all I'm saying is, we need more concrete figures. they just say wafers have been produced, some improvements have been made. just cite relative improvements even. At least that will give us a sense of how much further they're progressing each time.
eg: retention improved by a factor of 4 this iteration...
also, how many devices were tested that yielded those results? If it's just one, I'm sorry but that's just not good enough. a memory buyer wants to know if they follow the recipe, then every single chip will perform to that standard as a minimum. But if it's just one or two devices per wafer, and the rest are less then half as good.... Well that's a crud yield and cause for concern.
what was the temperature they used for retention testing? can it handle automotive temps? what were the other test parameters?
without these concrete figures, no one memory buyer will buy this IP because it could all be useless.
there are competing technologies already in the field of play, and even more in development. Results and timing is everything. And we have confirmation of neither.
4DS Price at posting:
5.3¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
