Article: IEDM 2010 Process Technology Update
By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), February 17, 2011 7:43 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
iz (i@z.x) on 2/17/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>
>But figure 2 shows the reverse, which makes more sense
>because the bit/wordlines are shorter.
Yup, that was a typo. Got it fixed now.
DK
---------------------------
>
Additionally, they showed that a 91Mbit array requires
>0.79V versus 0.86V for a 3.25Mbit array using the same
>0.199um2 cell
>But figure 2 shows the reverse, which makes more sense
>because the bit/wordlines are shorter.
Yup, that was a typo. Got it fixed now.
DK
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
IEDM 2010 article online | David Kanter | 2011/02/15 01:59 AM |
IEDM 2010 article online | Ricardo B | 2011/02/15 05:54 AM |
IEDM 2010 article online | David Kanter | 2011/02/15 09:37 AM |
IEDM 2010 article online | Ricardo B | 2011/02/15 03:03 PM |
IEDM 2010 article online | slacker | 2011/02/15 06:15 PM |
IEDM 2010 article online | IntelUser2000 | 2011/02/15 06:54 PM |
IEDM 2010 article online | David Kanter | 2011/02/15 08:49 PM |
IEDM 2010 article online | David Hess | 2011/02/16 02:40 AM |
IEDM 2010 article online | Ricardo B | 2011/02/16 07:01 AM |
IEDM 2010 article online | IntelUser2000 | 2011/02/17 09:21 AM |
Answer: 8um | slacker | 2011/02/17 10:01 AM |
IEDM 2010 article online | someone | 2011/02/17 09:14 AM |
IEDM 2010 article online | iz | 2011/02/17 06:31 PM |
IEDM 2010 article online | iz | 2011/02/17 07:04 PM |
Also fixed | David Kanter | 2011/02/17 07:47 PM |
IEDM 2010 article online | David Kanter | 2011/02/17 07:43 PM |