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 11:46:05 -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 195IZdEB020224; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:36:24 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-3.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.13]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 195IZdxm020221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:35:39 -0400 Received: from oc11exedge1.exchange.mit.edu (OC11EXEDGE1.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.9.3.17]) by outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 195IZPPo020306 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:35:39 -0400 Received: from OC11EXPO27.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.98) by oc11exedge1.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.3.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:35:41 -0400 Received: from w92exhyb1.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.71.12) by OC11EXPO27.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:35:30 -0400 Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.70.103) by w92exhyb1.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.71.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:35:30 -0400 Received: from DM5PR12CA0054.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:103::16) by SN6PR01MB4685.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:805:dc::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4566.15; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 18:35:29 +0000 Received: from DM6NAM11FT065.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:103:cafe::2) by DM5PR12CA0054.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:3:103::16) 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 18:35:29 +0000 Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (209.85.167.54) by DM6NAM11FT065.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.13.172.109) 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 18:35:29 +0000 Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id y23so61784lfb.0 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT) From: RussellMc To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. , ApptechNZ Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:34:49 -0700 Subject: Re: [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: Ade6GUED7tFJg494TTS9k6XWN+PAqQ== Message-ID: References: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: 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 209.85.167.54 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=209.85.167.54; helo=mail-lf1-f54.google.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PeZb4Rcf62PMD61Jdol0UUNb67BP2a2ECT1FqUWoYSY=; b=VsU0JB2365mBzQKJ6FwLDNn7oCPDLaCltG0WM5xpxfVpWXEGmsjaQxwcmUo+aai2fy YEGQ46zrn4AUlWnEI9N6hHK3e++hvbG4gQOLygbv8fGUQufN6Xrrui4dLzAB8IO63lKh fgFTvnmyaQ3AkysfqzgwiDDJIBzgAHoguFgT8vtdz6HbhQEnG0KEpaPL+k1rWgzgtrNt IwZ0Ksj+SFqr/5UHFzqBFJ7Er2TklrNnhPEomzSOhtY8/FpdqCIQ4LP+dKZ4WM1P0YDJ WjJ+Kq9i8Db93hmrxhS1KIGem4j04Q/GJ3+jEOagtpIBsBXIn5nzu2ePZf281kB9Shzd wSoA== authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.167.54) 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:a05:6512:3f92:: with SMTP id x18mr4836029lfa.3.1633458927193; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 11:35:27 -0700 (PDT) x-topics: [EE] x-content-filtered-by: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 07:25, Jason White wrote: > ... Why isn't FRAM more popular? Cost? Patents? Performance? > None of these that I looked at really addressed your question, but past comments on FRAM on the list may be of interest https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=3Den&tab=3Dwm#search/label%3A0_piclist= +++fram Russell --=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 .