increase voltage in ram damage?

N

NightLinks

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
116
Hello,

I was wondering if i raise the voltage on my ram will i damage it? The advertised voltage for my ram is 2.2 and the highest i can raise it in the motherboard is 2.4 right now i have it set at 2.3 and i noticed that my pc runs much better at 2.3 i wonder if I put it on 2.4 could damage the ram?

I am currently using 4 sticks of patriot EPP 1gb each.
 
Increasing the voltages over the recommended amount COULD damage your ram, but from what I've read most overclockers increase the voltages of their ram over what's recommended. Their ram just dies faster/has a higher risk of dying I believe.
 
There is a certain point where you can increase the voltage of something and anything past that can and will cause electromigration which will result in the modules failing much faster than intended. However just because the modules are sold as 2.2v, it doesn't mean that it wasn't tested and or designed around a higher voltage. Sometimes chips are under volted because of marketing reasons like reduced clock speeds which in turn don't require the additional voltage.

Furthermore, modules sold at 250mhz 2.8v may very well not have the ability to go much above 250mhz (say 257mhz max), so for the company this is fine as 250mhz is a relatively standard high end DDR1 speed. But for other companies, they have modules that can clock all the way to 268mhz and since 268mhz isn't a clock speed they can sell it at, they reduce the clock speed down to 250mhz. Another reason is that in order to improve yields, the company will sell it at 250mhz even though their highest grade chips can reach 280mhz since there are other chips of the same batch that reach only 265mhz so in order to sell a higher volume of modules, they'll sell them at a frequency they know all the modules they make can achieve while still being marketable.

An even better reason they can do this is that while a chip can reach 280mhz and 275mhz is a marketable clock speed, they'll rate and sell the modules at 250mhz due to demand from review sites saying "these are killer modules as they can overclock as high as 280mhz!!!!". So it makes more sense to push more inventory and let the end user enjoy what ever is left of their modules than to sell less inventory at a higher price and not have the end user have the joy of overclocking their hardware.
 
think of it this way. whenever you're using your computer, no matter what the settings, you are damaging it, and reducing the lifespan. it's just that at "normal" settings, things shouldn't die for a very very long time. increasing voltage and temperature both have a severe impact on this lifespan, and will cause premature failure.

it's not something that has a "limit", where if you break it, you start hurting things. just keep both temp and voltage as low as you can within reason when overclocking and you'll be fine :p
 
Thanks for the replies. :)

Don't want ot jinx it but right now my comp is running much better @ 2.3v stock. If i lower the voltage i start getting blue screens :( and my games do not freeze either.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
think of it this way. whenever you're using your computer, no matter what the settings, you are damaging it, and reducing the lifespan. it's just that at "normal" settings, things shouldn't die for a very very long time. increasing voltage and temperature both have a severe impact on this lifespan, and will cause premature failure.

it's not something that has a "limit", where if you break it, you start hurting things. just keep both temp and voltage as low as you can within reason when overclocking and you'll be fine :p
Click to expand...
You're wrong.:rolleyes:
 
imzjustplayin said:
You're wrong.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

orly? last time i checked, lifespan varied with a function of voltage and temperare, with the life decreasing with the square of the change in voltage, and lifespan being cut roughly in half for every 10c increase in temperature. that sounds like a sure recipe for something not having a defined safe limit to me. :D

if you can prove me otherwise, and show that every piece of CMOS based computer chip out there has a limit at which it will last forever vs some shorter finite amount of time, i'm waiting to hear it ;)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
orly? last time i checked, lifespan varied with a function of voltage and temperare, with the life decreasing with the square of the change in voltage, and lifespan being cut roughly in half for every 10c increase in temperature. that sounds like a sure recipe for something not having a defined safe limit to me. :D

if you can prove me otherwise, and show that every piece of CMOS based computer chip out there has a limit at which it will last forever vs some shorter finite amount of time, i'm waiting to hear it ;)
Click to expand...

Did you read "imjustplayin's" articles? I didn't read them word for word, but I did read most of them, and I don't understand what he's getting at....
 
i didn't see that he had posted them, but now that he has

imzjustplayin said:
read this article:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3184

and read this closely:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3184&p=5
Click to expand...

ok, why am i reading an article on intel's 45nm tech? they're talking about overclocking and voltage overshoot. typical system dynamics issues that electrical engineers have a lot of fun with. i know all about vdroop and the offset voltage and how it's something that intel actually calls for in their specification...

but what does that have to do with the question at hand that you bluntly said i was wrong on without explanation: how there is no set "limit" at which things begin to break. it is always deteriorating no matter what, unless it is not powered on at all. even if you manage to keep your chip at 0c and use a voltage significantly lower than stock, it will still die eventually, it'll just take longer :D

and conversely, increase the voltage or temperature, the lifespan will decrease. increase it enough and it'll die pretty damn fast ;)
 
imzjustplayin said:
You're wrong.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

One thing you should know. The chances of (cf)Eclipse being wrong are about the same as Bush winning the '08 election. :p

On top of that, not only will he say he's right, but he'll prove it with empirical evidence and documented fact. :eek:
 
speaking of which, my bad on not supply useful data to back myself up. i've gotten lazy :(

look up Arrhenius curves for insulation aging, and note how the insulation deterioration rate roughly doubles every 10c. more specifically:

http://www.bdent.com/specifications/sanken/Intro_to_Transistor.pdf (pg 8)
The reliability of transistors and semiconductor devices is greatly
affected by the stress of junction temperature. If we accept in general
proceed in the form of Arrhenius equation, the relationship between
the junction temperature Tj and lifespan L can be expressed with
the following empirical formula
ln (L) = A + (T / j) ××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××(4)
It is, hence, very important to derate the junction temperature to
assure a high reliability rate.
Click to expand...

sadly, i can't find any good links for voltage, but my understanding is that transistor lifespan and current are directly related. current is related to the square of the voltage. you can fill in the rest ;)
 
Kind of the inverse of the OP...I just picked up some Patriot DDR2/6400 rated at 2.2v, which works just fine at 1.8v (at 5-5-5-12) in my current rig. I suppose I'll have to up the voltage to get it to full speed--it's rated for 4-4-4-12--but I do wonder if I could just leave it as is and it'd be fine...

EDIT: then again, the system locks up the minute I try to change its settings manually to 2.2v and 4-4-4-12...either the RAM is wonky or this damn 680i/AR is being a bitch...
 
You don't need a study from MIT to know that silicon semiconductors degrade at a given rate when energized with electricity. If you increase the amount of current, this rate increases.
 
I've killed 2 sets of 4gb Mushkin ram at stock voltage in the past 3 months alone, I'm on set 3 now while the other is once again on RMA, the only difference is this new ram is rated at 1.8V.

I think RAM is more sensitive to voltage than cpu's as I've only had 1 CPU fail out of 30+ I've owned and I've overvolted all of those CPU's to crazy amounts compared to the RAM I've used. By comparison, over the years I've randomly replaced RAM pieces that have inexplicably died after years of faithful operation at stock voltages.
 
GilmourD said:
One thing you should know. The chances of (cf)Eclipse being wrong are about the same as Bush winning the '08 election. :p

On top of that, not only will he say he's right, but he'll prove it with empirical evidence and documented fact. :eek:
Click to expand...

I was going to post the same thing...:)..well, not the Bush part....
 
Redshirt #24 said:
Kind of the inverse of the OP...I just picked up some Patriot DDR2/6400 rated at 2.2v, which works just fine at 1.8v (at 5-5-5-12) in my current rig. I suppose I'll have to up the voltage to get it to full speed--it's rated for 4-4-4-12--but I do wonder if I could just leave it as is and it'd be fine...

EDIT: then again, the system locks up the minute I try to change its settings manually to 2.2v and 4-4-4-12...either the RAM is wonky or this damn 680i/AR is being a bitch...
Click to expand...

Is it the cheap Patriot from Fry's? or some other place with cheap patriot ddr2-800 ram?

I just returned a set of 2x1gb Patriot ram that corrupted my Vista install upon booting, yay!...

So f-that, I went to the egg and got what I *really* wanted instead of what I was *settling* on.
 
Slade said:
I think RAM is more sensitive to voltage than cpu's as I've only had 1 CPU fail out of 30+ I've owned and I've overvolted all of those CPU's to crazy amounts compared to the RAM I've used. By comparison, over the years I've randomly replaced RAM pieces that have inexplicably died after years of faithful operation at stock voltages.
Click to expand...

this is an excellent point, i've sorta noticed this too. my guess is that the all transistor design of cpus last longer than the transistor + capacitor design of DRAM, but even so, the failure rate of high end memory is insane. but then i've had some that held up forever. my original ballistix hadn't forsaken me when i got sold them, after 2+ years of abuse.

maybe they should start making SOI based ZRAM for memory chips? one transistor ftw, go!
 
Optional87 said:
Is it the cheap Patriot from Fry's? or some other place with cheap patriot ddr2-800 ram?

I just returned a set of 2x1gb Patriot ram that corrupted my Vista install upon booting, yay!...

So f-that, I went to the egg and got what I *really* wanted instead of what I was *settling* on.
Click to expand...

From what I've read the best "cheap" ram right now is A-Data. I've got several sticks of this running in rigs right now, some overclocked a decent amount. They are establishing a good rep for themselves from what I hear and read. They seem to make quality products. The sticks are sharp, the heatsinks well-polished and what you'd expect from decent quality ram. I would buy from them again in an instant. Of course I haven't had them very long, and the company hasn't even been out making ram for many years, soooo who knows about longevity. At least they're getting a good rep so far. Very few reported DOA's per capita, and even some overclocking success with others. Here's where I bought my favorites - the 2x2GB kit:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211188

Still a good price. I got them on a sweet combo with my mobo for an extra 30 bucks off, but Fry's has them even cheaper right now, assuming they are the same sticks:

http://shop3.outpost.com/product/5475029

WOW they dropped the price again. For 69 bucks... geeze, they are givin the stuff away. No reason not to get 8GB if your board supports it... I'm inclined to buy another set for THAT price... holy snapcrappity!
 
A-Data is a major manufacturer. They've only recently started offering RAM under their own brand... which explains why they are pretty damn good, and why almost no one has heard of them. Afraid I don't know who they manufacture for, though. (what other brands)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
i didn't see that he had posted them, but now that he has



ok, why am i reading an article on intel's 45nm tech? they're talking about overclocking and voltage overshoot. typical system dynamics issues that electrical engineers have a lot of fun with. i know all about vdroop and the offset voltage and how it's something that intel actually calls for in their specification...

but what does that have to do with the question at hand that you bluntly said i was wrong on without explanation: how there is no set "limit" at which things begin to break. it is always deteriorating no matter what, unless it is not powered on at all. even if you manage to keep your chip at 0c and use a voltage significantly lower than stock, it will still die eventually, it'll just take longer :D

and conversely, increase the voltage or temperature, the lifespan will decrease. increase it enough and it'll die pretty damn fast ;)
Click to expand...


Obviously you take no interest in knowing any of this so why continue to discuss this? The article doesn't talk about memory technology but it outlines the limitations of silicon processes which is analogous to what we're talking about. If you understand the article, then you should fully understand what I'm getting at.
 
imzjustplayin said:
Obviously you take no interest in knowing any of this so why continue to discuss this? The article doesn't talk about memory technology but it outlines the limitations of silicon processes which is analogous to what we're talking about. If you understand the article, then you should fully understand what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

If we understood what you were getting at we would quit asking you "What are you getting at" and obviously the articles aren't helping us. Throw us a bone, man... just explain to us what you mean, in laman's terms if you have to. I think that Eclipse and I occupy both ends of the intelligence spectrum - him the smart end, me the dumb end... and we both seem at a loss as to where you are going with this, and you haven't given us a clear explanation in your own words. If we are both confused, and others in between that "spectrum" are confused, maybe you could offer a little better explanation to what you're getting at?? Eclipse and others who have chimed in have offered explanations of what they are trying to say along with their sources. You have said "You're wrong" and posted an article about Penryn processors????? Come on dude.... help us out more than that. Just explain what you mean. That's why these forums exist, right? Maybe there's some secret wisdom you're getting at that we haven't yet grasped. Help us grasp it.
 
silent-circuit said:
A-Data is a major manufacturer. They've only recently started offering RAM under their own brand... which explains why they are pretty damn good, and why almost no one has heard of them. Afraid I don't know who they manufacture for, though. (what other brands)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had to post the 4GB kit on hot deals. That's such a good price, and they are good sticks.
 
Optional87 said:
Is it the cheap Patriot from Fry's? or some other place with cheap patriot ddr2-800 ram?

I just returned a set of 2x1gb Patriot ram that corrupted my Vista install upon booting, yay!...

So f-that, I went to the egg and got what I *really* wanted instead of what I was *settling* on.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the $100 Patriot 4GB set. Utterly well-behaved so far at 5-5-5-12@1.8v, but the minute I crank it up to 2.2v the system locks up. Wish I'd known about the A-Data stuff beforehand, but I'm probably not going to sweat it too much with the 680i...I'm just happy it hasn't fried the Patriot RAM yet. (I'd try them on the DS3 1.0 I ended up with, but I have no idea if the thing would even boot with them plugged in.)
 
imzjustplayin said:
Obviously you take no interest in knowing any of this so why continue to discuss this? The article doesn't talk about memory technology but it outlines the limitations of silicon processes which is analogous to what we're talking about. If you understand the article, then you should fully understand what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

regardless of your point (which as Kronan obseved, i don't get at all), i still don't see where/why you are saying i am wrong. the article talked about voltage regulation more than anything, which has little relation to the decay of CMOS transistors at higher than spec voltage and temperatues over a period of time. if you can't keep dragging in irrelevant information without saying anything about the original topic, i have no choice but to just ignore your claims :D



Redshirt, just curious, how warm do those sticks run? do you have any memory drive strength controls? i find it interesting that it'll just refuse to boot at 2.2v... kinda sounds like a mobo issue more than ram :confused:
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
think of it this way. whenever you're using your computer, no matter what the settings, you are damaging it, and reducing the lifespan. it's just that at "normal" settings, things shouldn't die for a very very long time. increasing voltage and temperature both have a severe impact on this lifespan, and will cause premature failure.

it's not something that has a "limit", where if you break it, you start hurting things. just keep both temp and voltage as low as you can within reason when overclocking and you'll be fine :p
Click to expand...
In general, I cannot find anything fundamentally wrong with this statement. When you put electricity into a circuit, the silicon degrades and something in the circuit will eventually die. This is true at stock voltages and the degradation increases as power consumption and/or heat increases. It's simple physics which cannot be overcome.

I think RAM is more sensitive to voltage than cpu's as I've only had 1 CPU fail out of 30+ I've owned and I've overvolted all of those CPU's to crazy amounts compared to the RAM I've used. By comparison, over the years I've randomly replaced RAM pieces that have inexplicably died after years of faithful operation at stock voltages.
Click to expand...
It may be more sensitive but, IMO it's going to depend on many variables. The ability to handle voltage is critical, ala the old Winbond BH5s as well as the quality of the PCBs, cooling, etc. But, just think if we put the effort into cooling RAMs that we do CPUs. I bet we'd have a different result.
 
Mike Clements said:
But, just think if we put the effort into cooling RAMs that we do CPUs. I bet we'd have a different result.
Click to expand...

and if the memory voltage regulation is as good as the cpu voltage regulation... wowie! :D

and Mike, consider this. you know how anal i am about my memory, and how i always keep it cool with a 120mm delta. i've yet to have a single stick die on me from normal useage. i've always been a huge proponent of active memory cooling, and i'm glad that corsair and ocz are stepping up to the plate with memory coolers that clip into the slots.

now just use bigger fans, eh? ;)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
and if the memory voltage regulation is as good as the cpu voltage regulation... wowie! :D

and Mike, consider this. you know how anal i am about my memory, and how i always keep it cool with a 120mm delta. i've yet to have a single stick die on me from normal useage. i've always been a huge proponent of active memory cooling, and i'm glad that corsair and ocz are stepping up to the plate with memory coolers that clip into the slots.

now just use bigger fans, eh? ;)
Click to expand...

Will the corsair work on my A-Data sticks, or should I just get the OCZ memory cooler?
 
the a-data sticks are normal height right? i'm personally a fan of the ocz's fans more, but the dominator looks better.. less bling :p it's really up to you, both should be about to clip onto normal memory without any problems
 
The Corsair memory cooler will work just about any memory except for memory that has heat sinks or heat pipes taller than the Dominator sticks. I don't know for sure about the OCZ cooler but but based on the pix, it looks like our clips are a bit longer as they were made to clear the Dominator sinks. Both are good cooler but, a fabricated way of mounting a 120mm fan ala Eclipse is a good method too if you have memory that the Corsair or OCZ cooler won't cover.
 
Mike Clements said:
The Corsair memory cooler will work just about any memory except for memory that has heat sinks or heat pipes taller than the Dominator sticks. I don't know for sure about the OCZ cooler but but based on the pix, it looks like our clips are a bit longer as they were made to clear the Dominator sinks. Both are good cooler but, a fabricated way of mounting a 120mm fan ala Eclipse is a good method too if you have memory that the Corsair or OCZ cooler won't cover.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies. I was about to ask if there were any other options you'd recommend. Doesn't have to be from newegg... But if you recommend both those coolers I'll just have to decide between the two. I have an antec 900 case with lots of blue leds. It's a think of beauty, but I don't really have any shiny silver-metallic looking objects in there, except maybe the cpu heat sink. Any other thoughts or recommendations?
 
Just ordered my second set by the way... soon I shall have 8 monstrous gigabytes of ram. Photoshop ramdisk here i come!!!! WOOT!
 
From the summary of the anandtech article:
Although we cannot possibly go over everything there is to know about overclocking, we have definitely covered a lot of ground in a relatively short amount of time. We've looked at the QX9650's real power consumption figures, noting that the values published by Intel and AMD are not meant to exactly represent typical high-load scenarios. Studying just how the processor responds to more voltage shows us why we seem to reach a rather abrupt stop on the way up when overclocking.
We've also learned how rather than pushing a CPU to the ragged edge, sometimes it is better to find that point where performance and efficiency can co-exist in a delicate balance. A good overclock is not always about maximum speed. Instead, we would like to advocate what we call the "intelligent overclock" - find that point where going higher just doesn't make any sense…then simply stop and tune from there. We have provided many of the tools for doing so in this article; now it's up to you to make it happen.

Is that not obvious enough? There is a point where the silicon is "happy" and a point where the silicon "isn't happy". Just because you can push something so far, it doesn't mean that it can sustain that/those speeds much like the Intel 1.13ghz processor they released. You can't just assume that more voltage and cooling will infinitely overclock the processor if those two variables increase at the same or at an exponential rate. I think the reason why people are convinced more cooling and voltage equals more power is with the P4 series of processors. However in that situation, the only reason why they scaled to higher than default speeds with more voltage and cooling was due to its architecture supporting it but being held back by heat, this isn't the case with most other things.

So to wrap it up, as the article pointed out with the "new" Intel processors, you've got to do smart overclocking but I believe this applies to most everything else. They've only "discovered" this "smart overclocking" phenomenon simply due to how the new architecture and manufacturing process isn't so much limited by heat (like it was before) but by other things. Since there are so many transistors in a processor now, having any fail or act irregularly is significantly higher, much like memory modules suffer from.


How can I fit this thought into two sentences?


Memory is like Intel’s current batch of processors, you can only overclock them so much and anything after that is stupid/risky. Memory and Intel's current batch of processors are not limited by heat and the delivery of power but simply by its design, nm process and other miscellaneous facts.
 
^ YOU FAIL

you still dont seem to understand that even with your smart overclocking as you call it, more electricity going through your ram will degrade its life expectancy, as people have pointed out to you it just the way it is.

Think of it this way.

two cars and 2 drivers, both cars are the same model and both are bought on the same day, one driver is a 60 year old who drives at 40-50mph max all the time and the other is a 20 year old ricer who thinks its cool to give his car max revs all the time and drive at 150mph. Now you have to agree that the ricers car will be the first to fuck up due to him roasting his engine, same goes for ram.

Just a little sidenote, I have had pc's that have not been overclocked at all and they have lasted years, and then I have had overclocked pc's and like clockwork within 2 years something dies whether it be the video card or ram or cpu, something will always die due to the fact that its running not neccesarily out of spec, but faster or running with more electricty going through it and heat and more power is the killer of pc components.

If you cant agree with this then all I can say is, go overclock everything you have and see how long shit lasts for, cuz I can guarantee that some component or other will give out...
 
I wonder if one who denies the basic logic of Eclipse and Scotsman has ever really overclocked things much.... I say that at the risk of offending some, but what they have mentioned above holds true! You run something above spec, and it will likely fail faster. That's not just computers, that's everything. Printers for example - you take a printer with a duty cycle of 3000 pages/month, and start cranking out 6000 pages/month, that puppy is gonna die twice as fast (or even sooner) than normal. When equipment is powered on and is performing work, it is experiencing wear and tear. Nevertheless, technology is more and more resilient. We're getting better at making some things. Some memory and other electronic components are designed to run above spec, overclocked, high usage, duty cycle, etc. But they still experience wear and tear.

If you overclock your stuff, you increase the probability of failure, overheating, premature wearing out, etc. It's just basic principles of life. Stuff runs cooler at stock and will last longer.
 
imzjustplayin said:
Is that not obvious enough? There is a point where the silicon is "happy" and a point where the silicon "isn't happy".
Click to expand...

Unless you can qualify this statement with something more than "happy" and "not happy", kindly stop blowing smoke to make yourself seem intelligent. Start talking about current density, carrier lifetime and channel length and I'll start listening.

Just because you can push something so far, it doesn't mean that it can sustain that/those speeds much like the Intel 1.13ghz processor they released. You can't just assume that more voltage and cooling will infinitely overclock the processor if those two variables increase at the same or at an exponential rate.
Click to expand...
This is correct, for all intents and purposes, but doesn't explain why.

I think the reason why people are convinced more cooling and voltage equals more power is with the P4 series of processors. However in that situation, the only reason why they scaled to higher than default speeds with more voltage and cooling was due to its architecture supporting it but being held back by heat, this isn't the case with most other things.
Click to expand...

Marginally correct, but very poorly worded. The P4 was designed, IIRC, to "reach 10GHz", thus the insanely long pipeline design. The premise that the clock speed will continue to rise with more voltage and cooling breaks down, however, due to electromigration. The increase voltage causes a square-relationship in the amount of current, and eventually, the metal will move to due the current. This will occur far before 10GHz, however.

So to wrap it up, as the article pointed out with the "new" Intel processors, you've got to do smart overclocking but I believe this applies to most everything else.
Click to expand...

If you've read these forums for more than six picoseconds, you'd know that "smart overclocking" is something that nearly everyone here is aware of and practices normally. I really don't see how this new "Intel smart overclocking" has much to do with memory, which is what the OP was wondering about, also which in case you didn't know is manufactured with a *completely* different process than an intel CPU.

They've only "discovered" this "smart overclocking" phenomenon simply due to how the new architecture and manufacturing process isn't so much limited by heat (like it was before) but by other things. Since there are so many transistors in a processor now, having any fail or act irregularly is significantly higher, much like memory modules suffer from.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense at all. You're missing words .. and content. What is the new architecture limited by? The articles don't particularly say, at least not on the pages you linked. What is the manufacturing process limited by? The article doesn't mention that at all, and I highly doubt they would even know. How is the number of transistors related to function, process or design? You can group memory and CPU together *very* loosely by categorizing the number of transistors. After that, your comparison falls apart.


Memory is like Intel’s current batch of processors, you can only overclock them so much and anything after that is stupid/risky. Memory and Intel's current batch of processors are not limited by heat and the delivery of power but simply by its design, nm process and other miscellaneous facts.
Click to expand...

You can overclock anything as far as you want. It won't work right after a certain point but you won't break it. Extremely overvolting and poorly cooling your hardware will cause it damage. All semiconductors are directly affected by heat, voltage and power delivery; qed your premise is completely incorrect. For the purposes of overclocking, memory speed is limited by heat, voltage and design, in increasing order of relevance. Process size has very little to do with it, as memory hasn't gotten to 65nm yet so that comparison is utterly irrelevant. In fact, due to its very nature, process size for memory is nearly irrelevant. Most current memory I believe is at 110 or 90nm. There is no need for anything smaller as if yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top