🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.electronics
Article #8605

Re: RAM access times

#8605
From: Mike McManus
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 1990 13:54
69 lines
4886 bytes
In article <2425@krafla.rhi.hi.is> adamd@rhi.hi.is (Adam David) writes:
>  >>I am interested in how RAM access times are specified. Say a 150ns RAM 
>  >>chip is read and immediately written again without changing the address 
>  >>or deselecting the chip between. What is the total time taken? The read 
>  >>cycle must take 150ns, but when the write cycle begins the correct memory
>  >>cell is already addressed.  How long does it take to actually write to 
>  >>(or read from) a memory cell without considering addressing delays?
>
>  Yes, I definitely meant reading the memory contents before writing new data
>  at the same location. I was interested in the comparison between various 
>  types of memory but am specifically interested in the newer pseudo-static 
>  DRAMs (with on-chip refresh circuitry for times of little activity). I have
>  no access to the data sheets for any of these at present.
>
>  >You're also overlooking another complication:  the speed quoted for a chip
>  >is usually the read access time.  That is *not* necessarily the full time
>  >needed for a read cycle.  DRAMs, in particular, need recovery time after
>  >the read, and thus have a cycle time substantially longer than their access
>  >time.  On the other hand, they can also do read-modify-write cycles that
>  >take less time than independent reads and writes.
...
>  With 150ns RAM a single read cycle 
>  followed by a single write cycle would take 150ns plus some recovery 
>  time, twice over. A combined read-write cycle would take twice 150ns plus 
>  the recovery time once. If this is true the write part of the cycle may 
>  not begin until the first 150ns are over, to allow the data to be read.  
>  Is this in fact the case? Does this then mean that no greater speed is
>  possible for data exchange operations without moving to faster components?

As a disclaimer, I'm not very familiar with DRAMS, but am familiar with
psuedo-static RAMs.  That said...

A true PS RAM requires a clock to cycle between a "precharge" and an "access"
phase.  During precharge, all internal bitlines (the actuall connections to the
output of the RAM cells) are charged to a static state, usually HIGH.  The
requires Tpre amount of time.  During a read, the accessed call must then pull
a charged bitline low to read a 0 state, but simply leaves the bitline in a
charged state to read a 1 (or vice versa) rather then pulling it high.  This
takes Tacc time.  The total cycle time, Tcyc = Tpre + Tacc.

For a write, things are not (necessarily) the same.  The way we spec our write
time for PS RAMs is the amount of time that it takes to move a bitline to it's
opposite state, and write the cell connected to that bitline.  So the time to
write a 1 is the time it takes to over-write a cell containing a 0, and vice
versa to write a 0.  The Twrite is the maximum of these two.  Notice that the
write does *NOT* take into account Tpre, nor is it required that a precharge
occur before a write, because of the way we spec it (also note, however, that I
do not know what convention is used by others).  For simplicity sake, though,
Tcyc is still spec'd as Tpre + Tacc, given that Twrite < Tacc, and the part is
clocked.  We have also started to spec a Trmw (read-modify-write time, what you
asked about), which we define as Tpre + Tacc + Twrite, which is roughly
1.5*Tacc.

Some SRAMs (static RAMs), and I assume some DRAMs as well, may be PS
internally, generating the required clock on-chip, so that the user doesn't
have to worry about it.  This also may make it tough to determine what Trmw is,
or it may require that Trmw = 2*Tcyc.  Again, it depends on the part.

Drop me a line of you have any more questions.
--
Disclaimer: All spelling and/or grammar in this document are guaranteed to be
            correct; any exseptions is the is wurk uv intter-net deemuns,.

Mike McManus                        Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.COM, or
NCR Microelectronics                ncr-mpd!mikemc@ncr-sd.sandiego.ncr.com, or
2001 Danfield Ct.                   uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!garage!mikemc
Ft. Collins,  Colorado              
(303) 223-5100   Ext. 378
                                    
Technical Details
Message-ID: <MIKE.MCMANUS.90Nov26135408@mustang.FtCollins.NCR.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!Mike.McManus
References: <2416@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1990Nov18.225425.22234@zoo.toronto.edu> <2425@krafla.rhi.hi.is>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!Mike.McManus
From: Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.com (Mike McManus)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: RAM access times
Message-ID: <MIKE.MCMANUS.90Nov26135408@mustang.FtCollins.NCR.com>
Date: 26 Nov 90 13:54:08 GMT
References: <2416@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1990Nov18.225425.22234@zoo.toronto.edu>
 <2425@krafla.rhi.hi.is>
Sender: uucp@ncr-mpd.FtCollins.NCR.COM
Organization: NCR Microelectronic Products, Ft. Collins, CO
Lines: 69
In-reply-to: adamd@rhi.hi.is's message of 20 Nov 90 01:27:30 GMT