Section 7. MOS Memory Market Trends - Smithsonian: The Chip ...

7 MOS MEMORY MARKET TRENDS 

OVERVIEW 

The MOS memory market consists of DRAM, SRAM, ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory 

products. Following the overview, each segment of the MOS memory market will be discussed 

in greater detail. 

Memory chips have been the big gainers as a result of the increased IC content in electronic systems. 

In 1995, ICE estimates MOS memory devices accounted for 41 percent of all ICs sold, the highest 

level (to date) in semiconductor industry history (Figure 7-1). By the turn of the century, MOS 

memory devices are forecast to grow to 49 percent of the total IC market. For the decade, the MOS 

memory market is forecast to have a cumulative annual growth rate of 36 percent (Figure 7-2). 

Millions of Dollars 

350,000 

300,000 

250,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

50,000 

0 

26% 

1991 

29% 

1992 

31% 

1993 

= Percent Memory of 

Total IC Market 

Source: ICE, "Status 1996" 

36% 

1994 

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT ENGINEERING CORPORATION 7-1 

41% 

1995 

Year 

42% 

1996 

42% 

1997 

44% 

1998 

46% 

1999 

Figure 7-1. MOS Memory Percent of Total Worldwide IC Market ($M) 

49% 

2000 

18909C

MOS Memory Market Trends 

Figure 7-3 shows ICE’s forecast of the specific MOS memory market segments through the year 

2000. Following three straight years (1993-1995) of better than 40 percent growth, the MOS memory 

market is forecast to catch its breath in 1996 and 1997. It is anticipated that the slower growth 

rate will be the result of additional capacity (especially for DRAMs) that is forecast to come on line 

in the late-1996/early-1997 time period. Additional capacity will help fill demand for DRAMs 

and other memory products, thus reducing average selling prices and causing the market to grow 

more slowly than the during the first half of the decade. 

7-2 


180,000 

160,000 

140,000 

120,000 

100,000 

80,000 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

0 

1991 


1992 

WW IC ($M) 

WW MOS Memory Market ($M) 

WW Memory Percent Change 

Percent Memory of Total IC 

DRAM ($M) 

SRAM ($M) 

EPROM ($M) 

Flash ($M) 

ROM ($M) 

EEPROM ($M) 

Other Memory 


1993 

1994 

1995 

Year 

CAGR = 36% 

1996 

1997 

1998 

Figure 7-2. 1991-2000 MOS Memory Market CAGR 

90,305 

32,455 

55% 

36% 

23,420 

3,755 

1,390 

865 

1,890 

720 

415 

128,493 

53,225 

64% 

41% 

40,700 

6,000 

1,365 

1,800 

2,010 

885 

465 

154,434 

64,415 

21% 

42% 

50,075 

7,200 

1,240 

2,300 

2,050 

1,020 

530 

175,853 

73,745 

14% 

42% 

57,715 

8,435 

1,120 

2,830 

1,980 

1,090 

575 

214,382 

93,950 

27% 

44% 

75,265 

10,280 

1,035 

3,535 

1,960 

1,235 

640 

1999 

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Figure 7-3. MOS Memory Market Forecast 

2000 

18903B 

264,291 

122,325 

30% 

46% 

100,595 

12,235 

935 

4,500 

1,925 

1,420 

715 

2000 

331,866 

162,875 

33% 

49% 

136,780 

15,050 

845 

5,800 

1,875 

1,700 

825 

18914D 

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT ENGINEERING CORPORATION


Any “cooling off” period, ICE believes, will be short lived. With lower ASPs, consumers will 

begin to upgrade their computer systems with affordable memory. Those who long waited for 

lower prices before upgrading will likely jump at the chance to buy more memory, creating inflated 

demand and a return to a supply shortage. 

DRAMs make up the majority of MOS memory sales and are forecast to be the dominant memory 

product through the year 2000 (Figure 7-4). ICE forecasts that in the year 2000, 84 percent of 

the MOS memory market will be attributed to DRAM sales, up from 77 percent in 1995. Strong 

software, PC, and electronic equipment sales will provide the impetus necessary to take DRAM 

sales to a new level. 

DRAM 

SRAM 

ROM 

EPROM 

EEPROM 

FLASH 

OTHER 

TOTAL: 

DRAM 

SRAM 

ROM 

EPROM 

EEPROM 

FLASH 

OTHER 

TOTAL: 

1997 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

72% 

12% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

$32.5B 

78% 

11% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

4% 

1% 

$73.7B 


DRAM 

SRAM 

ROM 

EPROM 

EEPROM 

FLASH 

OTHER 

TOTAL: 

DRAM 

SRAM 

ROM 

EPROM 

EEPROM 

FLASH 

OTHER 

TOTAL: 

1998 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

80% 

11% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

4% 

1% 

$94.0B 

1995 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

77% 

11% 

4% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

1994 1996 

$53.2B 

DRAM 

SRAM 

ROM 

EPROM 

EEPROM 

FLASH 

OTHER 

TOTAL: 

DRAM 

SRAM 

ROM 

EPROM 

EEPROM 

FLASH 

OTHER 

TOTAL: 

MOS memory consumption was again headed by the North American region (Figure 7-5). ICE 

estimates that North America consumed 36 percent of all MOS memory products in 1995, down 

slightly from 1994. 


1999 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

82% 

10% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

4% 

1% 

$122.3B 

Figure 7-4. MOS Memory Product Marketshare 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

78% 

11% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

$64.4B 

DRAM 

SRAM 

ROM 

EPROM 

EEPROM 

FLASH 

OTHER 

TOTAL: 

2000 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

84% 

9% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

4% 


Figure 7-6 leaves no doubt that the Japanese companies are responsible for the greatest amount of 

MOS memory production. However, the figure also points out how quickly regional production 

can increase or decrease from one year to the next. Between 1993 and 1995, for instance, ICE estimates 

that Japan’s share of MOS memory production decreased 10 percentage points, while the 

ROW region increased 10 points. Apparently, no marketshare lead is safe in the IC industry, even 

in a market that seemed solidly in the grasp of the Japanese. 

MOS memory production by region for each memory segment is shown in Figure 7-7. Japanese 

firms supplied the largest amount of DRAMs, SRAMs, and ROMs—the largest memory market 

segments. ROW companies gained additional marketshare in several segments during 1995. 

Surprisingly, North American companies actually gained marketshare in the DRAM segment 

while making their presence known in the EPROM, EEPROM, and rising flash memory markets. 

SGS-Thomson, the world’s leading EPROM manufacturer was the source of Europe’s strong 

showing in the EPROM market and also a significant contributor to the EEPROM market. 

Listed in Figure 7-8 are sales estimates for the top five worldwide MOS memory suppliers in 1995. 

Together the five firms accounted for half of MOS memory sales during the year. ICE shows that 

Samsung continued as the leading supplier of MOS memory devices in 1995. Fueled by strong 

7-4 

ROW 

19% 

Europe 

18% 


North American 

Companies 

20% 

ROW 

Companies 

23% 


1994 

$32.5B 

Japan 

26% 

North America 

37% 

ROW 

22% 

Europe 

18% North America 

36% 

1995 (EST) 

$53.2B 

Japan 

24% 

Figure 7-5. MOS Memory Consumption by Region 

European 

Companies 

4% 

1994 

$32.5B 

Japanes 

Companies 

53% 


Companies 

21% 

European 

Companies 

4% 

Figure 7-6. MOS Memory Production 

1995 (EST) 

$53.2B 

ROW 

Companies 

29% 

18912E 

Japanese 

Companies 

46% 

20173A 



DRAM demand, its MOS memory sales increased well beyond its 1994 level. The strong DRAM 

market allowed another Korean supplier,LG Semicon, to join the top-five list. NEC, Hitachi, and 

Toshiba were lumped together at the number two, three, and four positions. 

Percentage 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

15% 

49% 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3% 

DRAM 

$40,700M 


33% 

30% 

 

 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Other 

Total 

47% 

20% 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3% 

SRAM 

$6,000M 

 

 

75% 

2% 1% 

ROM 

$2,010M 


Companies 

European 

Companies 

22% 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


53% 

9% 

29% 

EPROM 

$1,365M 

9% 

 

 

 

 

66% 

7% 

26% 

EEPROM 

$885M 

Japanese 

Companies 

ROW 

Companies 

Figure 7-7. 1995 MOS Memory Production by Segment ($M) 

Company 

Samsung 

NEC 

Toshiba 

Hitachi 

Mitsubishi 

— 

— 


1994 

Sales 

($M) 

4,060 

3,440 

3,400 

3,150 

1,830 

16,575 

32,455 

Marketshare 

(%) 

12 

11 

10 

10 

6 

51 

100 

Company 

Samsung 

NEC 

Hitachi 

Toshiba 

LG Semicon 

1995 (EST) 

Sales 

($M) 

7,545 

5,630 

5,560 

4,535 

3,165 

26,790 

53,225 

Figure 7-8. Total MOS Memory Market Leaders 

— 

— 

1% 

 

 

14 

11 

10 

9 

6 

50 

100 

85% 


(%) 

14495N 

8% 

5% 

Flash 

$1,800M 

2% 

 

 

14516N


ROMs 

ROMs represent the least expensive type of semiconductor memory. They are used primarily for 

storing data for electronic equipment such as fonts for laser printers, dictionary data in word 

processors, and sound-source data in electronic musical instruments. ROMs are also used extensively 

in video game software. A six-year quarterly history of the ROM market, including dollar 

volume, units, and ASP, is displayed in Figure 7-9. The surge in the ROM market beginning in 

1993 closely coincided with a jump in PC sales and other consumer-oriented electronic systems. 

ICE believes the ROM market will show only one more year of growth before it starts to dwindle 

in size through the remainder of the decade (Figure 7-10). The main reason for the decline is that 

the biggest market for mask ROMs—video games—is moving toward CD-ROM-based machines. 

The result is a mask ROM market that will likely begin a sales downturn in 1997. 

Despite the fact that high-performance game applications for ROMs may be dwindling, demand 

for the high-density versions has increased. Sharp added 3V versions to its high-density line, and 

in 2H95, began volume production of its 64M ROM device. 

Sharp also introduced a novel memory device that combines ROM and RAM on one chip. A customer 

can choose on a page-by-page basis whether the page should be RAM or ROM, solving 

memory mapping headaches for small, handheld systems. 

7-6 

Billings in Millions 

650 

600 

550 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

219 

$2.85 

77 


Dollar Volume 

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 

(EST) 

1990 1991 1992 

ASP 

Year 

Figure 7-9. 1990-1995 ROM Market 

Unit Volume 

1993 1994 1995 

$5.06 

607 

120 

5.20 

5.00 

4.80 

4.60 

4.40 

4.20 

4.00 

3.80 

3.60 

3.40 

3.20 

3.00 

2.80 

2.60 

2.40 

17854G 

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT ENGINEERING CORPORATION 

ASP ($)


2,100 

2,000 

1,900 

1,800 

1,700 

1,600 

1,500 

1,400 

1,300 

1,200 

1,100 

1,000 

Percent 

Change 

1991 



1992 1993 1994 1995 

Year 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

16% 33% 16% 6% 2% –3% –1% –2% –3% 

Figure 7-10. ROM Market to Fizzle 

Another interesting ROM development targeting the multimedia market is the Record-On-Silicon 

(ROS) device from Siemens. With a 50-percent reduction in die area compared with conventional 

ROM, the company claims the ROS could halve the cost of conventional ROM and push into 

markets for non-semiconductor storage, such as compact disks and photographic film. Few 

details of the technology are available now, but a 64M version of the device will be introduced in 

1997. 

In the ROM market, Japanese IC makers continued to hold a dominant position (Figure 7-11). 

Sharp and NEC held the largest shares of the ROM market in 1995. However, not all Japanese IC 

vendors are staying in the ROM business. Fujitsu announced its intentions to withdraw from the 

mask ROM business. It plans to cancel development efforts for 32M and other next-generation 

units, and, in 1996, will stop producing and shipping its current line of 16M and smaller products. 

The ROM market by geographic region is shown in Figure 7-12. The ROW region, where numerous 

ROM-intensive electronic games are manufactured, greatly increased its share of the ROM 

market in 1995. 


20348A


Market demand for ROMs is slowly migrating toward higher densities (Figure 7-13). Most ROM 

manufacturers elected to keep their ROM production at the 4M level. However, UMC in Taiwan, 

Sharp in Japan, and Samsung in Korea intend to develop mask ROMs beyond the 32M 

density. 

EPROMs 

EPROMs (electrically programmable read only memory) have long been the cornerstone of the 

non-volatile memory market. Created in the 1970’s with Intel’s invention of the UV-erasable 

PROM, these devices have since been produced in an assortment of part types with varying 

speeds and densities. They are used in numerous applications and have been a favorite for their 

versatility. However, EPROMs’ stronghold has been tested in recent years with the emergence of 

other non-volatile memory products, specifically flash memory. 

7-8 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Other 

Total 

Company 

Sharp 

NEC 

Samsung 

Toshiba 

Hitachi 

— 

— 


Europe 

2% 


Japan 

74% 

1994 

$1,890M 

North 

America 

13% 

1994 1995 (EST) 

Sales 

($M) 

470 

380 

292 

240 

230 

278 

1,890 


(%) 

25 

20 

15 

13 

12 

15 

100 

Company 

Sharp 

NEC 

Toshiba 

Hitachi 

Samsung 

— 

— 

Figure 7-11. ROM Market Leaders 

ROW 

11% 

Europe 

3% 

Figure 7-12. ROM Market by Region 

Sales 

($M) 

500 

400 

255 

245 

230 

380 

2,010 

Japan 

59% 

1995 (EST) 

$2,010M 


(%) 

ROW 

21% 

14496N 


25 

20 

13 

12 

11 

19 

100 

North 

America 

17% 

16790J

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

24% 


31% 

18% 

27% 

≤2M 4M 8M >8M 

≤2M 4M 8M >8M 


The recent history of the EPROM market, including unit shipments and ASPs, is shown in Figure 

7-14. Dollar volume remained reasonably steady until 1994 when the impact of flash memory was 

felt. However, high initial prices and lack of supply in the flash market allowed the EPROM market 

to rebound late in 1994 and into 1995. 


450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

1Q 

378 

Marketshare Percent 

$3.35 

2Q 


3Q 

4Q 

1994 

$1,890M 


22% 

31% 

19% 

1995 (EST) 

$2,010M 

Figure 7-13. ROM Unit Shipments by Density 

1Q 

2Q 

3Q 

1991 1992 

Dollar Volume 

ASP 

4Q 

1Q 

2Q 

3Q 

4Q 

1Q 

2Q 

3Q 

28% 

4Q 

18915D 

Unit Volume 

113 110 

1Q 

2Q 

1993 

Year 

1994 1995 

Figure 7-14. 1991-1995 EPROM Market 

314 

$2.85 

3Q 4Q 

(EST) 

4.00 

3.80 

3.60 

3.40 

3.20 

3.00 

2.80 

2.60 

2.40 

2.20 

2.00 

ASP ($) 

17853G


ICE believes that the EPROM sales peaked in 1994 and have now started to track a slow market 

decline through the end of the decade (Figure 7-15). The decline comes as many long-time 

EPROM suppliers, evaluating their capacity allocations, have chosen to produce devices with 

higher profit margins. 

The year 1999 should be the first (since its initial market days) that the EPROM market fails to 

reach the $1 billion level. Still, even though it is forecast to decline, a roughly one-billion dollar 

market is quite sizable. As will be mentioned later, while numerous competitors have lessened 

their commitments to the EPROM market, others have increased production to milk all they can 

from the roughly $1 billion business. 

The density domain of EPROMs remained at the lower level (256K and 512K, Figure 7-16). The 

choice between EPROM and flash memory comes into play at higher densities ( 1M). In some 

cases, lower cost, lower voltage, and faster speed of some EPROM products may offer an advantage 

over competing devices. However, the trade-off of lower price is sometimes met with less 

flexibility (Figure 7-17). 

The leading EPROM suppliers for 1995 are shown in Figure 7-18. This list has changed several 

times during the past five years and will probably change more by the year 2000. 

7-10 


1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Percent Change 

From Previous 

Year 


$1,390 $1,365 

1994 

3% 

1995 

–2% 

$1,240 

1996 

–9% 

$1,120 

1997 

–10% 

Figure 7-15. EPROM Market Decline 

$1,035 

1998 

–8% 

$935 

1999 

–10% 

$845 

2000 

–10% 

19518B 


Typical Storage Use 

Typical Number 

of Writes 

Densities Available 

Flexibility 

Cost Per Bit 

≤256K 

40% 


1995 (EST) 

492M 

>1M 

14% 



512K 

28% 

1M 

18% 

19519B 

Figure 7-16. EPROM Market by Density (Units) 

EPROM Flash EEPROM 

Fixed programs 

Write once 

256K to 8M 

Least 

Least 

In-system modifiable 

programs 

Write up to 100,000 

times 

256K to 16M 

Frequently updated 

programs and data 

Write up to one million 

times 

1K to 64K (serial) 

64K to 4M (parallel) 

Most 

Most 

Source: Atmel/ICE, "Status 1996" 20411 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Other 

Total 

Figure 7-17. EPROMs Offer Lower Cost But Less Flexibility 

Company 

SGS-Thomson 

AMD 

TI 

Atmel 

National 

Cypress 


— 

— 

1994 

Sales 

($M) 

395 

215 

190 

145 

160 

45 

240 

1,390 


(%) 

28 

15 

14 

10 

12 

3 

17 

100 

Sales 

($M) 

345 

170 

135 

125 

125 

105 

360 

1,365 

Figure 7-18. EPROM Market Leaders 

1995 (EST) 


(%) 

25 

13 

10 

9 

9 

8 

26 

100 

14497N


Since 1993, several “big-name” vendors have dropped out of the EPROM business. In the early 

1990’s, Intel was the EPROM leader. Today, it is out of the market. Likewise, Philips 

Semiconductor, previously a medium-sized EPROM player, withdrew from the market. And, 

Fujitsu, concluding that flash memories will replace EPROMs in many applications, terminated 

development of its next-generation 8M EPROM device. 

During 1995, several leading EPROM suppliers were caught somewhere between trying to 

improve a technology that will likely return small, near-term financial rewards or investing in 

flash memory, which represents the future of nonvolatile memory and offers greater profitability. 

Texas Instruments, National Semiconductor, and AMD all reduced their EPROM production and 

future commitments to the EPROM market. 

TI informed customers that it would reduce production of its EPROMs roughly 50 percent beginning 

in 2H95 in order to allow more capacity for manufacturing digital signal processors. 

National’s total EPROM production was expected to diminish by 60 percent in 1995 as the company 

placed more emphasis on application-specific devices. Meanwhile, AMD was forced to closely 

evaluate its internal fab production commitments after losing two key EPROM foundry partners. 

Not every company distanced themselves from EPROMs, however. SGS-Thomson retained its 

leadership position in the EPROM business by emphasizing high-speed devices and filling out 

other niche organizations in its EPROM line-up. For instance, ST ramped production of its 8M 

(100ns and 120ns versions) and 16M (150ns and 200ns versions) lines in 1995 to meet increased 

demand for cost-effective alternatives to high-density ROM and flash memory devices. 

Smaller EPROM producers such as Cypress Semiconductor and Integrated Silicon Solutions Inc. 

have provided mainly niche-oriented high-speed EPROMs but are eager to fill the void left by 

larger players. A summary of those suppliers placing greater and less emphasis on the EPROM 

market is shown in Figure 7-19. 

Through the years, the EPROM market has been much more evenly balanced by region than other 

memory segments (Figure 7-20). ICE forecasts that the ROW region will capture more of the 

EPROM market in the coming years, while the European and Japanese markets will fluctuate 

around the same level as in 1995. Reduced EPROM consumption in North America is due to 

quick acceptance and implementation of flash memory in this region. 

EEPROMs 

EEPROMs (electrically erasable programmable read only memories) offer users excellent capabilities 

and performance. They are available in either a serial or parallel version. Parallel EEPROMs 

are available in higher densities, are generally faster, offer high endurance and reliability, but also 

7-12 



cost more than their serial counterparts. Until recently, parallel EEPROMs found little interest 

beyond the military market. Serial EEPROMs, though generally less dense and slower than parallel 

devices, are much cheaper. 

Less Emphasis 

AMD 

• Evaluating in-house 

capacity allocation 

• Lost two EPROM foundry 

suppliers 

• More wafer starts at Flash 

facility (FASL) in Japan 

National 

• EPROM production down 

60 percent in 1995 

• Integrating EPROM and Flash 

capabilities with MCU 

and MPU technology to create 

application-specific products 

Texas Instruments 

• Reduced EPROM production 

50 percent to provide more 

capacity for DSPs 


North 

America 

33% 


SGS-Thomson 

More Emphasis 

• Upgrading EPROM 

process to 0.6 µm 

• Densities to 16M; 

many low-voltage versions 

Cypress 

• Previously a high-speed 

EPROM player, now 

attacking slow, low-cost 

segment left behind by others 

Integrated Silicon Solution Inc. 

• High-performance EPROMs 

for code storage applications 

Figure 7-19. EPROM Suppliers – Coming and Going 

1994 

$1,390M 

ROW 

15% 

Japan 

29% 

Europe 

23% 

North 

America 

29% 

Figure 7-20. EPROM Market by Region 

Japan 

29% 

1995 (EST) 

$1,365M 

The near-term EEPROM market forecast is shown in Figure 7-21. In 1995 the EEPROM market 

grew 23 percent following up on 20 percent growth in 1994. The CAGR for EEPROMs is estimated 

to be 14 percent for the 1995-2000 time period. Due in part to military use, the North American 

market was the largest for EEPROMs in 1995 (Figure 7-22). 


ROW 

20% 

20412 

Europe 

22% 

16791J


ICE estimates that in 1995, the serial EEPROM market accounted for 90 percent of the $885 million 

EEPROM market (Figure 7-23). The largest serial EEPROM density shipping in volume was 

the 64K density device. Companies such as Atmel, Xicor, and SGS-Thomson supplied the large 

majority of these devices. 

The largest parallel EEPROMs built in volume during 1995 were 1M devices. They were used 

extensively, although not exclusively, in military applications. Parallel EEPROMs are of particular 

interest in the military because they offer more flexibility than other kinds of solid-state memory. 

Specifically, parallel EEPROMs can be erased bit by bit, whereas other types of memory such 

as flash can only be erased in larger block segments at one time. 

7-14 


1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Percent 

Change 

720 

1994 


885 

1995 

1,020 

1996 

North 

America 

51% 

1995 (EST) 

$885M 


Japan 

12% 

1,090 

1997 

Year 

1,235 

1998 

ROW 

13% 

Europe 

24% 

1,420 

1999 

16792G 

1,700 

2000 

20% 23% 15% 7% 13% 15% 20% 

Figure 7-21. EEPROM Market Forecast ($M) 

Figure 7-22. 1995 EEPROM Market 

20347A 


Serial EEPROM 

90% 

1995 (EST) 

$885M 


Figure 7-23. 1995 EEPROM Market 

Parallel EEPROM 

10% 


Parallel EEPROMs can be found in defense applications such as flight controllers, vehicle control 

systems, field communications equipment, secure radios, command and control systems, radar, 

and guidance subsystems. The lightness, ruggedness, and fast performance of parallel EEPROMs 

make them well suited for harsh environments. Figure 7-24 gives a sampling of parallel EEPROM 

suppliers and some of the devices they offer. 

Aeroflex Circuit Technology 

ARX-E1MX32 

(MCM) 

Atmel Corp. 

AT28C040 

AT28C010 

Electronic Designs Inc. 

EDI5C32128C 

EDI5M32128C 

EDI5C3232C 

EDI5M3232C 

Sac-Tec Labs 

TBD 

ST512x32x 

Space Electronics 

28CO10RP 

79C010RP 

28C256ERP 

White Microelectronics 

WF2048K32 

WE128K32 

WF1024K32 

Xlcor Inc. 

X28HC256 

X28VC256 

X28C010 

X28C512 


Density 

(Bits) 

32M 

4M 

1M 

4M 

4M 

1M 

1M 

144/ 

288M 

16/ 

32M 

1M 

1M 

256K 

64M 

4M 

32M 

256K 

256K 

1M 

512 

Organization 

1M x 32 

512K x 8 

128K x 8 

128K x 32 

128K x 32 

32K x 32 

32K x 32 

Multiple I/O 

512K x 32 

1,024K x 32 

128K x 8 bit 

MCM 32K x 8 bit 

32K x 8 bit 

2,048K x 32 

128K x 32 

1,024K x 32 

32K x 8 

32K x 8 

128K x 8 

64K x 8 

Endurance 

(Erase/Write Cycles) 

10,000 to 100,000 

100,000 

100,000 

10,000 

10,000 

10,000 

10,000 

100,000 

100,000 

10,000 

10,000 

10,000 

1,000,000 

N/A 

100,000 

100,000 

100,000 

100,000 

100,000 

Voltage 

(V) 


5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5, 12 

5, 12 

2 

2 

2 

3.3/5 

5 

5/12 

5 

5 

5 

5 

Packaging 

2.1" x 2.9" x .275" 

32 flatpack, 44 LCC, 

32 DIP 

32 LCC 

68-pin ceramic JLCC 

68-pin ceramic PGA 

68-pin ceramic JLCC 

68-pin ceramic PGA 

Hybrid module 

SMD module 

Hybrid module 

SMD module 

32-pin flatpack 



PGA/HIP & CQFP 



DIP, LCC 

DIP, LCC 

DIP, LCC 

DIP, LCC 

20413 

Figure 7-24. Sampling of Parallel EEPROM Suppliers & Devices 

Military 

Qualifications/Spec 

Mil-Std-883 

5962-94551 

5962-38267 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Mil-H-38534 

compliant 

Mil-H-38534 

compliant 

Class B & S 

Class B & S 

Class B & S 

883/SMD 

883/SMD 

883/SMD 

883 

883 

883 

883 

Military 

Applications 

Airborne 

Land-based 

avionics 

Avionics 

Various 

Various 

Various 

Various 

Space/Defense 

Space/Defense 

Military & Space 



Solid-state storage 



Flight data recorders, 

flight control systems, 

communications 

20349


Consumer-oriented applications 

represented the largest end-use of 

serial EEPROMs in 1995 (Figure 7- 

25). Consumer applications span a 

wide variety of electronic systems 

but essentially involve systems 

where “touch” or “push” programmability 

exists. Other leading serial 

EEPROM applications are shown in 

Figure 7-26. 

EEPROMs are well suited for low-voltage operation and are being developed along side other 

technologies for such applications. In 4Q95, Xicor introduced a prototype million-transistor 

device that integrates EEPROM technology with digital signal processing. The IC, to be priced 

under $50, will be sold to portable communications equipment makers that need in-system programmability 

and 1.8-volt operation. Toshiba and Hitachi also improved their EEPROM line-ups 

to better meet high-speed, low-voltage, and low power consumption demands. 

The number of erase/write cycles that a particular EEPROM device offers depends on several factors 

such as temperature, voltage, and the number of cycles per day. For EEPROMs, endurance 

ratings of 100,000 and one million erase/write cycles are common. In contrast, 100,000 cycles are 

7-16 

Office 7% 

Automotive 

8% 

Computer-Related 

7% 

Military/Aerospace 

7% 


Industrial 

15% 

1995 

Telecom 

20% 

Consumer 

36% 

19520B 

Figure 7-25. Serial EEPROM Applications (Units) 

Consumer 

TV 

VCR 

Radio Tuner 

CD/Laser Disk 

Feature Phone 

Pay Phone 

Answer Machine 

Pager 

Photo Equip. 

Handheld Remote 

Weight Scale 

Camcorder 

Exercise Machine 

Sonabuoy 

Smart Key 

Electronic Locks 

Smart Cards 

Appliances 

Karaoke 

Video Game 

Automotive 

Anti-lock Brake Sys. 

Air Bag Sensor 

Odometer 

Trip Computer 

Power Steering Ctrl 

Cruise Control 

Wiper Control 

Security System 

Shock Sensor 

Electronic Key 

Keyless Entry 

Radio 

Cellular Phone 

Mobile TV 

Industrial 

Thermostat 

Utility Meter 

Security 

System 

Controller 

Computer Peripheral 

Disk Drive 

PC LAN System 

PCMCIA Card 

Video Graphics Card 

Video Monitor 

Access Bus Protocol 

Laser Printer 

Scanner 

Bar Code Reader 

Communications 

Modem 

Fax Machine 

Copier 

Cellular Phone 

Mobile Phone 

PABX System 

Satellite Receiver 

POS Terminal 

Data Acquisition 

PDA 

Source: Microchip/ICE, "Status 1996" 20416 

Figure 7-26. Typical Serial EEPROM Applications 



at the high end of performance for flash memory devices. Depending on the design, the number 

of erase/write cycles may or may not be important. Figure 7-27 shows applications that change 

or update the data in an EEPROM most often during a day. Applications such as a maintenance 

log or last number redial are the most taxing on an EEPROM. 

Maintenance Log 

Last Number Redial 

Electronic Lock Access 

Power-Down Storage 

Digital Potentiometer 

Look-Up Table 

Tuner Controls 

System Configuration 

Anti-Lock Braking System 

Speed Dial 

Airbag 

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 

Cycles Per Day 

Source: Microchip Technology/ICE, "Status 1996" 

19521 

Leading EEPROM suppliers are shown in Figure 7-28. Atmel, SGS-Thomson, and Microchip 

Technology continue to make strides in the market. 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

— 

— 

Figure 7-27. EEPROM Endurance Requirements 

Company 

SGS-Thomson 

Atmel 

Xicor 

Microchip 

National 

Others 

— 


1994 

Sales 

($M) 

115 

140 

95 

60 

45 

265 

720 


(%) 


16 

20 

13 

8 

6 

37 

100 

Sales 

($M) 

170 

145 

100 

85 

55 

330 

885 

Figure 7-28. 1995 EEPROM Market Leaders 

1995 (EST) 


(%) 

19 

17 

11 

10 

6 

37 

100 

14498N


FLASH MEMORY 

Flash memory is the newcomer on the MOS memory block. Despite being commercially available 

since around 1990, flash pricing and performance have inched closer to parity with many other 

memory devices. Given the option, more and more designers are giving serious consideration to 

flash memory products in their systems. Lower pricing, increased performance, and more design 

wins in innovative products have stirred a lot of interest in the flash memory market. 

Since 1990, flash memory products have revolutionized how designers think about storing control 

code in computers, peripherals, communication devices, and a number of other applications. 

Several elements, highlighted in Figure 7-29, will help the flash memory market expand further in 

1996. 

Figure 7-30 demonstrates how flash memory is forecast to be the memory segment with the highest 

CAGR through the year 2000. Driving the growth are wide ranging embedded applications, 

which account for 80 to 90 percent of all flash sales. Hot markets include PC BIOS, telecommunications 

devices such as cellular phones and modems, printers, hard disk drives, and video game 

cartridges. Flash devices are serving in new and innovative applications rather than strictly as 

EPROM replacement. In fact, 1995 was the first year that the flash memory market was larger 

than the EPROM memory market. 

A brief market history of flash devices is plotted in Figure 7-31 . The forecast growth in the flash 

market is plotted in Figure 7-32. By the year 2000, ICE expects the flash market to be $5.8 billion, 

more than three times its 1995 size. 

Currently, the majority of flash devices shipped are 1M (33 percent) and 4M (24 percent) densities 

(Figure 7-33). 16M and 4M devices will ship more than any other size as applications become 

more sophisticated toward the end of the decade. 

ICE estimates that consumption of flash memory devices was greatest in the North American 

region in 1995 (Figure 7-34). Solid business applications—especially in the portable/mobile category—provided 

a strong foundation for growth in both the North American and European regions. 

7-18 

•Ability to rewrite data or code in a system 

•ASPs competitive with DRAM at 4M, 16M densities 

•High density, low power, rewrite ability, non-volatility 

favor growing hand-held/portable/mobile electronics 


Figure 7-29. Growth Factors in Flash Memory Market 

20073 


Percent 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

–10 

Flash 



600 

550 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

$8.57 

Dollar Volume 

120 

14 

1Q 

2Q 


DRAM 

SRAM 

EEPROM 

Figure 7-30. 1992-2000 Memory IC CAGRs 

3Q 

Unit Volume 

4Q 

1Q 

2Q 

Year 

3Q 


EPROM 


4Q 

1Q 

ASP 

2Q 

1993 1994 1995 

Figure 7-31. Flash Memory Market 

ROM 

3Q 

571 

$7.61 

75 

4Q 

(EST) 

9.00 

8.80 

8.60 

8.40 

8.20 

8.00 

7.80 





6.80 

6.60 

6.40 

ASP ($) 

20417 

20071A


The leading flash memory suppliers are displayed in Figure 7-35. Intel and AMD dominate this 

market. Both companies are well up the learning curve slope while many other companies are just 

beginning to get their flash business off the ground. With its AMD partnership (FASL) in place, 

Fujitsu was able to join the small group of manufacturers that generated triple-digit flash revenue 

growth in 1995. 

7-20 


6,000 

5,000 

4000, 

3,000 

2000, 

1,000 

0 

Total ($M) 



1991 

1992 

100 270 

171% 

1993 

640 

137% 

1994 

865 

35% 

1995 

1,800 

108% 

1996 

2,300 

28% 

1997 

2,830 

23% 

1998 

3,535 

25% 

Figure 7-32. Dollar Value of Worldwide Flash Memory Market 

4M 

24% 

2M 

13% 

≥16M 

1% 

8M 

9% 


1995 (EST) 

232M 

256K 

10% 512K 

10% 

1M 

33% 

20351A 

Figure 7-33. Flash Unit Shipments by Density 

1999 

4,500 

27% 

2000 

5,800 

29% 

18692B 


Following behind in flash sales were a handful of other manufacturers from around the world. 

These included Atmel, Hitachi, Micron, Mitsubishi, Samsung, SGS-Thomson, and Toshiba. There 

are many vendors who want to be a part of the flash memory business, but not all are capable from 

a technology standpoint. Neither are many vendors capable from a financial standpoint. That is 

why the list of leading vendors is still primarily limited to companies with a strong financial base, 

solid R&D skills, and large fab capacity. 

At least three significant hurdles face the flash memory market if it is to continue growing at its 

fast pace. The issues are architecture, voltage supply, and capacity. 

Architecture 

Others 

21% 

AMD 

25% 


ROW 

12% 

North America 

46% 


1995 (EST) 

$1.8B 

Japan 

18% 

Europe 

24% 


All flash devices are not created equally. There are two prominent architectures that compete in 

today’s market: NOR and NAND. Both are based on technology from flash’s predecessors, the 

EPROM and EEPROM circuits. NOR and NAND imply different types of memory cell structure. 

Each uses floating-gate transistors for storage elements, but differ in the way the memory cells are 

linked together. 

Also, each is well suited for specific applications—NOR for RAM-like applications requiring fast 

access times, and NAND for applications that do not require repetitive random accesses, such as 

disk-drive replacements. 


20093A 

Figure 7-34. 1995 Flash Memory Market by Region 

1994 

$865M 

INTEL 

54% 

Others 

20% 

AMD 

30% 

1995 $1.8B 

(EST) 

Figure 7-35. Leading Flash Memory Suppliers 

INTEL 

50% 

20092A


Beyond NOR and NAND are emerging architectures such as Mitsubishi’s DINOR (divided bitline 

NOR) technology and the AND structure that is being promoted by Hitachi. DINOR offers 

low power and low voltage in a die size approximately 20 percent smaller than an equivalent 

NOR device. While each architecture has its benefits, NOR and NAND were the two front runners 

through 1995 and will likely dominate the near-term market. 

Figure 7-36 provides a brief comparison of the four available flash architecture styles while Figure 

7-37 provides a look at the various flash memory architectures and the vendors who support 

them. 

7-22 

Architecture NOR DINOR NAND AND 

Program Method 

Erase Method 

Possible Power Supply 

single 3.3V 

single 5V 

dual 5V/12V 

Die Size (using NOR 

as reference) 

Suitable Applications 

(by density) 

1M to 4M 

8M to 16M 

32M to 256M 

Hot carrier injection 

Tunnel current 

Difficult 

Yes 

Yes 

1 

BIOS, EPROM replacement, 

communications, 

low-density XIP cards 

PDA, cellular, networking, 

low-density 

ATA cards 

Not suitable 



Yes 

No 

No 

0.8 

Not suitable 


low-density 

ATA cards 

Not suitable 



Source: Computer Design/ICE, "Status 1996" 20418 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

0.9 

BIOS, EPROM replacement, 

communications, 

low-density XIP cards 


low-density 

ATA cards 

High-density ATA cards 

(10-100Mbytes) 

Figure 7-36. Flash Architectures Stretch to Fit Memory Requirements 

NOR NAND AND DINOR 

Intel 

AMD 

Fujitsu 

TI 

Micron 

SGS-Thomson 

Macronix 

UMC 

National 

Samsung 

Toshiba 

Hitachi 

Mitsubishi 

Mitsubishi 

Hitachi 

Winbond uses its proprietary "split-gate" architecture. 


20080A 

Figure 7-37. Vendors’ Support of Flash Memory Architectures 



Yes 

No 

No 

0.8 

Not suitable 

Not suitable 

High-density ATA cards 

(10-100Mbytes) 


Voltage 


Another issue being addressed in the flash market is that of single- versus dual-supply voltage, 

and the implementation of low-voltage parts. The trend is for users to design single-voltage 

devices into their systems. That is, the market for 5V program/erase devices is expected to grow 

rapidly, overtaking the products incorporating 12V devices in 1996 (Figure 7-38). 


4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

500 

≤3V-only 

3V/5V 

5V-only 

5V/12V 


AMD has emphasized its low-voltage, single-voltage flash products. Most of its devices are manufactured 

to write and erase at 5V (low-voltage in the flash market). Until recently, Intel downplayed 

the importance of single-voltage flash. However, it now promotes its SmartVoltage flash 

technology, which allows flash chips to operate with a 3V or 5V read voltage and 5V or 12V 

erase/write voltage. By incorporating its SmartVoltage lineup, it has practically acknowledged 

the market for single-power supply flash. 

ICE anticipates the 5V flash market maintaining very solid, steady growth through the year 2000. 

Growth in the 3V flash market is also expected to surge later in the decade. 


Year 

Figure 7-38. Flash Memory Market by Voltage 

20087


Capacity 

Big strides to level the flash memory supply-demand ratio took place in 1995 as several vendors 

either brought new flash-dedicated fabs on line or announced their intentions to add more capacity. 

Figure 7-39 shows some of the new flash capacity that has come on line or that will soon be 

available. 

Intel dedicated new fab space to flash memory production. Its Fabs 7 and 9 in New Mexico along 

with its announcement to build a new production facility (Fab 18) in Israel should help eliminate 

the capacity crunch for flash memory. 

7-24 

Company Location Process Technology Comments 

Intel 

Sharp 

AMD/Fujitsu 

Mitsubishi 


Fab 7 

New Mexico, USA 

150mm wafers 

Fab 9 

New Mexico, USA 

200mm wafers 

Fab 18 

Kiryat Gat, Israel 

200mm wafers 

Fab 3 

Fukuyama, Japan 

200mm wafers 

FASL 

Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan 

200mm wafers 

Saijo Facility 

Japan 

0.4µm by 1Q96. 

Near 100% flash 

production. 

0.4µm 

0.25µm 

0.4µm by 1996. 

0.5µm 

0.5µm 

Wafer starts increasing 

25% in 1996. 

Mostly 5V/12V parts. 

Die shrinks to improve 

effective capacity/yields. 

Production starts 4Q96. 

Figure 7-39. New Flash Capacity to Meet Demand 

$1 billion investment. First 

silicon due 4Q97. 

Production ramp slated for 

1998. When fully operational, 

Fab 18 will increase Intel's flash 

output 350% over 1995 levels. 

Builds Intel devices. 

Not yet at capacity. 

Running 8M, 16M parts. 

Accelerating development of 

Intel's SmartVoltage technology. 

Opened 4Q94. 

Aggressive ramp schedule. 

20 million-plus unit shipments 

forecast for 1995. Negotiating 

to build a second joint-venture 

fab in Japan. If approved, 

production would begin in late 

1997 or early 1998. 

Currently processing DRAMs. 

Making switch to flash 

memories. 

20079A 


AMD ramped production at its joint-venture fab with Fujitsu (FASL) in 1995. Due to continued 

demand, the two firms mulled over a second flash-dedicated fab. If approved, the facility would 

likely begin production in late 1997 or early 1998. 

Meanwhile, the Taiwanese have shown considerable interest in joining the flash party. In the second 

half of 1995, at least four companies announced their intentions to become involved with or 

expand their involvement in the flash market place (Figure 7-40). Despite the competition, the 

Taiwanese companies expect to capitalize on the exploding flash market. Further, the move 

demonstrates their resolve to transit into more complex and more profitable product lines. 

Company Flash Plans 

Formosa Chemical & Fibre 

Macronix 

UMC 

Winbond 


Looking for a joint-venture partner to help propel it 

into the flash memory business. It desires to 

manufacture flash memories (and other related IC 

products) in a proposed 200mm sub-micron fab. 

Has sold 1M and 4M flash parts for several years. 

Designing products around a single-voltage 

architecture developed by AMD. Sampled 16M 

flash devices co-developed with NKK of Japan. 

Designing 1M and 2M flash products around a 

single-voltage architecture developed by AMD. 

Shipments will begin in mid-1996. 

Sampling first members of its flash family based 

on its proprietary EEPROM technology. The 256K 

and 1M 5V-only densities are built around a "splitgate" 

architecture, which differs from Intel's and 

AMD's cell structure. 

Figure 7-40. Taiwan Joining Flash Bandwagon 


Earlier, it was mentioned that flash memory has been a hit in the portable systems arena. 

Specifically, flash memory in the form of flash cards has received much attention as this market 

heats up. In 2H95, rival and incompatible memory-card proposals went public to garner a share 

of new-generation, low-cost digital consumer devices. Minicard, CompactFlash, and Solid State 

Floppy Disk represent three alternatives that aim to replace film, cassette tapes, and full-size PCM- 

CIA-type memory cards in digital cameras, audio recorders, and other portable systems. Figure 

7-41 provides highlights of each proposition. 

It is no wonder flash card technology is taking off. With prices dropping and applications increasing, 

consumers stand to benefit from the ease and repetitive use available with digital technology. 

Figure 7-42 details cost trends and advantages of flash cards. 


20419


With the flurry of activity in the flash memory market, several product announcements and technology 

breakthroughs were reported. A sampling of some of the more significant company 

alliances and product announcements is listed below. 

7-26 

Compact- 

Flash 

Minicard 

Solid State 

Floppy Disk 

Proponent Size (mm) 

SanDisk, 

others to come 

Intel, Philips, 

others to come 

Toshiba 

*Full range not available at launch 

36 x 43 

x 3.3 

35 x 33 

x 3.5 

45 x 37 

x 0.76 

Memory Type Capacity Connector Type 

NOR flash 

NOR flash, DRAM, 

SRAM, OTP, ROM 

NAND flash 

2, 4, 12, 

15Mbytes 

64Kbytes* to 

128Mbytes 

2Mbytes 

50-pin subset 

of PCMCIA 

40-pad 

elastomeric 

68-pin PCMCIA 

with adapter 

Source: EE Times/ICE, "Status 1996" 20420 

Figure 7-41. Mini Flash Cards Target Cameras, Audio Recorders, and PDAs 

Retail Price ($) 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

1993 

1994 

What does 5MB get you? 

• Images - over 50 digital images 

• Voice - More than 1 hour 

• Data - 3,500 pages of double-space text 

1995 

Year 

• AMD and Fujitsu started volume production of flash devices at their new jointly owned 

facility in Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan. At the end of 1995, FASL was producing five million 

units per month. AMD and Fujitsu also discussed the possibility of building a second flashdedicated 

facility in Japan. 

1996 

1997 

1998 

Source: SanDisk/ICE, "Status 1996" 20421 

Figure 7-42. Retail Price of 5MB Flash Disk Card 



• Hitachi added its name to the list of vendors offering a 32M flash device. The company 

developed its version using its proprietary AND architecture on a 0.45µm CMOS process. 

The devices are aimed at solid-state disk applications, but the company also has plans to use 

the chips in the flash card business. Samples were available in 4Q95. 

• Hyundai Electronics created a new flash memory division in Sunnyvale, California. It 

expects to enter the market with 4M and 16M flash products in 1996. 

• Intel began offering 4M and 8M boot-block flash devices that are capable of operating at voltages 

as low as 2.7 volts. The SmartVoltage devices allow flash memories to be read and written 

to at multiple voltages, offering a higher degree of flexibility than single-voltage flash, 

according to Intel. 

• LG Semicon and SanDisk entered into an agreement under which LG Semicon will manufacture 

flash memory for use in SanDisk flash data storage products. As part of the agreement, 

LG Semicon made an minority investment in SanDisk. The agreement also provides 

that the two companies will cooperate in further development of flash products. 

• Matsushita will supply 32M flash memory chips to SanDisk beginning 1Q96. The devices 

will be packaged into CompactFlash PC cards with a memory storage capacity of 15MB. 

• Micron entered into a licensing agreement with flash market leader Intel. In doing so, it 

gained access to the full range of Intel’s flash patents while also signaling that it would align 

itself with Intel’s mixed-power supply flash mode. 

• Mitsubishi released its 3V-only 16M DINOR flash memory chip, the first in a series of products 

that incorporate Mitsubishi’s divided bit-line NOR technology. It was produced using 

a half-micron process and volume production is expected in early 1996. Hitachi, working 

with Mitsubishi to develop the technology, later introduced its 16M DINOR device. 

• National is reselling Toshiba-built 16M flash memories in the merchant market under the 

National brand label and is committed to building Toshiba-compatible flash devices. 

National also has plans to produce non-standard parts that better target specific applications. 

• NEC began marketing flash memory chips in 4Q95. The company will initially ship 1M and 

4M NOR-type chips that use 12V and 5V to write and read data, respectively. NEC plans to 

release an 8M chip in 2Q96. Production will start at 300,000 to 400,000 units per month at 

NEC Yamaguchi. 

• SanDisk and Intel signed an agreement that allows each to license the other’s patents covering 

the design and manufacture of flash memory products, giving both companies unrestricted 

rights to use those patents. 

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT ENGINEERING CORPORATION 7-27


• Samsung sampled its 32M NAND flash memory device. The 3V-only (also available in a 5Vonly 

version) IC is based on a 0.5µm CMOS process. Volume production started in 4Q95. 

Samsung expects to introduce a compatible 64M NAND flash memory device in 1996. 

• Toshiba developed a 32M flash device. Designed using a 0.425µm CMOS process, the 

NAND chip operates on a 3V or 5V supply. 

• Toshiba and Samsung signed a technical alliance that calls for co-development of NAND 

flash devices through (and including) the 64M density. Toshiba is also sharing some of its 

flash knowledge with IBM. 

• Xicor doubled the size of its flagship flash memory product with the addition of a 128K 

device to its SerialFlash family of low-voltage flash memories with serial architecture. 

SRAMs 

Static RAMs (SRAMs) are memory devices capable of retaining their information at very low 

power, without the need for periodic “refresh” as in the case with DRAMs. Although these 

devices have lived in the shadow of DRAMs for the longest time, SRAMs took on added importance 

and significance in 1995. Why? In a word, Pentium. 

Prior to the advent of the Pentium processor, SRAM was considered antiquated technology with 

little value. ASPs were such that profit margins were below the interest level of most manufacturers. 

The present environment, however, shows a 180-degree reversal of that pattern. In many 

cases, manufacturers scaled back production of other, less profitable chips to make room for additional 

SRAM production. Demand was high, capacity tight, and lead times long for SRAMs 

throughout most of 1995. 

The disparity between Pentium-class MPU clock speeds and DRAM access times became more 

apparent during 1995. In many cases, high-performance CPUs remained in idle wait states while 

accessing slower DRAM memory. To reduce or eliminate the wait state, designers looked to 

SRAM cache memory. Cache memory serves as temporary storage between the CPU and the 

main memory and helps CPUs to perform at their optimum level. 

As depicted in Figure 7-43, cache memory is becoming a more significant factor in PC systems. With 

few exceptions, MPU bus speeds now require a second-level cache built with fast SRAM to tap the 

full potential of the microprocessor. The result has been SRAM demand that has skyrocketed. 

It is estimated that less than one-quarter of 486-based machines—generally those with 50MHz and 

slower MPUs—have secondary cache. In contrast, forecasts show that secondary cache will be a 

feature on as many as three-fourths of Pentium-based PCs (Figure 7-44). Further, it is estimated 

7-28 



that Pentium-based systems with level-two cache operate 30 percent faster than systems without. 

Intel’s planned delivery of 30 million-plus Pentium’s in 1995 placed the SRAM market, specifically 

cache SRAMs, in a strong growth mode through the year and well into 1996 and beyond. In 

fact, ICE forecasts the SRAM market growth rate will hover around 20 percent per year through 

the year 2000 (Figure 7-45). 

16bit CPU 

Non Cache 

32bit CPU 

Standard 

SRAM 

64bit CPU 

With Cache 

Sync. Burst SRAM 

1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 

Year 

Source: Mitsubishi/ICE, "Status 1996" 20429 

Figure 7-43. Trend of PC Cache SRAM 

486-Based Systems 

 

 

 

23% 

 

 

 

77% 

Systems With 

 

Secondary Cache 

 


Systems Without 

Secondary Cache 

Pentium-Based 

Systems 

 

 

 

 

27% 

 

 

 

73% 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7-44. Who Has The Cache? Percentage of PC Systems With Secondary Cache 

SRAM suppliers are working to ramp production of 32K x 32 parts due to the continued migration 

toward RISC-based and Pentium-based PC systems. The market for SRAMs configured this 

way remains as tight as that for DRAMs. While fast 32K x 8 SRAMs support and perform well in 

Pentium-based systems, the x32 organization is touted as the primary second-level cache choice 

for Pentium-generation processors. 


20108



With unit shortages and high margins associated with SRAMs, several vendors not previously 

associated with SRAM production plan to enter the market. Atmel linked with Paradigm 

Technology in a technology exchange program and may enter the business soon. Also, Intel plans 

to supply a significant portion of SRAMs for its Pentium Pro processor. 

Among those increasing production is Integrated Device Technology (IDT), which announced 

intentions to add five times as much SRAM capacity by the end of 1Q96 as it had during the worst 

part of the SRAM shortage. Additionally, Cypress announced plans to boost production of its 

most popular high-speed, low-voltage SRAMs in 4Q95, a move that could put downward pressure 

on SRAM prices in 1996. 

Many Korean and Japanese vendors increased their SRAM output and several Taiwanese suppliers 

cut their 256K and 512K SRAM prices by up to 20 percent in late 3Q95. These factors may help 

balance SRAM supply with market demand in 1996. Furthermore, with more vendors producing 

SRAM devices, the potential exists for a buyer’s bonanza in 1996. 

Figure 7-46 shows the quarterly SRAM dollar volume, unit volume, and ASP data from 1990 

through 1995. In terms of unit growth rates, the SRAM industry has not always been a big winner. 

But, that is expected to change in the second half of the decade as demand for high-perfor- 

7-30 

16,000 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

1991 


= Dollars 

= Percent Change 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 1996 

Year 

1997 

Figure 7-45. SRAM Market Growth 

1998 

1999 

2000 


60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 


20118A


mance synchronous SRAMs grows. SRAM unit numbers are forecast to increase greatly in 1995 

(Figure 7-47). Unit growth will extend into 1996 as systems manufacturers continue to demand 

fast SRAMs and IC vendors provide additional capacity to meet that demand. 


1800 

1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

$3.97 

560 

142 

ASP 

Dollar Volume 

Unit Volume 


(EST) 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 


Year 

17851G 

Figure 7-46. 1990-1995 SRAM Market 

Unit shipment by density is plotted from 1991 through 1996 in Figure 7-48. While high-density is 

a key issue with several other memory products, it is not the highest concern for purchasers of 

SRAM. In fact, as shown in the figure, the 64K and smaller category was the dominate category 

in terms of unit shipments for many years. The 256K density had the highest shipment volume 

beginning only in 1994. Further, the 1M density is forecast to outship 64Ks to become the second 

highest shipped density in 1996. 

SRAM consumption by geographic region is shown in Figure 7-49. Though the North American 

region is forecast to remain the leading consumer of SRAMs in 1995, an impressive gain is forecast 

for the ROW region largely due to demand for PCs (motherboards) and other systems in that 

region. 

Meanwhile, SRAM production is forecast to remain firmly in control of Japanese suppliers even 

though its share was estimated to be down eight percentage points in 1995 (Figure 7-50). ICE 

expects Japan to continue with its solid lock on worldwide SRAM manufacturing. Nevertheless, 

it will have to watch as the ROW contributes more to worldwide SRAM production. 


1,701 

$5.32 

320 

5.80 

5.40 

5.00 

4.60 

4.20 

3.80 

3.40 

3.00 

ASP ($)


7-32 

Millions of Units 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1991 



700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

1991 


= Units 

= Percent Change 

1992 

≤ 64K 

256K 

≥1M 

1993 

1994 

1995 1996 

Year 

1997 

1998 

Figure 7-47. SRAM Unit Shipment Forecast 

1992 

1993 

Year 

1994 

1995 

(EST) 

Figure 7-48. Yearly Unit Shipments of Mainstream SRAM 

1999 

2000 

1996 

(FCST) 

20121B 

–10 

–20 


50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


20120A

Japanese 

Companies 

62% 

European 

Companies 

3% 


1994 

$3.8B 

North 

America 

39% 

(41%) 

( ) = 1994 share 


1995 (EST) 

$6.0B 

ROW 

24% 

(16%) 

Japan 

23% 

(27%) 

Europe 

14% 

(16%) 


The leading SRAM suppliers are shown in Figure 7-51. Leading this field was Samsung, followed 

by Hitachi, NEC, Motorola, and Toshiba. Samsung has not been content to only be the world’s 

leading DRAM supplier. It has worked aggressively to place itself in the number one position in 

the SRAM market as well. Based on added capacity, ICE estimates that Samsung’s SRAM sales 

came in at approximately $720 million versus Hitachi’s $675 million for 1995. 

Not long ago, the concept of a low-power, fast SRAM was an oxymoron. Today, however, low 

power and blazing speed mix well in the SRAM arena. The growth of powerful new applications, 

portable systems, and energy conservation have fueled demand for low-power features in nearly 

all SRAMs. Figure 7-52 shows several vendors and the SRAMs they offer that feature high speed 

and low power. 


13575M 

Figure 7-49. Regional MOS SRAM Consumption 

North 

American 

Companies 

25% 

ROW Companies 

10% 

Japanese 

Companies 

47% 

European 

Companies 

3% 

Figure 7-50. Worldwide MOS SRAM Production 

1995 (EST) 

$6.0B 

ROW 

Companies 

20% 

North 

American 

Companies 

30% 

13576L


7-34 

Company Configuration 

Fujitsu 

Hitachi 

Micron 

Mitsubishi 

Motorola* 

NEC* 

Samsung 

Toshiba 

2K x 36 

32K x 32 

128K x 8 

32K x 32 

32K x 36 

64K x 18 

128K x 8 

256K x 4 

128K x 8 

32K x 36 

128K x 8 

32K x 32 

128K x 8 

32K x 32 

128K x 8 

256K x 16 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Company 

Samsung 

Hitachi 

Motorola 

NEC 

Toshiba 

IDT 

Mitsubishi 

Cypress 

Sony 

Alliance 

Others 

Total 


1995 Sales 

($M,EST) 

810 

675 

505 

480 

450 

350 

310 

300 

265 

260 

1,595 

6,000 

20129A 

Figure 7-51. 1995 Leading SRAM Suppliers 

Speed 

(ns) 

10 - 15 

10 - 15 

15 - 20 

8 - 12 

6 - 8 

6 - 8 

15 - 25 

15 - 25 

15 

5 

70 - 100 

8 - 12 

55 

9 

70 - 100 

70 - 100 

Lowest Standby 

Power 

(mW) 

33 

33 

10 

82.5 



0.5 

0.5 

23 

33 

0.025 

6.6 

0.25 

16.5 

0.045 

0.09 

Sleep 

Mode 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Package 

100-pin QFP 

100-pin QFP 

32-pin SOJ 

100-pin QFP 

100-pin TQFP 

100-pin TQFP, 52-pin PLCC 

32-pin TSOP, DIP, SOJ 

28-pin DIP, SOJ 

32-pin SOJ 

100-pin TQFP 

32-pin Mini Flat Pack, TSOP 

100-pin TQFP 

32-pin TSOP, SOIC, DIP 

100-pin TQFP 

32-pin DIP, SOP, TSOP 

54-pin TSOP 

* Developing SRAMs with sleep mode 

Source: Electronic Business Buyer/ICE, "Status 1996" 20352 

Figure 7-52. Comparison of High-Speed and Low-Power SRAMs 


Fast SRAMs ( 35ns) are specifically targeted to high-end applications such as workstations or PCs 

with speedy processors. Smaller, North American companies long excelled in this market but 

larger SRAM manufacturers have moved in. The listing of leading suppliers in this market is 

shown in Figure 7-53. 

Rank Company 

As microprocessors race to ever higher clock rates, some have argued that the only way for 

SRAMs to keep pace is to make them using BiCMOS technology (Figure 7-54). While BiCMOS has 

its advantages, ICE believes that CMOS is and will remain the primary SRAM technology. This is 

especially true for the vast majority of the standard SRAM market. 

Asynchronous versus Synchronous SRAMs 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Samsung 

Toshiba 

Motorola 

Alliance 

Cypress 

IDT 

Micron 

Hitachi 

Sony 

Winbond 


1995 Sales 

($M, EST) 


Asynchronous and synchronous SRAMs are used in many applications but each is primarily 

implemented in computer systems. Traditional (asynchronous) SRAMs are not synchronized with 

the clock frequency of the MPU and work fine in computers that operate with MPUs that run 

slower than about 50MHz. Asynchronous SRAMs are unable to achieve the speeds and densities 

required for high-performance systems. 

Synchronous (also called specialty) SRAMs are those whose clock frequency is synchronized with 

the MPU’s clock speed. They are much better matched for processors that operate at higher levels 

(i.e., 66MHz and beyond). Synchronous SRAMs have registers for holding information such 

as data and control signals, which frees other elements of the memory device to prepare for the 

next access cycle. The registers allow synchronous devices to be at least 20 percent faster than 

their asynchronous counterparts. The SRAM market is moving to synchronous SRAMs. 


430 

300 

280 

260 

225 

175 

165 

150 

100 

70 

20105 

Figure 7-53. 1995 Fast ( 35ns) SRAM Marketshare


Synchronous SRAMs are being produced in large numbers. Access times are generally in the 10ns 

to 15ns range and low-voltage models are becoming popular as well. Figure 7-55 shows the product 

lifecycle of some very fast synchronous and asynchronous SRAMs. 

7-36 

Asynchronous 

Synchronous 

Percent 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

CMOS 

95% 

BiCMOS 5% 

≥15ns 


CMOS 

50% 

BiCMOS 

50% 

10ns 

Speed 

CMOS 5% 

BiCMOS 

95% 

Applications 

Besides serving as cache needs in computer systems, SRAMs are giving a boost to the floppy disk 

drive, LAN, modem, and fax machine markets. For Hitachi, disk array systems and local storage 

in telecommunications systems demand high volumes of fast (55ns), applications such as industrial control, telecommunications, and PCMCIA card markets 

that demand long life and volume support with a variety of densities will continue to boost 

growth. Figure 7-56 lists some of the major SRAM applications. 

PC/Office 

Automation 

Other Computer 

Industrial/Other 

Military 

Telecom 

Consumer 

Total 


1993 

$3,295M 

41% 

20% 

15% 

1996 

$7,200M 

2000 

$15,050M 

In the military market, SRAMs have been anything but static. Vendors continue to improve their 

offerings with smaller and faster devices. SRAMs are used in mission computers on airplanes and 

combat vehicles, in radar and sonar systems, smart bombs, pattern recognition, and portable communications 

equipment. 

Tight defense budgets mean fewer major weapons platforms being built. However, there is room 

for technically sophisticated retrofits, which will lead to continued SRAM sales to the military. 

Additional highlights of the 1995 SRAM market are shown below. 

7% 

10% 

7% 

100% 


• With sales of it SRAM products soaring, Alliance Semiconductor disclosed plans to enter into 

a wafer foundry agreement with S3 and United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC) in Taiwan. 

Alliance will have a 20 percent share in the joint venture, which will be formed as a separate 

company. It is expected to commence volume production in 1997. 


48% 

26% 

11% 

3% 

7% 

5% 

100% 

Figure 7-56. SRAM Applications 

52% 

28% 

8% 

1% 

8% 

3% 

100% 

18785D


• Despite its strategic moves into commodity memory markets, Cypress Semiconductor 

showed it intended to remain in the FIFO market. The company introduced several new 

synchronous FIFO devices that focus on space-saving packages, low power, and 100MHz 

performance. 

• Considering the future of higher performance workstations with parallel processing capabilities, 

Hitachi revealed its 1M synchronous SRAM that runs at 167MHz for RISC-based 

CPUs. It also announced that it would bypass development of a 2M follow-on part and 

instead move directly to fast 4M devices in the 1997 time period. 

• Integrated Device Technology (IDT) announced plans to boost production of its popular 3V, 

25ns 32K x 8 SRAMs by a factor of five by March 1996. Demand for the cache SRAMs has 

soared since Intel ramped production of its 3.3V Pentiums that work with low-power cache. 

• NEC unveiled its 1M synchronous BiCMOS SRAM with an access time of 3ns. Different versions 

support processor speeds of 143MHz, 166MHz, 182MHz, and 200MHz. All have 3V 

interfaces and support cache-and-buffer-memory applications in very high-performance 

workstations. 

• Simtek Corp. and Zentrum Microelectronik Dresden GmbH plan to create a “joint task force” 

to complete development and introduction of 64K and 256K non-volatile SRAMs using an 

0.8µm process at ZMD’s wafer fab in Dresden. 

• Sony unveiled a high-speed family of synchronous SRAMs that integrate input registers, 

output registers, and self-timed write logic on a single chip. The five SRAMs are optimized 

for use as primary and secondary cache memory with SPARC, Pentium, Hewlett-Packard 

PA-8000 and other workstation RISC processors. 

DRAMs 

The DRAM market continued to stun industry observers with its size and strength. For the past 

three years (1993-1995) the DRAM market displayed relentless growth. Few suppliers can recall 

memory demand ever being stronger over such a long time period. The vigorous U.S. PC market 

has been the backbone of solid DRAM growth. Even as new capacity was added worldwide, memory-hungry 

systems manufacturers kept DRAM vendors struggling to keep pace with demand. 

DRAM market history and forecast through the 1990’s is displayed in Figure 7-57. ICE estimates 

the DRAM market grew 74 percent in 1995. This follows 78 percent growth in 1994 and 54 percent 

growth in 1993. For a mature market to grow as much as the DRAM market did since 1993 

is a rarity. The percentage increases are all the more impressive considering the DRAM market 

was very sizable ($13.1 billion) to begin with in 1993. 

7-38 



140,000 

130,000 

120,000 

110,000 

100,000 

90,000 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

6,605 

1991 


8,525 

13,140 

23,420 

40,700 

–1% 29% 54% 78% 74% 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 


As shown in Figure 7-58, the DRAM market doubled in size from 1991 to 1993, then tripled in size 

from 1993 to 1995! The DRAM market has been so strong and grown so fast that 4Q95 sales were 

nearly the size of the total DRAM market of 1993! During the decade of the 1990’s (1991-2000), 

ICE forecasts that the cumulative average annual growth rate for DRAMs will be 40 percent! 

In 1991, the DRAM market was only 14 percent of the total IC market (Figure 7-59). Beginning in 

1993, the DRAM market accounted for a larger percentage of the total IC market. ICE estimates 

that DRAMs accounted for 35 percent of all IC sales in 4Q95. 

Displayed in Figure 7-60 are the DRAM market trends through the first half of the 1990’s. The dramatic 

upswing in market size and ASPs reflects unprecedented worldwide demand by PC OEMs 

and the industry’s inability to adequately supply the market with the DRAMs it demanded. 

DRAM scarcity of the past several years can be traced back to 1992 when the first of several key 

events took place. First, in the early 1990’s, Japanese DRAM producers, hit with a severe domestic 

recession, cut back on wafer fab expansion. Second, some producers de-emphasized DRAMs, 


Year 

50,075 

1996 

Figure 7-57. DRAM Market Trends 

57,715 

1997 

75,265 

1998 

100,595 

1999 

136,780 

23% 15% 30% 34% 36% 

2000 

13033R


and third, DRAM manufacturers mistakenly produced x4 organization 16M parts when the market 

wanted x16 16M chips. Further, the move to 16M chips was stalled because manufacturers had 

yield problems on their sub-0.5µm processes and difficulty transitioning to 3V from 5V devices. 

SEGMENT 

DRAM Market ($B) 

Throw in the fact that the yen gained considerable strength versus the dollar, the popular, yet 

memory-hungry Windows95 software was introduced, and wide varieties of “alternative” (and 

higher priced) DRAMs were introduced to more closely match DRAM performance with increasing 

system needs (Figures 7-61 and 7-62), and it is no wonder the DRAM market exploded. 

7-40 


DRAM Percent of 

IC Market (Dollars) 

Source: WSTS/ICE, "Status 1996" 

45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 


1.6 

15% 

6,605 

13,140 

2x 3x 

40,700 

1991 1993 1995 

Year 

(EST) 

Figure 7-58. DRAM Market Experiences Aggressive Growth 

2.6 

18% 

20003B 

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 

1.6 

14% 

1991 1992 1993 

1.6 

14% 

1.7 

15% 

1.9 

17% 

2.0 

17% 

2.2 

17% 

2.4 

17% 

3.0 

19% 

3.6 

20% 

4.0 

22% 

4.4 

23% 

Figure 7-59. Quarterly DRAM Market (1991-1995) 

1994 


5.4 

25% 

6.3 

27% 


29% 

8.0 

29% 

2Q 

9.6 

31% 

1995 

3Q 

10.8 

33% 

4Q 

(EST) 

12.3 

35% 

14520N


13,000 

12,000 

11,000 

10,000 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

1,580 

$4.65 

340 

Unit Volume 



ASP 

Dollar Volume 

12,335 

$18.98 


(EST) 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

Year 


17852G 

Figure 7-60. 1990-1995 DRAM Market Trends 

VRAMs 

Specialty VRAMs 

Synchronous VRAMs 

Wide VRAMs 

Standard VRAMs 

Generic DRAMs 

Time 

Revolutionary 

Evolutionary 

Wide 

Low-power 

Rambus 

DRAMs 

650 

EDRAM 

SDRAM 

CDRAM 

Generic EDO 

Source: Micro Design Resources/Computer Design/ICE, "Status 1996" 19842 

Figure 7-61. DRAM Market Moving Toward Fragmentation 

20.00 

19.00 

18.00 

17.00 

16.00 

15.00 

14.00 

13.00 

12.00 

11.00 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 


6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

ASP ($)


The question that many are now asking is, “How long will the DRAM market continue its strong 

upward ways?” ICE believes that system manufacturers’ needs will provide solid DRAM growth 

at least through the year 2000. 16M DRAMs have started to ramp in suitable configurations for 

PC systems. Moreover, the eventual move to 64-bit buses and the growing array of application 

software that requires more memory will keep DRAM demand strong. 

The DRAM market looks so promising, in fact, that Motorola, for years a sideline player in the 

DRAM business, announced that it joined the IBM-Siemens-Toshiba DRAM R&D team to develop 

a gigabit-generation memory. Motorola also plans to build a $1.5 billion DRAM fab in the 

United States in partnership with Siemens. 

DRAM consumption continued to be greatest in North America (Figure 7-63). In 1995, North 

America’s insatiable appetite for DRAMs helped it account for 36 percent of the market. 1995 was 

the first year that DRAM consumption in the ROW region surpassed that in Japan. Consumer 

electronic and PC-related work (assembly, packaging, test) in the ROW region provided the major 

thrust behind the jump in consumption. 

7-42 

Application Definition 

3DRAM 

Burst EDO 

CDRAM 

EDO DRAM 

EDRAM 

Fast Page Mode 

MDRAM 

RDRAM 

SDRAM 

SGRAM 

VRAM 

WDRAM 


Cache DRAM with on-board ALU for 3-D graphic functions. 

EDO plus a counter to transfer a linearly addressed string of data. 

Cache DRAM; internal SRAM cache added to DRAM. 

Extended Data Out DRAM, also called hyperpage; 

a modification of fast page mode to hold data after CAS goes high, allowing 

faster CAS cycles. 

Enhanced DRAM; very fast DRAM cells directly mapped to SRAM cache. 

A modification of the basic DRAM to allow multiple column 

accesses from a single row access. 

Multibank DRAM; a collection of smaller, fast blocks of DRAM with 

on-chip interleaving pipelining. 

Rambus DRAM; specialized interface and 500MHz 8-bit wide bus 

controller plus on-chip interleaving. 

Synchronous DRAM; a standard DRAM with all functions referenced 

to the system clock, burst output mode. 

Synchronous Graphics DRAM; an SDRAM with block write and write per bit. 

Video RAM; dual-port or multi-port RAM. 

Window DRAM; a modification of VRAM to reduce internal complexity. 

Figure 7-62. Application-Specific DRAM Glossary 

20035 


North 

America 

36% 


1995 (EST) 

$40.7B 

Europe 

19% 

Japan 

22% 


In contrast, DRAM production remained firmly in the hands of the Japanese (Figure 7-64), 

although the ROW region continued to harvest additional marketshare in 1995. Perhaps more 

interesting to note is that North American DRAM production went from 12 percent in 1993 to 15 

percent in 1994 and 1995. 

Projecting out current trends in regional production through the year 2005, it appears that ROWbased 

manufacturers could very well be supplying a greater percentage of DRAMs to the worldwide 

market than their Japanese counterparts (Figure 7-65). Equally-efficient manufacturing 

prowess, generally lower labor costs, and a market clamoring for electronic goods are factors that 

will contribute to the growth in DRAM production in the ROW region. 

Figure 7-66 shows that in terms of units, DRAM shipments still follow a reasonable bell-curve format, 

although that bell may be a bit wider than market watchers are used to seeing. The decline 

tails of the curve now cover a wider span of years. Longer lifecycles, at least on the “tail end” will 

likely be the trend for 16M, 64M, and most future DRAM generations. 


ROW 

23% 

12001S 

Figure 7-63. Worldwide DRAM Consumption 

European 

Companies 

3% 

Japanese 

Companies 

49% 


1995 (EST) 

$40.7B 


Companies 

15% 

ROW 

Companies 

33% 

18922D 

Figure 7-64. Worldwide DRAM Production


Price trends for several DRAM densities are provided in Figure 7-67. It is rare for a particular 

product to have a significant ASP increase, especially during its “mature” stage, but that’s exactly 

what happened to the 1M DRAM market in 1993 and 1994. Perhaps more amazing is the fact 

that demand at the 4M level kept ASPs essentially flat for four years (Figure 7-68). 

Figure 7-69 shows the DRAM market size, unit shipments, and ASP for five of the most popular 

DRAM densities. The 4M DRAM market is forecast to lose its dominance to the 16M density in 

1996. ICE estimates that 1995 unit shipments for the five DRAM densities increased 28 percent 

and are forecast to increase eight percent in 1996 on the strength of growing 16M shipments. 

DRAM applications remained largely oriented to the computer industry (Figure 7-70). ICE estimates 

that 50 percent of DRAM production was for PC main memory. The percentage of DRAMs 

used in computers is much larger than 50 percent if one includes workstations along with graphics 

and video applications. 

DRAMs serving as embedded memory present a solution to one of the biggest challenges facing 

PCs today—accessing data from memory at speeds fast enough to support multimedia functions. 

Silicon Magic, a startup, announced that it will offer a chip (the Mas-H) that combines graphics 

and audio and video functions with DRAM beginning in 2Q96. Silicon Magic joins NeoMagic and 

Cirrus Logic with embedded memory devices (Figure 7-71). 

7-44 

Marketshare (Percent) 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1991 


1993 

1995 

1997 1999 

Year 

Japan 

ROW 

2001 

2003 

Figure 7-65. ROW to Overtake Japan in DRAM Production? 

2005 

20040 


64K 

256K 

1M 

4M 

16M 

64M 


1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1991 

1M 827 

4M 145 

16M 0.1 

64M — 


3.84 

51.20 

— 

— 

— 

— 


1.92 

21.76 

— 

— 

— 

— 

1.28 

3.58 

100.00 

— 

— 

— 

1M 

4M 

16M 

64M 

1992 

822 

457 

2 

— 

0.90 

2.25 

35.00 

— 

— 

— 

1993 

596 

776 

20 

— 

1994 

500 

1,254 

103 

0.1 

1995 

470 

1,645 

318 

0.25 



Year 

1996 

320 

1,500 

835 

4 

1997 

160 

1,150 

1,310 

65 

Figure 7-66. DRAM Lifecycle by Density 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 

1.09 

2.41 

25.00 

— 

— 

— 

1992 

1.47 1.59 1.25 1.33 1.45 

3.84 3.58 2.69 1.80 1.70 

17.00 12.00 5.54 4.50 3.01 

— 124.00 36.43 16.05 11.72 

— — — 275.00 205.00 

— — — — — 

Figure 7-67. DRAM ASP Trends ($) 

1998 

90 

750 

1,495 

295 

1993 

— 

1.80 

3.10 

11.91 

93.50 

— 

1999 

45 

400 

1,500 

700 

1994 

— 

2.15 

3.60 

12.00 

61.85 

575.00 

2000 

20 

275 

1,275 

1,400 

20009B 

1995 

(EST) 

— 

2.00 

3.00 

12.98 

56.00 

225.00 

1996 

(FCST) 

— 

1.96 

2.80 

10.00 

40.00 

190.00 

16876J


4M DRAMs 

ICE believes that after several strong years, the 4M market finally peaked in 1995 by growing 42 

percent to $21.4 billion (Figure 7-72). Unit shipments will remain very strong for at least two more 

years, but lower ASPs will drive down the overall market. 

7-46 

ASP ($) 

18.00 

16.00 

14.00 

12.00 

10.00 

8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

256K 

1M 

4M 

1991 

$1.80 

$4.50 

$16.05 


256K 

1M 

4M 

16M 

64M 

TOTAL 

ASP 

($) 

2.15 

3.60 

12.00 

61.85 

575.00 

12.19 


1992 

$1.70 

$3.01 

$11.72 

1994 

UNITS 

(M) 

64 

500 

1,254 

103 

0.1 

1,921 

1993 

$1.80 

$3.10 

$11.91 

1994 

$2.15 

$3.60 

$12.00 

1995 1996 

Year 

$2.00 

$3.00 

$12.98 

$1.96 

$2.80 

$10.00 

1997 

$2.05 

$2.70 

$8.00 

Figure 7-68. DRAM ASP Trends 

MARKET 

($M) 

139 

1,800 

15,048 

6,371 

62 

23,420 

ASP 

($) 

2.00 

3.00 

12.98 

56.00 

225.00 

16.55 

UNITS 

(M) 

MARKET 

($M) 

1998 

— 

$3.10 


256K 

1M 

4M 

1999 

— 

$3.25 

$6.50 

1995 (EST) 1996 (FCST) 

30 

470 

1,645 

318 

0.25 

2,463 

60 

1,410 

21,355 

17,820 

55 

40,700 

Figure 7-69. DRAM Market Forecast 

ASP 

($) 

1.96 

2.80 

10.00 

40.00 

190.00 

18.76 

UNITS 

(M) 

10 

320 

1,500 

835 

4 

2,669 

2000 

— 

$3.40 


20422 

MARKET 

($M) 

20 

895 

15,000 

33,400 

760 

50,075 

14749L 


Consumer Digital 

Video 7% 

Workstation/ 

Servers 12% 

Miscellaneous 

13% 

Computer 

Graphics/Video 

18% 


Desktop/Laptop 

Main Memory 50% 


Typically (if the word can still be used to describe the memory market), as an IC moves through 

its product lifecycle, ASPs decline as unit shipments increase. That did not happen in the 4M market. 

In fact, the 4M ASP actually increased from an already inflated 1994 level. Not until 1996 are 

ASPs expected to resume a more normal migration along the price decline curve. 

The 4M DRAM leaders shown in Figure 7-73 cashed in on the voracious appetite of OEMs to use 

these devices in their systems. Though it elected to direct its focus on the 16M generation, 

Samsung still enjoyed another outstanding year of 4M DRAM sales. Korean manufacturers LG 

Semicon and Hyundai also became a greater force in the DRAM market with the 4M generation. 

Meanwhile NEC, Hitachi, and Toshiba continued to be strong performers. These and other 

Japanese manufacturers squeezed out every last bit of capacity to produce the 4M parts. Two U.S. 

manufacturers, TI and Micron, also enjoyed outstanding DRAM growth on account of the 4M generation. 


19288B 

Figure 7-70. 1995 DRAM Applications 

Company Product Application Availability 

Neo Magic 

Silicon Magic 

MagicGraph 

Max-H 

Graphics controller chip for 

notebook computers that 

has 1M of embedded DRAM 

IC that couples 1.25M of 

DRAM with VGA graphics 

acceleration, audio, and 

MPEG-1 decompression 

functions 

Cirrus Logic also developing a product utilizing embedded memory. 


Figure 7-71. Embedded Memory Arrives 

Now 

2Q96 

20426



7-48 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

4M Units 

ASP ($) 

Market ($M) 

$16.05 

2,328 

145 


1991 

145 

16.05 

2,328 

1992 

457 

11.72 

5,355 

ASP 

1993 

776 

11.91 

9,240 

1994 

1,254 

12.00 

15,048 

Unit Volume 

1995 

1,645 

12.98 

21,355 

Year 

1996 

1,500 

10.00 

15,000 

Dollar Volume 

1997 

1,150 

8.00 

9,200 

Figure 7-72. 4M DRAM Market Trends 

Company 

Samsung 

NEC 

Micron 

Hitachi 

TI 

LG Semicon 

Toshiba 

Fujitsu 

Hyundai 

Siemens 

Others 

Total 


Units 

(M) 

206 

174 

173 

163 

141 

126 

112 

94 

88 

80 

290 

1,645 

Sales 

($M) 

2,675 

2,250 

2,240 

2,110 

1,830 

1,630 

1,455 

1,225 

1,135 

1,035 

3,770 

21,355 

20047 

1998 

750 


5,250 

Figure 7-73. 1995 4M DRAM Leaders (EST) 

1999 

400 

6.50 

2,600 


1,925 

275 

2000 

275 


1,925 

18.00 

17.00 

16.00 

15.00 

14.00 

13.00 

12.00 

11.00 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 


6.00 

5.00 

4.00 


ASP ($) 

20423

Selected highlights from the 4M DRAM market are shown below. 


• Six major Japanese DRAM suppliers, including NEC, Hitachi, and Toshiba, were churning 

out a combined total of 56 million 4M devices per month in 4Q95 to meet continued strong 

DRAM demand, chiefly from the PC industry. 

• In response to steady U.S. demand for 4M devices, Fujitsu boosted production at its 

Gresham, Oregon, facility after it discontinued production of 1M DRAMs at the site. 

• Hyundai introduced a new 4M DRAM that offers performance needed to compete with popular 

EDO DRAMs. Designed to maximize performance while minimizing power consumption, 

Hyundai targeted the device at graphics memory applications, emerging set-top boxes, 

and networking products that require memories with wide-word configurations. 

• Demand for 4M DRAMs remained strong at Micron resulting in record sales and earnings. 

As a result, it has moved ahead with plans to increase manufacturing capacity. Micron will 

convert its two 150mm DRAM lines to 200mm. Also, Micron announced it would build a 

$1.3 billion (200mm) manufacturing complex in Lehi, Utah. Once up and running, the new 

fab will be able to pump out 10,000 wafers per week. 

• MoSys revealed that its MDRAMs (Multibank DRAM) will be built using foundry capacity 

at Siemens, IDT, Oki, and TSMC. MoSys’ initial DRAM product features peak bandwidth 

performance of 660MB per second. 

• NEC shifted 4M DRAM production to its Scotland-based subsidiary when it started producing 

16M chips in the U.S. (Roseville, California). In the U.K., NEC produces about 4 million 

4M DRAM units per month. 

• NEC and Samsung plan to work together to manufacture DRAMs for the European market. 

NEC will supply 4M DRAMs in wafer and die form at the rate of 100,000 units/month from 

its fab in Scotland. Samsung will then package and test the devices at its back-end facility 

near Oporto, Portugal. 

• Samsung unofficially announced plans to build a $1.35 billion U.S.-based fab for memory 

and logic ICs. The new facility, to be located in Austin, Texas, will use 200mm wafers and 

begin by producing 16M and 64M DRAMs using 0.35µm process technology. 

• Toshiba began sampling 4M EDO DRAMs in 4Q95. The new DRAMs have 40 percent faster 

cycle times compared to conventional high-speed page-mode products. Volume shipment 

was slated to begin by the first of the year. 



16M DRAMs 

The move to 16M DRAMs started in 1994, but accelerated in 1995. Prolonged 4M demand and 

some early yield problems with 16M devices did not allow the market to escalate quite as quickly 

as originally forecast. But with factors such as the introduction of Windows95 and 16MB main 

memory desired in PCs, it appears this generation is ready to move forward and will surely pay 

off for those memory manufacturers who were set to satisfy initial demand. 

On the whole, 16M DRAMs remained higher priced on a per-bit basis in 1995 than their 4M predecessors. 

DRAMs designed with the 16M x 1 and 4M x 4 architectures were cheaper on a per-bit 

basis than some 4M devices. However, configurations such as the 1M x 16 and 2M x 8 remained 

more expensive. They will likely experience a cross-over with 4M DRAMs in the 4Q95/1H96 time 

period. Once that occurs, 16M demand will take a sharp upswing, extending a temporary shortage 

of x16 16M DRAM parts. Figure 7-74 provides an indication of the organizational trends of 

16M DRAMs. The graph shows that in 1996, about half of all 16M devices will be organized as x8, 

x16, or be one of the many application-specific DRAMs discussed earlier. 

A complete review of market trends in the 16M DRAM segment is shown in Figure 7-75. ICE forecasts 

the 16M DRAM market to crest in 1997. Unit shipments are expected to peak in 1999, but 

due to price erosion, the size of the market will be smaller. 

7-50 

Percentage (%) 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

 

 

x1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x4 

As Memory 

(SDRAM, 3D-RAM) 

0 

1993 1994 1995 1996 

Year 

1997 1998 1999 2000 


Figure 7-74. Organization Trend of 16M DRAM 

x8 

x16 



40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

16M Units 

ASP ($) 

Market ($M) 

$275.00 

0.1 


28 

1991 

0.1 

275.00 

28 

1992 

2 

180.00 

360 

ASP 

1993 

20 

93.00 

1,860 

Figure 7-76 shows the leading 16M 

DRAM suppliers of 1995. Samsung 

established an early lead in this 

market segment. Part of Samsung’s 

strategy was to ramp down its production 

of 4M DRAMs in early 1995 

while increasing its level of 16M 

production throughout the year. 

In 1995, NEC targeted 65 percent of 

its DRAM business to PC main 

memory in the U.S. alone. The company 

anticipates digital set-top 

boxes as the new memory application 

to watch in 1996. 

1994 

103 

61.85 

6,371 

Unit Volume 

1995 

318 

56.00 

17,820 

Year 



1996 

835 

40.00 

33,400 

Dollar Volume 

1997 

1,310 

30.00 

39,300 

Figure 7-75. 16M DRAM Market Trends 

Company 

Samsung 

NEC 

Hitachi 

Toshiba 

Hyundai 

LG Semicon 

Mitsubishi 

Fujitsu 

Oki 

TI 

Others 

Total 


1998 

1,495 

25.00 

37,375 

62 

42 

40 

39 

27 

25 

25 

18 

11 

8 

21 

318 

1,275 

1999 

1,500 

22.00 

33,000 

Units (M) Sales ($M) 

3,480 

2,355 

2,215 

2,185 

1,515 

1,375 

1,375 

1,010 

615 

450 

1,245 

17,820 

26,138 

$20.50 

2000 

1,275 

20.50 

26,138 

20016 

Figure 7-76. 1995 16M DRAM Leaders (EST) 

300.00 

275.00 

250.00 

225.00 

200.00 

175.00 

150.00 

125.00 

100.00 

75.00 

50.00 

25.00 

0.00 

20424 

ASP ($)


Siemens hopes to be among the leading 16M DRAM suppliers soon after it opens its new 200mm 

wafer fab in Dresden. The facility will make 16M and, later, 64M DRAMs. The company will 

ramp production in 1996. 

The only two local DRAM houses in Taiwan were Mosel-Vitelic and Texas Instruments—until 

1995. Taiwan’s Vanguard International Semiconductor Corp., a new company based in Hsinchu, 

began making 4M and 16M DRAMs on a small scale beginning in 1995. Also, Nan Ya Plastics 

Corp., Taiwan’s largest printed circuit board manufacturer, started producing 16M and 64M 

DRAMs in late 1995 as part of a technology agreement with Oki Semiconductor. Further, a group 

headed by Taiwan’s Elitegroup Computer Systems Co. Ltd. said it would spend approximately 

$800 million to build a 200mm wafer fab and enter into the 16M DRAM market beginning in 1996 

or 1997. 

Additional company and product highlights surrounding the 16M DRAM market are listed 

below. 

7-52 

• Projected volume increases, as well as manufacturing cost savings, should result in there 

being little or no premium charged for 3V 16M DRAMs compared with 5V 16Ms by the end 

of first quarter 1996. 3V price reductions, averaging about 10 to 15 percent, will encourage 

the rapid conversion of PC main memory to pure 3V systems. The trend for low-voltage 

16M DRAMs is shown in Figure 7-77. 

Percentage (%) 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5V 

 

 

 

 

3V 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1st Introduction 

 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 

Year 


Figure 7-77. Low Voltage Trend of 16M DRAM 



• Fujitsu initiated 0.35µm 16M DRAM production at its Iwate plant. The new line will be able 

to yield about 350 chips from a 200mm wafer, up 40 percent from its 0.5µm lines. Unlike 

many other vendors, Fujitsu hopes to maintain its eight million units-per-month 4M DRAM 

output while trying to capture 10 percent of the 16M DRAM market. 

• Fujitsu announced intentions to build a new U.S. DRAM manufacturing facility. The fab, to 

be located adjacent to its Gresham, Oregon, facility, will be equipped with 0.35µm CMOS 

lines capable of processing 16M and 64M DRAMs. Production is slated to begin as early as 

1997. 

• Hyundai’s 1996 DRAM plans call for it to build 16M EDO and burst EDO DRAMs as a way 

to bridge the performance and price chasm between memory devices and the CPUs they 

serve. Hyundai will keep synchronous DRAMs (SDRAMs) on the back burner until later in 

1996 while it feeds the market with beefed-up conventional DRAMs. 

• Kobe Steel ceased 4M DRAM production in 2H95, shifting all its production over to 16M 

DRAMs. 

• Mitsubishi was in the final stages of building its 16M DRAM production line at the 

Kumamoto facility at the end of 1995. The company plans to install 0.4µm processing equipment 

to build 1.5-2.0 million units/month on 200mm wafers. 

• Mitsubishi started construction on a 16M DRAM line at its subsidiary in Germany. The new 

0.35µm line is scheduled for operation in 1Q97 and will have a monthly output of 1.5 million 

units. Mitsubishi becomes the fourth Japanese chip maker to have a 16M DRAM wafer processing 

facility in Europe. 

• NEC developed a super-small 16M DRAM chip using the 0.25µm CMOS process that it used 

to develop a 1G DRAM prototype. It will sample the 16M chip in 1H96 and start production 

of the small chips in 2H96. 

• NEC expects 16M DRAM capacity to be approximately 10 million units per month by mid- 

1996. Its Kyushu facility will supply 40 percent of the output while the Roseville, California, 

plant is expected to supply 3.5 million 16M units per month. Hiroshima will add another 2.5 

million devices. Two other facilities will pick up the rest of the production. 

• At the end of 1995, NEC shipped about 75 percent of its 16M DRAMs configured 1M x 16 

and 2M x 8. The other 25 percent were configured in a 4M x 4 architecture. 

• Nippon Steel Semiconductor (NSS) plans to invest approximately $410 million to complete a 

new 0.35µm, 200mm wafer fab for 16M DRAM production in June 1997. 



• Oki Electric will invest $700 million to build a 16M/64M DRAM production facility in the 

U.S. The 0.35µm 200mm wafer processing line will be located in Oregon. 

• More than 50 percent of Samsung’s 16M DRAM production was configured x16 at the end 

of 1995. Approximately 50 percent of Samsung’s 16M DRAM production is for extended 

data out (EDO) DRAMs. 

• Tatung Company, one of Taiwan’s largest consumer electronic businesses, will enter the 16M 

and 64M DRAM markets with a joint-venture partner. It hopes to be in production in 1996 

or 1997. 

• Tohoku Semiconductor (Toshiba-Motorola joint venture) completed construction of a new 

0.5µm, 200mm wafer fabrication facility for 16M DRAMs in Sendai, Japan. At full capacity 

(1996), the facility will be able to produce three million units per month. 

• Toshiba announced the availability of its 60ns and 70ns 16M DRAMs featuring a x32 organization. 

The wide organization will be useful as a low-power, high-performance solution for 

embedded applications including printers and set-top boxes. 

• TI and Hitachi formed Twinstar Semiconductor, a soon-to-be manufacturer of 16M DRAMs. 

Chip-making equipment is to be installed in February 1996 with a planned startup date of 

May 1996. 

64M DRAMs 

While the 16M DRAM is in the growth stages of its lifecycle, the always forward-looking IC suppliers 

are already planning their 64M DRAM volume production strategies. The market’s first 

64M DRAM engineering samples, fabricated in 0.32µm processes, emerged from DRAM leaders 

NEC and Samsung in 2Q95. Each company shipped several units to workstation, server, and 

mainframe-computer makers. In the second half of 1995, NEC Kyushu produced sample quantities 

on its newest line, while Samsung’s third 200mm line increased 64M DRAM output in 4Q95. 

Figure 7-78 shows various characteristics of 64M DRAMs examined by ICE. It should be noted 

that all of the devices operated at 3V. Nearly all vendors agree that 64M market acceptance will 

be determined by granularity. Following the bungled granularity issue at the 16M level, suppliers 

are careful to design their 64M products to match the needs of the market. Currently, most 

chip makers believe their 64M devices will be readily accepted in the 2M x 32 configuration. 

7-54 


Hitachi: Die Size: 445 mils x 800 mils = 356K mils 2 

Feature Size: 0.35 µ 

Memory Cell Area: 0.9 µ x 1.8µ = 1.62µ2 

Package: 34-pin 500 mil plastic SOJ 

Mitsubishi: Die Size: 416 mils x 810 mils = 337K mils 2 


Memory Cell Area: 0.9 µ x 1.8µ = 1.62µ2 



Samsung: Feature Size: 0.32 µ 

Access Time: 50ns or 60ns 

Package: 34-pin 400 mil plastic TSOP or SOJ 

Sampling: 1Q95 sampling price of $600; volume 

production due 4Q95 

NEC: Die Size: 251K mils 2 



Sampling: 2Q95 

Fujitsu: Die Size: 360K mils 2 


Micron: Die Size: 272K mils 2 


Access Time: 60ns 

Sampling: $500/100 


Figure 7-78. Sampling of 64M DRAM Devices 

Japan and Korean firms have dedicated the most funding for 64M DRAM development. Figure 

7-79 reviews a few of the highlights that indicate the resources several companies have committed 

to 64M DRAM production. 

As stated briefly in the 16M segment, Taiwan is becoming more aggressive in its DRAM production 

plans. The same can be said for Taiwanese companies planning to enter the 64M DRAM market. 

For instance, Mosel-Vitelic announced that its 64M production would start in 1997 or early 

1998. The company will develop its own 64M design, rather than seek a co-development plan 

with another firm. The announcement followed similar plans described by Powerchip, Nan Ya 

Technology Corporation, Vanguard International Semiconductor Corporation (VISC), and TI-Acer 

(Figure 7-80). 


19810


7-56 

Company 

Mosel-Vitelic 

Nan Ya Technology 

Fujitsu 

Mitsubishi 

NEC 

Toshiba 

Powerchip Semiconductor 

TI-Acer 

Vanguard International 


Company 64M Capacity Plans 

Samsung 


Considering expanding Gresham, OR DRAM plant 

to include 64M production capability. 

Spending $1.1 billion on a new fab line in an 

existing building at its plant in Saijo, Japan. 

Production is to start in late 1997 or early 1998. 

Announced construction of a new 64M fab in 

Hiroshima. 

Announced a $1.2B joint-venture 64M DRAM fab 

with IBM to be built in Manassas, VA–a sharp break 

from its past insistence that it can best build chips 

only in Japan. Production to begin in 4Q97. Also 

negotiating with Winbond for a DRAM technology 

agreement. 

Announced in July its plans to invest $1.5 billion in 

a U.S. factory that will produce 16M and 64M 

DRAMs. 

20425 

Figure 7-79. Japan and Korea Prepare for 64M DRAM Production 

Design 

Development 

Own 64M DRAM design 

Joint-development 

with Oki 

DRAM design/technology 

assistance from Mitsubishi 

Designs from TI, 

manufacturing from Acer 

Joint-development with 

Mitsubishi 

First 

Shipments 

4Q97/1Q98 

1997 

4Q96/1Q97 

1997 

1997 

Figure 7-80. Taiwan’s Ambitious 64M DRAM Plans 

Comments 

Oki to provide foundry services. 

Will sell DRAMs under its own logo, 

but with technology licensed from Oki. 

Japan's Mitsubishi and Kanematsu 

have one-third ownership in Powerchip. 

TI sells the output under its own logo. 

Spending $1.2 billion to build a 64M 

DRAM fab in Taipei. Operations are 

due to begin in the spring of 1997. 

Formerly government sponsored 

Industrial Technology Research 

Institute. 

20031A 


Highlights from the 64M DRAM market are shown below. 


• Based on a preliminary survey of DRAM manufacturers, production costs for 64M DRAMs 

will be about three times higher than the cost of producing 4M chips due to the higher integration 

levels. 

• Fujitsu announced its synchronous 64M DRAM. The move puts the company among the 

leaders in the competition for high-density SDRAMs. The 3V, 100MHz device is fabricated 

using 0.35µm CMOS technology. The company plans to bypass the conventional 64M 

DRAM market in favor of the faster and more profitable synchronous market. 

• LG Semicon announced plans to form a cooperative production agreement with Hitachi for 

64M DRAMs even though Hitachi and Texas Instruments already have a joint production 

venture for the same type of memory chip. 

• IBM demonstrated its 32MB small outline dual-in-line memory module (SO DIMM) using 

64M DRAMs in the IBM ThinkPad 701C notebook computer. Memory capacity and board 

space are two major concerns in the design process for laptops and portables. The 32MB SO 

DIMM using 64M DRAMs allows expanded memory capacity without increasing system 

board size. Several thousand 64M DRAM units a month are coming off the pilot production 

line at IBM’s Advanced Semiconductor Technology Center in New York. 

• Micron’s 64M DRAM effort was transferred from its pilot line to the manufacturing area for 

further product development and prototype evaluation. The company has made engineering 

samples available. 

• NEC plans to construct Europe’s first 64M DRAM plant at a cost of over $800 million. It will 

be built next to NEC’s current facilities in Scotland. The 0.35µm fab is scheduled to become 

operational in October 1996 and will initially produce 10,000 200mm wafers per month. 

Plans call for the eventual output of 20,000 wafers per month. The company announced that 

RDRAMs and SDRAMs will account for 15 to 20 percent of its DRAM shipments in 1996. 

• Rambus announced that each of the Rambus DRAM licensees—Hitachi, LG Semicon, NEC, 

Oki, Samsung, and Toshiba—is developing a 64M Rambus DRAM (RDRAM). The 64M 

RDRAMs are aimed at the main-memory market, where high bandwidth is necessary but not 

yet sufficient. 

• Samsung’s second-generation 64M DRAMs come in a smaller 400-mil package, which 

requires 20 percent less board space. Organized as 8M x 8 (50ns) or 16M x 4 (60ns), each 

operates using 3V power. Typical applications are for workstations, servers, and large memory 

systems. 



DRAM Price-per-Bit Trends 

Figure 7-81 lists the overall DRAM price-per-bit values for the years 1985 through 1996. Increased 

competition or a slowing market (or both), which results in lower DRAM ASPs, may easily cause 

price-per-bit drops of nearly 50 percent (e.g., 1990). On the other hand, when demand outstrips 

supply, an increase in the average price-per-bit takes place (1993-1995). A forecasted decrease in 

16M DRAM ASPs will be the biggest contributing factor that lowers the total DRAM price-per-bit 

in 1996. 

DRAM price-per-bit trends are plotted in Figure 7-82 for densities ranging from 64K to 16M. As 

shown, the 4M DRAMs became price competitive with 1M devices in 1991 and have since enjoyed 

a long period of being the best value for money. 

A pricing curve for DRAM memory is shown in Figure 7-83. The traditional IC learning curve 

with a 68 percent slope is plotted along with the historical and forecasted annual DRAM priceper-bit 

figures. 

7-58 

Year 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 (EST) 

1996 (FCST) 

Price Per Bit 

(Millicents) 

1.65 

1.02 

1.12 

1.57 

1.24 

0.66 

0.43 

0.30 

0.31 

0.31 

0.32 

0.24 

*First time ever increase 



From Previous Year 

–70 

–38 

10* 

40 

–21 

–47 

–35 

–30 

3 

— 

3 

–25 

Figure 7-81. DRAM Price-Per-Bit Comparison 

13346Q 


Millicents Per Bit 

20 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

1 

0.1 

256K 

64K 

1M 

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 


Price Per Bit (Millicents) 

100 

10 

1 

1979 

1980 

1981 

4M 

Year 



16M 

Figure 7-82. DRAM Price-Per-Bit Trends 

1982 1983 

92 93 94 95 

(EST) 

0.1 

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 


Post Recessionary 

Price Strengthening 

Traditional 

68% Slope 

1984 

1985 

1986 

Excess 

Capacity 

Price Erosion 

1987 

Cumulative Volume (Bits x 10 12 ) 

Figure 7-83. Price Curve for DRAM 

Trade Agreement 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

0.75 (256K) 

96 

(FCST) 

Strong Demand, 

Weak Supply 

0.27 (1M) 

0.24 (4M, 16M) 

14755M 

1995 

1992 

(EST) 

1993 1994 

1996 

(FCST) 

7437U


7-60

Section 7. MOS Memory Market Trends - Smithsonian: The Chip ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?