Received: from PCH.mit.edu (18.7.21.50) by mail.efplus.com (192.168.0.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:35:48 -0700 Received: from PCH.MIT.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 195INUNI018237; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:24:53 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-7.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-7.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.58]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 195INTrH018234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:23:29 -0400 Received: from w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (W92EXEDGE3.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.15]) by outgoing-exchange-7.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 195IMbAF030822 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:23:29 -0400 Received: from oc11exhyb3.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.99) by w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:22:45 -0400 Received: from oc11exhyb2.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.98) by oc11exhyb3.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:23:02 -0400 Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.57.41) by oc11exhyb2.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:23:02 -0400 Received: from MWHPR20CA0031.namprd20.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:ed::17) by MWHPR01MB3229.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:300:fb::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4566.22; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 18:23:00 +0000 Received: from CO1NAM11FT058.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:ed:cafe::6b) by MWHPR20CA0031.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:300:ed::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4566.22 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 18:23:00 +0000 Received: from mail-pf1-f174.google.com (209.85.210.174) by CO1NAM11FT058.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.13.174.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4566.14 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 18:23:00 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-f174.google.com with SMTP id m5so255329pfk.7 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 11:23:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason White To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:22:24 -0700 Subject: [EE] Why is FRAM (Ferromagnetic RAM) common on TI microcontrollers but not others? Thread-Topic: [EE] Why is FRAM (Ferromagnetic RAM) common on TI microcontrollers but not others? Thread-Index: Ade6F9HMGS3xe78NTiyCrP5o/fJO7Q== Message-ID: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: TS500.efplus4.local X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: mit.edu X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=209.85.210.174; helo=mail-pf1-f174.google.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=B1I64/ZNBFpdP4Ar0guOVzka9Kdpfq1ncxUWso7RyPU=; b=VAY6WXNezlX+0Io2PcSTXCkrXb2ApjAmzhuomvbHoi94Rts5aJs0rJjOCaX2Tl55AY L049Tata+jzMFEKR6xSMzLdVaYoxCIm3VeSzM0i0m88mAQFpVQldAl+xmZ+l2i+g2SgP 7M0GnvU1KuJgxtfvwZfp5HCyF5sJjVF15dRWzrIIsSkxIVXjg23h9zp4eSf6crRpFPjb BODRVMsj9uuKHLYMB9R3YSaQscN+pRSXqGcwU2pSIZMUemba0vq+edI6J+YJgIzOmbK+ LVQAPFxolU8RND/AqrIM+KYG1E5/8+pO9pzr6n3RojS1IR/t3k8l4iQoDA3OcLEjU/z3 oyHA== authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.210.174) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; mit.edu; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com; mit.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=gmail.com; errors-to: piclist-bounces@mit.edu list-id: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." list-post: x-beenthere: piclist@mit.edu x-mailman-version: 2.1.6 x-received: by 2002:a63:6941:: with SMTP id e62mr16823943pgc.114.1633458179837; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 11:22:59 -0700 (PDT) x-topics: [EE] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi, Recently, I got my first exposure to a MSP430 with 256kB FRAM (Ferromagnetic RAM). The FRAM can be read and written at a rate of 8MHz (one word per clock cycle). It appears to have "pretty good" cycle endurance, data retention, and power consumption. For me, this begs the question: Why isn't FRAM more popular? Cost? Patents? Performance? --=20 Jason White --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .