In simpler terms, the SRAM density improved by 2.9% (according to ChatGPT). Which is better than it sounds, because SRAM had reached a wall, in terms of density gains, and, chips can be dominated by SRAM in terms of surface area, so this can mean a lot more room for logic, even though that is also getting considerably denser.

▲

anamax 2 days ago | parent [-]

There's some hope of smaller SRAM in the future - https://raaam-tech.com/technology/ is a three-transistor SRAM.

▲

randomblock1 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not quite SRAM, it needs to be refreshed like DRAM. That's the main downside compared to SRAM but it's still very interesting.

▲

choilive 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, the density vs power tradeoff could make a lot of sense in a few applications.

▲

kvemkon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They claim win + win*10:

> provides up-to 50% area reduction and reduced power consumption by a factor ten

▲

MBCook 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wonder if it would start to make sense for SRAM caches to shrink (or not grow as fast) in favor of adding on chip DRAM cache at some tier.

	▲	sroussey 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Or AMD’s putting sram on a separate chip. I’m surprised they didn’t go there yet except for extra L3 instead of all of it. At some point the costs will shift the decisions.