3D X-DRAM aims for 10x capacity of today's memory — NEO Semiconductor's memory has up to 512 Gb per module

(Image credit: Neo Semiconductor)

NEO Semiconductor is once again announcing a new technology that hopes to revolutionize the state of DRAM memory. Today, the company unveiled two new 3D X-DRAM cell designs, 1T1C and 3T0C. The one-transistor-one-capacitor and three-transistor-zero-capacitor designs are expected to see proof-of-concept test chips produced in 2026, and will offer 10x the capacity of normal DRAM modules.

Based on NEO’s existing 3D X-DRAM technology, the new cells are advertised as being able to hold 512 Gb (64 GB) on a single module; at least 10x more than any modules currently commercially available. NEO’s test simulations measure a 10-nanosecond read/write speed and over 9 minutes of retention time, both of which are also on the leading edge of current DRAM abilities.

Thanks to a design based on indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) — a crystal material better known for its use in display technology — the 1T1C and 3T0C cells can be constructed like 3D NAND: in a stacked design allowing for improved capacity and throughput while remaining power efficient. The cells were designed as a modified 3D NAND process, with NEO hoping that existing 3D NAND manufacturing facilities can be quickly and easily upgraded to fabricate the new designs.

"With the introduction of the 1T1C and 3T0C 3D X-DRAM, we are redefining what's possible in memory technology," said Andy Hsu, NEO’s CEO. "This innovation pushes past the scaling limitations of today's DRAM and positions NEO as a frontrunner in next-generation memory."

While a CEO’s comments will always be bullish on their company’s futures, Hsu may be correct about this one: The 1T1C design stands a much greater chance of becoming a true DRAM killer than NEO’s previous innovations, such as the more decidedly niche technologies like 3D X-AI tech, which — per NEO — only has a home in custom-built AI/HPC machines.

NEO Semiconductor is expected to share more about 1T1C, 3T0C, and the rest of its 3D X-DRAM and 3D NAND families at IEEE IMW this month. With companies and technologies like DRAM+ based on FeRAM also fighting to become the next step in DRAM technology, and established vendors like SK hynix content to develop ever-bigger standard DRAM, 3D X-DRAM has a hefty uphill battle to fight — though the promise of 512 Gb modules is attention-grabbing.

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.

See more RAM News

Dallin Grimm is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware. He has been building and breaking computers since 2017, serving as the resident youngster at Tom's. From APUs to RGB, Dallin has a handle on all the latest tech news.

More about dram

Samsung discontinuing DDR4 production in late 2025 — company to focus on DDR5, LPDDR5, and HBMs

Pick up 32GB of Patriot Viper Venom RAM for just $79 — these sticks hit the 6000MHz sweet spot for AM5 Ryzen gaming

Startup trains AI models with gaming GPU setup under $100K

See more latest

5 Comments Comment from the forums

ekio

That would be nice, because the ram price/GB didn't improve much over the past 10 years.

For example: the MacBook Pros are still sold with the exact same default amount of Ram as more than 10 years ago... If I was told that ten years ago, I would have thought it's a joke.
Reply
helper800

ekio said:
That would be nice, because the ram price/GB didn't improve much over the past 10 years.
RAM is considerably cheaper now than it was 10 years ago... If I recall properly, 10 years ago, a cheap DDR3 16gb kit (2x8gb) was 30-40 dollars around its cheapest. You can get 32gb (2x16) of DDR4 for 40-50 dollars now, or 60 dollars for 32GB (2x16) of DDR5.

ekio said:
For example: the MacBook Pros are still sold with the exact same default amount of Ram as more than 10 years ago... If I was told that ten years ago, I would have thought it's a joke.
Tha is Apple fattening their margins, not RAM not getting cheaper...
Reply
usertests

helper800 said:
M is considerably cheaper now than it was 10 years ago... If I recall properly, 10 years ago, a cheap DDR3 16gb kit (2x8gb) was 30-40 dollars around its cheapest. You can get 32gb (2x16) of DDR4 for 40-50 dollars now, or 60 dollars for 32GB (2x16) of DDR5.
This is of course, not much improvement in 10 years. Significant stagnation set in after around 2012, with prices swinging up before dropping down to new lows.

Today's $/GB is about 1/3rd of what it was in 2012, and 1/2th of 2016. And we are forecasted to be in the low point before another upswing.

the new cells are advertised as being able to hold 512 Gb (64 GB) on a single module; at least 10x more than any modules currently commercially available.
Is the 512 Gb "module" intended to be compared to the 32 Gb dies being used in products today? That would mean a 16x improvement. The newly launched 64 GB DDR5 modules are double-sided using 16 of the 32 Gb dies. If the sizes are the same, you could have a 1 TB DDR5 module using this technology, with no die stacking.

It's vaporware until proven otherwise, but if they can beat Samsung's timeline for 3D DRAM by 5+ years, that could be great for everybody.
Reply
bit_user

ekio said:
That would be nice, because the ram price/GB didn't improve much over the past 10 years.
It did improve, but it seems you're on to something.

helper800 said:
RAM is considerably cheaper now than it was 10 years ago... If I recall properly, 10 years ago, a cheap DDR3 16gb kit (2x8gb) was 30-40 dollars around its cheapest. You can get 32gb (2x16) of DDR4 for 40-50 dollars now, or 60 dollars for 32GB (2x16) of DDR5.
It's difficult to work out by comparing specific examples, because the market undergoes fluctuations and there are different premiums or discounts that can be applied to memory in certain performance tiers.

Luckily, being a commodity market, there are people who look at this stuff in aggregate. I found a couple of decent articles and they do confirm that the cost curve of DRAM is flattening.

Source: https://semianalysis.com/2024/09/03/the-memory-wall/
Among other things, that article looks at the impact of density increases on pricing:

It's a very detailed and comprehensive article, with a major thrust being the prospects of 3D DRAM. Definitely give it a look, if you're interested in this subject.

Here's another, older one I ran across, which includes a comparison of $/bit between both DRAM and NAND, over a similar timescale.

Source: https://semiengineering.com/high-performance-memory-at-low-cost-per-bit/
Reply
helper800

bit_user said:
It did improve, but it seems you're on to something.

It's difficult to work out by comparing specific examples, because the market undergoes fluctuations and there are different premiums or discounts that can be applied to memory in certain performance tiers.

Luckily, being a commodity market, there are people who look at this stuff in aggregate. I found a couple of decent articles and they do confirm that the cost curve of DRAM is flattening.
Source: https://semianalysis.com/2024/09/03/the-memory-wall/
Among other things, that article looks at the impact of density increases on pricing:

It's a very detailed and comprehensive article, with a major thrust being the prospects of 3D DRAM. Definitely give it a look, if you're interested in this subject.

Here's another, older one I ran across, which includes a comparison of $/bit between both DRAM and NAND, over a similar timescale.
Source: https://semiengineering.com/high-performance-memory-at-low-cost-per-bit/
I took issue with the claim, "...ram price/GB didn't improve much over the past 10 years," because I believe that the colloquially understood understanding of the word 'much' has been satisfied. Has the cost per GB started to flatten out? Yes, and so has the cost per unit proposition for almost all other tech products, but to say they "didn't improve much over the past 10 years," is laughable. Increased inflation alone could account for a lot of that flattening, though this is pure speculation. I will read through the articles thoroughly later. In 2012 I bought a cheap, and on sale, SSD that was 120GB for 130 dollars before tax. That same cost will get you a 2TB NVMe SSD that is 12 times faster in sequential speeds with a multi gigabyte DRAM cache. That seems like a much improved cost per GB to me.
Reply

Show more comments

Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter