Just wondering, why are serial eeproms much cheaper than parallel ones?
is it just that the parallel one need more pins?

Thanks,
Timothy Stranex
timot@uskonet.com

On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> > >Why don't they make the whole thing EEPROM???
>
>     There is a big difference in the chip size for a given amount of
>     flash or EEPROM.  The flash is much smaller and therefore cheaper.
>
> I keep hearing (and I believe) that the "flash" and "eeprom" in the PIC
> parts are actually the same technology (EEPROM, technically speaking.)
> Perhaps this is only true for the older (16F84/16C84) chips (where they
> actually changed the literature without appearing to change the chip
> very much.)  The cost difference you're talking about is what allows
> intel/amd/etc flash chips to hold megaBYTES of data - it's pretty
> irrelevant in a device with a couple kbytes...
>
> That would mean that the difference between the "flash" and "eeprom" cells
> is either one of physical layout (ie eeprom has smaller or larger physical
> features resulting in changed behavior) or simply a matter of testing
> (clearly it's easier to test 64 bytes of programatically-writable "eeprom"
> for large numbers of cycles than to test several Kbytes of "flash" that can
> only be written externally...
>
> I can't say much about other (manufacturers) chip famillies.  Somewhere
> there's probably a record of who has actually licensed/patented flash
> technology vs eeprom technology.  Atmel clearly has both in their product
> portfolio - I haven't a clue as to which are used in their micros...
>
> BillW
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body