash storage.
- runeks 12y agoIf you can figure out how to put enough memristors in parallel, the transfer speed is essentially unlimited. It's the access time (latency) that is crucial, and makes all the difference, because it is inherent to the technology, and cannot be changed regardless of how many elements you string together. This explains it well: http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html?HN_report=1 http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html?HN_... Several new non-volatile memory technologies have achieved latency down to 100 picoseconds. This is an order of magnitude faster than the L1 cache on a CPU (SRAM). CPU power will again becomes the bottleneck, instead of storage. We will have to build completely new CPU architectures to make us of this though.