Talk:NVDIMM

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

info[edit]

http://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/NVDIMM%20Enabling%20Greater%20ROI%20from%20SSDs.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by FxJ (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NVSRAM VS NVDIMM Power consumption[edit]

I am looking for information NVSRAM VS NVDIMM Power Consumption and cannot find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.195.249 (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro rewritten[edit]

I rewrote the first paragraph of the Intro, tightening up the wording, providing a better introduction, stating benefits and drawbacks earlier, and eliminating phrasing such as "Some consider...misleading." The remainder of the Intro, introducing NVDIMM-F and NVDIMM-N, does not make a clear enough distinction, as both types seem to pair volatile and non-volatile memories. (In fact, if they all do, then my use of the word "may" should be corrected.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal[edit]

"Non-volatile" products may use volatile memory during normal operation and dump the contents into non-volatile memory if the power fails, using an on-board backup power source.

Volatile memory is faster than non-volatile; it is byte-addressable; and it can be written to arbitrarily, without concerns about wear and device lifespan.

However, including a second memory to achieve non-volatility (and the on-board backup power source) increases the product cost compared to volatile memory.

The above is not really the informational standard of a highly technological lead, and it is also somewhat misleading, because volatile technology does not have a secure stranglehold on that feature quadrant. There's a vocal and active claimant to the throne presently claiming all the same things.

My rebuttal (with citation):

Of the many non-volatile memories in the development pipeline, Nano-RAM based on carbon nanotubes is purported to come closest to DRAM on the criteria of performance, byte-addressability and device lifespan; first products are expected in 2021 at moderate density, from fabrication partner Fujitsu.

If this ambitious technology pans out, and then manages to scale cost-effectively in the near horizon, it's not clear that DRAM has no direct non-volatile replacement.

But really, the correct fix is to drain some attitude out of the preceding paragraph and expand the lead out with more concrete, factual material. — MaxEnt 16:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]