Thursday, October 22nd 2026

Micron Walks Away From 4F² DRAM After Two Decades of Research, Bets on 3D DRAM Instead

Micron has decided not to bring 4F² DRAM to market, even though it says it invented the cell design and has been researching it for around two decades. Scott DeBoer, Micron's President and Chief Technology and Products Officer, shared the decision during the company's technology webinar on October 21. On paper, 4F² uses vertical channel transistors to shrink each memory cell's footprint by about a third compared with the 6F² layout used in today's DRAM. However, DeBoer argued that real-world density is limited by how closely the capacitors can be packed, not by the cell's footprint, calling the density advantage over 6F² "a bit of a myth." He also said 4F² can be built, but at a higher cost and complexity, and that it runs into fundamental scaling problems at leading-edge nodes, which points toward 3D DRAM instead.

That puts Micron at odds with its rivals. Samsung and SK hynix are both developing 4F² designs, and China's CXMT says its first 4F² product will be a server DDR5 RDIMM due by the end of this year. Micron will keep scaling 6F² instead, with its 1-delta node set to ramp in Boise, Idaho, in the second half of 2027 and the 1-epsilon node after it moving to wafer bonding. 3D DRAM is being developed as a parallel path, but there's no timeline yet, and Micron says it will only switch once the economics make sense. It's a risky bet if rivals manage to make 4F² cheap at scale, especially with memory supply expected to get even tighter in 2027 and 2028, per Micron's own estimates.
Sources: Micron, via Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

16 Comments on Micron Walks Away From 4F² DRAM After Two Decades of Research, Bets on 3D DRAM Instead

#1
azrael
Probably wasn't worth it for AI somehow. That seems to be the deciding factor nowadays.
Posted on Reply
#2
Athena
Thing is, 4F² doesn't seem viable for long term, it's a short term fix, IF they can get the cost way down, and that's a pretty big if
Posted on Reply
#3
r00tcz
With RAM capacitor scaling becomes worse problem than actual transistor size. Smaller capacitance means more regular refreshes. And as anyone who played with tRFC knows, this can have a huge impact on overall performance.
Posted on Reply
#4
user556
The capacitor density criteria will be about crosstalk impact, ie: Severity of the Rowhammer effect.
Posted on Reply
#5
_roman_
So a marketing bubble and never a real product.

20 years of marketing without any real product. Or did i miss something in this news text?
Posted on Reply
#6
user556
_roman_20 years of marketing without any real product. Or did i miss something in this news text?
Nothing to miss for 50 years. DRAM is DRAM. Higher density was all it needed. External bus speeds was mostly an interfacing matter - trading clock rate for more buffering/latency and more power hungry.

That's changing now of course. Areal density has run out of puff so they're facing layering similar to Flash. In fact I would expect the areal density to be decreased when layers are added simply because it'll reduce crosstalk and its negative impacts.
Posted on Reply
#7
Intelko
Why does nobody mention UltraRAM?
Posted on Reply
#8
user556
UltraRAM is a ROM tech, same as Flash. It's no good as a DRAM replacement because of limited endurance. There is only one nonvolatile tech that can be considered as RAM, and that's MRAM.
Posted on Reply
#9
Intelko
user556UltraRAM is a ROM tech
It's not!
Do your homework better, because I'm talking here about UltraRAM from Quinas.
Posted on Reply
#10
user556
That's the one. Just like Flash and other file store mediums, they're all ROM techs. None are suitable for the highly repeating writes a full RAM can handle.
Posted on Reply
#11
jdrch
Micron seem to be dodging bullets with these tech roadmap decisions. Remember when they dropped Optane? No problem. Then they were late on EUV. No problem. Now this.

The Chinese are likely pressing on with 4F2 due to its independence from Micron (read: US) supply chain and possibly also US government approval.
Posted on Reply
#12
Intelko
user556That's the one. Just like Flash and other file store mediums, they're all ROM techs. None are suitable for the highly repeating writes a full RAM can handle.
Quinas’s research suggests that UltraRAM could theoretically retain data for thousands of years.

As you can see... here we are not dealing with usual flash memory:

the official scientific paper: quinas.tech/wp-content/uploads/research-article.pdf
Posted on Reply
#14
user556
IntelkoQuinas’s research suggests that UltraRAM could theoretically retain data for thousands of years.
Which is another reason why it's a ROM tech. But data retention is irrelevant for RAMs. Write endurance is the main reason it isn't suited as a RAM. And on that, a few million writes is gone in a matter of milliseconds.
Posted on Reply
#15
Intelko
user556Which is another reason why it's a ROM tech.
I don't understand your point here, but the point is that years ago Quinas promised to make this memory to be the universal replacement for both: SSD/RAM.

I'll keep my eyes on it to see what happens, also because in their latest declaration they said to be ready for 2028.
Posted on Reply
#16
user556
My point is it's normal/common for one location of RAM to be rewritten millions of times per second.

Sure, Flash write endurance is only 10000, but if the new tech's, UltraRAM, write endurance is still only a few million then, when used as a RAM, it'll be worn out in seconds. Ergo, it's classed as a ROM. The primary use is as a backing store, ie: file storage, or as a firmware-like execute-in-place, which Flash and other ROM techs are also often used for.

There used to be a time, before Flash, when these types of rewritable memories were labeled according to class. Marketing, of course, tends to want to make believe instead.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 12th, 2026 04:40 CST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts