【Semiconductor】19. What Happened to PSRAM, and Why Did It End?

— The Reality of Pause × Disturb

topics: [“Semiconductor”, “PSRAM”, “DRAM”, “Reliability”, “Yield”]

🧭 Introduction

In the previous article, we organized how PSRAM was built upon the following
structure and assumptions:

• Using DRAM cells
• Employing internal refresh control
• Presenting itself as SRAM-like to the outside

In this article, we record
what actually happened under those assumptions,
and what decisions were ultimately made.

⚠️ Failures That Surfaced in PSRAM

The failures that became problematic in PSRAM
can be broadly classified into two types:

• Pause Refresh Fail
• Disturb Refresh Fail

Both were already known phenomena in DRAM,
but in PSRAM the decisive difference was that
they appeared simultaneously depending on usage conditions.

⏸ Pause Refresh Fail (PSRAM)

In PSRAM, the following conditions tended to overlap:

• Long standby periods
• Intermittent internal refresh
• Operation in high-temperature environments

As a result,

Leakage that did not surface in DRAM
appeared directly as retention failure

This was not:

• A new physical phenomenon
• A new defect

It was fundamentally the same as
the Pause Refresh anomaly already observed in 0.25 µm DRAM.

⚡ Disturb Refresh Fail (PSRAM)

The other problem was Disturb.

In PSRAM, the following usage patterns occurred routinely:

• Access concentrated on specific addresses
• Other regions remaining idle for long periods

As a consequence, the following coexisted on the same chip:

• Frequently toggled word lines
• Cells left untouched for extended durations

🧬 Cross-Sectional Structure Where Disturb Occurs (Reference)

Here, we present
the physical device cross-section
necessary to understand Disturb in PSRAM.

Figure 1: Conceptual cross-section of leakage and electric-field concentration during Disturb events in PSRAM (using DRAM cells)

What this figure illustrates are
well-known physical effects, such as:

• Electric-field concentration during word-line switching
• Increased I_off due to short-channel effects in cell MOS transistors
• Amplified leakage at diffusion edges and isolation boundaries of adjacent cells

Disturb operates not as:

a one-time destructive event,

but as:

a phenomenon that accumulates minute degradation over time.

🔗 Coupling of Pause × Disturb

The critical point is that
Pause and Disturb were not fatal when acting alone.

• Pause by itself
• Disturb by itself

were both contained within guaranteed conditions.

The problem arose when:

the two became coupled along the time axis

In that case:

• Disturb gradually eroded cell state
• Pause provided no opportunity for recovery
• High temperature exponentially accelerated leakage

Through this chain,
failures increased at a boundary rather than gradually.

🌡 Temperature as a Boundary Condition

The failure behavior of PSRAM
changed character abruptly when a temperature boundary was crossed.

• Up to ~85 °C: failures were almost nonexistent
• At 90 °C (guaranteed point): conditionally acceptable
• Above 95 °C: failures increased sharply

Failures did not:

• Increase slowly
• Degrade progressively

Instead, they:

appeared the moment a certain condition was exceeded

This was a boundary phenomenon.

🛠 What Yield Recovery Could and Could Not Achieve

Mass production could not be halted.

Therefore,
short-term feasible countermeasures were implemented.

Implemented Measures

• Reduction of process-induced damage
• Suppression of junction leakage
• Optimization of back-bias conditions
• Redefinition of test conditions

As a result:

• Initial yield: ~30%
• Post-recovery yield: on the order of 70–80%

🧱 Limits That Still Remained

However, the following did not change:

• Extremely thin high-temperature margin
• Persistent dependence on usage patterns
• Further degradation with continued scaling

These were not due to:

• Insufficient improvement
• Implementation mistakes

They were structural limitations.

🧭 The Decision That Was Made

The final decision was unambiguous.

Even if a technology can be made to work,
it should not be continued if it cannot scale long-term

• PSRAM became manufacturable
• But it could not be carried into future generations
• Return on investment could not be justified

As a result:

Withdrawal from the PSRAM roadmap

was chosen.

🧾 Summary (Failures and Decision)

PSRAM was:

• Not a failed technology
• But not a sustainable one either

The limits were created by
the coupling of well-known physics—
Pause × Disturb × temperature—
through the way the memory was used.

This was not:

• A design failure
• An implementation error

It was a record of:

assumptions exceeding the range that could be tolerated

🔗 Primary Sources (References)

• Legacy Technology Archive
  https://samizo-aitl.github.io/Edusemi-Plus/archive/legacy/

• PSRAM (2001) Cases
  https://samizo-aitl.github.io/Edusemi-Plus/archive/legacy/psram_2001/

• Pause / Disturb in PSRAM
  https://samizo-aitl.github.io/Edusemi-Plus/archive/legacy/psram_2001/pause_disturb_psram/

• Yield Recovery
  https://samizo-aitl.github.io/Edusemi-Plus/archive/legacy/psram_2001/yield_recovery/

✅ Series Complete

• 0 Introduction
• 1 DRAM Part 1 (Phenomenology)
• 2 DRAM Part 2 (Physics)
• 3 PSRAM Part 1 (Structure)
• 4 PSRAM Part 2 (Failures and Decision)

All five articles are now complete.