iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
In Texas Instruments’ MSP430 examples, FRAM writes are much faster and have a much higher specified endurance than the family’s flash: TI reports typical write speeds above 2 MB/s for FRAM versus about 14 kB/s for flash when erase time is included, and specifies 1015 FRAM write/erase cycles versus about 105 typical flash cycles. Those are family-specific figures, not universal ratings for every FRAM chip or flash device. Retention also depends on the exact part and test conditions, so the right choice comes from comparing qualified datasheet ratings against your workload—not from treating either technology as categorically superior.
What the comparison means in practice
FRAM and flash are both nonvolatile memories: they retain stored data without continuous power. The practical distinction in the TI MSP430 comparison is what happens when software needs to change stored data. TI describes its MSP430 FRAM as directly addressable without the segmented erase-before-write workflow used by the compared flash implementation. Avoiding that erase bottleneck can make effective writes much faster and can matter when a device frequently updates small amounts of data.
That advantage does not mean every FRAM product is faster than every flash product. The reported throughput values come from TI’s 2014 MSP430 FRAM Quality and Reliability report, not from a cross-vendor benchmark. The report’s flash figure includes erase time, while a memory’s raw access specification may describe a different operation under different conditions. Compare like with like: complete programming time for a representative workload, including erase and system overhead where applicable.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →In practical terms, the comparison is most useful as a reminder to ask what a quoted write number actually measures. A direct write specification, an erase-inclusive throughput figure, and the time your application takes to save a record are different kinds of information. The first may help characterize a particular device operation; the latter is what determines whether a system meets its update deadline.
#1 Best Overall
- Read Before You Buy — No Video Output: These adapters support charging and USB 2.0 data transfer, but cannot transmit video signals. Except for standard USB webcams (which use USB data only), they are not compatible with HDMI/DisplayPort cables, video-capable USB-C hubs, or docking stations with video output.
- Convert USB-A Ports to USB-C: Designed to connect USB-C earphones, cables, flash drives, card readers, and other USB-C accessories to standard USB-A ports. Plug-and-play with no drivers or software required.
- Aluminum Alloy Housing: Built with a sturdy aluminum alloy shell that aids in heat dissipation and protects against daily wear and scratches. Designed to maintain a stable and secure connection.
- Compact & Travel-Friendly: The ultra-compact design allows the adapter to stay plugged into your device without blocking adjacent ports or adding bulk, reducing wear and tear on your original USB ports.
- 12-Month Warranty: Backed by a 12-month manufacturer warranty for peace of mind. Designed to meet strict quality control standards for reliable everyday performance.
Write speed: include erase time, not just access timing
TI’s MSP430 family figures
| Measure | MSP430 FRAM | MSP430 flash | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typical write speed | Above 2 MB/s, as reported by TI in 2014 | About 14 kB/s typical, with erase time included, as reported by TI in 2014 | These are TI’s family-specific figures; do not generalize them to all devices. |
| Example device write specification | MSP430FR5722: 125 ns per word on TI’s product page | Not stated in the cited sources as a directly comparable device-level figure | A per-word specification and an erase-inclusive throughput figure describe different measures. |
TI attributes FRAM’s write advantage in this MSP430 comparison in part to avoiding flash’s erase bottleneck. The report’s concise description is: “FRAM does not require an erase before a write.” In the compared implementation, flash’s erase-before-write workflow adds time beyond the programming operation itself. When evaluating a real application, the relevant figure is the time to complete the update your software performs, rather than a headline access time taken out of context.
The MSP430FR5722 product page lists 125 ns per word as a device-level write specification. It is useful when assessing that specific part, but it is not interchangeable with the report’s throughput numbers without knowing workload, interface, and other operating details. A per-word value describes a different unit and measurement context from a system-level rate that includes erase time.
For example, an application that saves a small value repeatedly should assess the time to complete that actual save operation. A bulk transfer or a write path constrained by a controller or bus may behave differently from the memory’s individual word-write specification. The cited material does not provide a universal conversion between the per-word number and application throughput, so do not infer one without the details for the part and system being evaluated.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What to measure in your own design
- Time a representative update, not just a single memory access. Include any erase, setup, controller, bus, or software costs that apply to the candidate device.
- Use the same workload for each option: update size, access pattern, and update frequency can change effective throughput.
- Check whether the cited value is a device specification, a typical family figure, or a measured system result. Do not present one as another.
- Check the applicable datasheet for the exact part and conditions. The TI MSP430 numbers illustrate a possible difference; they do not predict another vendor’s or family’s performance.
A fair test starts by recording the operation the product must perform: how much data is changed, how often it must be saved, and whether the update has a timing deadline. Then use the same conditions for each candidate and count all steps required to finish that update. This avoids mistaking a fast memory operation for fast end-to-end storage when setup, erase, bus, or software work remains.
Endurance: a large MSP430 difference, with an important read caveat
TI’s 2014 quality and reliability report specifies approximately 1015 write/erase cycles for MSP430 FRAM and gives approximately 105 typical write/erase cycles for its MSP430 flash examples. This is a substantial difference within the stated family comparison. It is not a universal endurance guarantee for all products in either technology category.
The meanings of the figures matter as much as their scale. TI explains that the FRAM endurance figure is a specified minimum based on testing; the report does not describe it as an experimentally observed failure threshold. It also notes that an MSP430 FRAM read is accompanied by a write-back, so access activity affects FRAM endurance. In contrast, the report describes MSP430 flash endurance as affected by write access. A workload that reads repeatedly can therefore matter to the FRAM endurance estimate even when the application is not deliberately changing stored values.
Rank #2
- 5-in-1 USB-C Hub: Experience comprehensive connectivity featuring a Power Delivery input, two USB-A 2.0 ports, a USB-A 3.0 port, and an HDMI port. (Note: The USB-C power delivery input port is only for connecting an external wall charger to power your laptop and cannot power peripheral devices.)
- 90W Pass-Through Charging: Achieve optimal charging with 90W pass-through power to your laptop, supported by a total input of 100W, with the hub reserving 10W for operational efficiency. (Note: Wall charger not included.)
- Quick Data Transfers: Accelerate your productivity with rapid data transfers using a high-speed 5Gbps USB 3.0 port and two 480Mbps USB 2.0 ports.
- 4K HDMI Display: Enhance your visual experience with a hub capable of delivering 4K resolution at 30Hz in both mirror and extend modes. Please note that this hub is compatible with MacBook (macOS 12 and newer), Windows 10 and 11, ChromeOS, and laptops equipped with DP Alt Mode and Power Delivery. Note: This device is not compatible with Linux.
- What You Get: Anker USB-C Hub (5-in-1, 4K HDMI), welcome guide, 18-month warranty, and our friendly customer service.
| Endurance consideration | MSP430 FRAM | MSP430 flash |
|---|---|---|
| TI’s reported figure | 1015 specified write/erase cycles | About 105 typical write/erase cycles |
| Accesses TI says affect endurance | Reads involve write-back, so reads as well as writes affect endurance | Write access affects endurance |
| Qualification | Specified minimum based on testing in TI’s 2014 report, not a known fail limit | Typical figure for the MSP430 flash examples in TI’s report |
For a design estimate, identify the frequently accessed locations—the hot spots—and count the operations that matter for the candidate part. For FRAM, include reads if the vendor’s device documentation says they contribute to endurance. For flash, account for the write and erase behavior specified for the exact device. Do not divide a generic system-wide operation count by a headline cycle rating unless the part’s endurance definition and the distribution of accesses support that calculation.
This is why the figures should not be read as a simple forecast of service life. A cycle rating needs to be interpreted with the manufacturer’s definition of the operation, the device’s specified conditions, and the application’s access pattern. A frequently accessed location can face a different workload from the rest of the memory. Likewise, the FRAM and flash numbers in TI’s report do not count the same kinds of activity in the same way, so their ratio alone does not tell you how many years a particular product will last.
As a practical step, make a workload inventory before estimating endurance: list the records or locations that change, their update frequency, and any reads that the device documentation counts. Use the resulting per-location activity—not just the total number of application events—to assess the hot spots against the exact device rating. If the manufacturer’s endurance definition is unclear, resolve that from the part documentation rather than assuming “cycle” means the same thing across technologies.
Data retention: nonvolatile does not mean one fixed lifetime
Both technologies retain data without power, but the label “nonvolatile” does not establish how long a particular part will preserve data at a particular temperature. Retention depends on the exact device and the vendor’s test and qualification conditions. The cited TI material does not support a universal ranking in which FRAM always retains data longer than flash, or vice versa.
What TI reports for MSP430 FRAM
TI’s FRAM quality report describes a data-retention test flow using a cumulative bake time of 1,000 hours at 125°C. That is a testing condition, not a promise that every FRAM device retains data for a fixed number of years. TI directs readers to the individual device datasheet for its retention specification. For a design review, use that part-specific rating and ensure it addresses the expected storage temperature and intended retention period.
In other words, the bake time tells you about a test method, not by itself the usable retention duration of a product in the field. A candidate must be assessed against its own rated retention and the conditions the application will experience while unpowered. Do not turn the FRAM report’s test flow into a years-of-retention claim for a specific device unless that device’s documentation provides the rating.
Rank #3
- Sleek 7-in-1 USB-C Hub: Features an HDMI port, two USB-A 3.0 ports, and a USB-C data port, each providing 5Gbps transfer speeds. It also includes a USB-C PD input port for charging up to 100W and dual SD and TF card slots, all in a compact design.
- Flawless 4K@60Hz Video with HDMI: Delivers exceptional clarity and smoothness with its 4K@60Hz HDMI port, making it ideal for high-definition presentations and entertainment. (Note: Only the HDMI port supports video projection; the USB-C port is for data transfer only.)
- Double Up on Efficiency: The two USB-A 3.0 ports and a USB-C port support a fast 5Gbps data rate, significantly boosting your transfer speeds and improving productivity.
- Fast and Reliable 85W Charging: Offers high-capacity, speedy charging for laptops up to 85W, so you spend less time tethered to an outlet and more time being productive.
- What You Get: Anker USB-C Hub (7-in-1), welcome guide, 18-month warranty, and our friendly customer service.
What TI reports for MSP430 flash
TI’s 2018 report, Understanding MSP430 Flash Data Retention, presents temperature-dependent retention values for a stated test case involving 170°C for 420 hours. Its table gives about 100 years at 25°C and approximately 2 years at 85°C for that case. TI explicitly cautions that the plotted values alone do not represent qualified MSP430 flash performance; further tests are used for qualification. Treat those numbers as results associated with the described test case, not as general service-life predictions or a direct comparison with FRAM.
| Technology and source | Reported condition or value | What the figure does—and does not—establish |
|---|---|---|
| MSP430 FRAM, TI 2014 quality report | 1,000 cumulative hours of bake testing at 125°C | A test flow; the report points to each part’s datasheet for its retention specification. |
| MSP430 flash, TI 2018 retention report | 170°C for 420 hours; table values of about 100 years at 25°C and approximately 2 years at 85°C | Values in a stated test case; TI says the plotted values alone are not qualified performance. |
Accelerated high-temperature testing is not a substitute for reading the qualified retention rating. When comparing parts, check how the manufacturer connects test results to the rated storage temperature, the relevant operating or storage conditions, and the qualification status of the number. Do not place figures from different test methods side by side as if they were measured on the same basis.
The flash table’s values also illustrate why temperature must be part of the question. TI lists different example retention values at 25°C and 85°C for the stated test case, but explicitly limits what those figures establish. They are not a generic prediction for every MSP430 flash part, still less a basis for comparing an unrelated flash device directly with an FRAM part. Ask for the qualified rating at the relevant temperature and evaluate each candidate on its own terms.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchHow to choose between FRAM and flash for an embedded system
Start with the workload and operating conditions, then compare exact candidate part numbers. The MSP430 data suggests where FRAM may be advantageous—frequent updates and a need to limit write time—but speed and endurance are only part of the selection. Capacity, memory mapping, access granularity, power during writes, controller and software support, and total system cost also affect fit. The cited TI sources do not provide a complete cross-vendor comparison of those system-level factors.
There is no single technology-level answer to “Which is better?” The useful question is whether a particular part meets the application’s update timing, endurance, and retention requirements, while also fitting the system. A result that looks compelling on one axis can still require checking capacity, integration, power, or cost using current part documentation. The family-specific TI results are evidence about the cited MSP430 examples, not a complete decision for every embedded design.
Use this comparison checklist
- Describe the workload. Record what is read and written, how much data changes per update, how often it changes, and which addresses receive the most activity. Include ordinary reads when the FRAM documentation counts them toward endurance.
- Compare effective programming time. For each exact part, include erase and setup time, plus controller, bus, and page or programming constraints that apply to your update pattern. Keep raw access timing separate from complete update throughput.
- Verify endurance definitions. Confirm what the manufacturer counts as a cycle and which operations contribute to wear. Distinguish a typical figure from a specified minimum, and estimate the load on the most frequently used locations rather than assuming every address sees equal use.
- Match retention to temperature and duration. Check the qualified retention rating for the exact part at the expected storage temperature. Do not use an accelerated-test curve or test table alone as a service-life promise.
- Check integration requirements. Confirm the capacity, memory map, access granularity, write-time power needs, and available controller and software support against the rest of the design.
- Compare complete system cost and constraints. Use current documentation for the actual candidate devices. The cited figures cannot establish which option is cheaper or better for every application.
These checks are related but should remain separate in the comparison. Speed asks how quickly the required update finishes; endurance asks how the workload consumes the device’s defined cycling budget; retention asks how long data is rated to remain stored under specified conditions. Combining them into a single general-purpose “memory lifetime” number hides the different assumptions behind each measurement.
Rank #4
- Dual Converters, Infinite Potential：Includes 2× USB C male to USB A female adapters and 2× USB A male to USB C female adapters. Perfect for a wide range of uses—tablets with Bluetooth keyboards, expand USB ports on macbook, and more. Two different converters for all your daily needs
- Next-Level 10Gbps & 3A Charging: No more slow 480Mbps, this usb to usb c adapter has a transfer speed of up to 10Gbps, allowing you to do more transferring in less time. This usb adapter fits both USB A and USB C charger, supporting up to 3A fast charging
- Upgraded Exquisite Craftsmanship: With an aluminum alloy housing and metal connector, the usbc to usb adapter is extremely durable and sturdy. Rigorously tested to withstand more than 10,000 times of plugging and unplugging, ensuring long-lasting performance
- Broad Compatible: The usb c to usb adapter widely supports all USB C/ USB A devices like laptops, tablets, cellphones, car chargers, and phone chargers. Such as compatible with MacBook Pro/Air 2023/2022, Thunderbolt 4/3 Devices,Apple MagSafe Watch 9/8/7/SE/Ultra, iPad Pro 2022/2021, Samsung Galaxy S23/S20/S10, and iPhone 17/16/15 Pro. Plug and play
- Please Note: To reach 10Gbps speed, keep the cable under 3.3 ft. For USB A Male to USB C adapters, try flipping the USB C connector. USB C Male to USB A adapters support bidirectional 10Gbps transfer within 3.3 ft
When the MSP430 evidence points toward FRAM
The TI example is most relevant when an MSP430 application needs fast writes or frequent updates and the part’s stated endurance and retention specifications match the workload and environment. Its erase-free write behavior, reported typical throughput above 2 MB/s, and specified endurance of 1015 write/erase cycles are useful evidence for that specific family. Include read activity in the endurance assessment for FRAM.
The write figures can be especially useful as a prompt to investigate designs where the flash erase step is a meaningful part of the update time. They do not eliminate the need to verify the exact MSP430 part’s operating conditions or to test the application’s own data flow. The 125 ns-per-word MSP430FR5722 specification is also specific to that device; it should not be substituted for the family report’s erase-inclusive throughput figure.
When the evidence is not enough to decide
If a design’s main requirement is long unpowered storage at an elevated temperature, or if its write pattern differs substantially from the MSP430 comparison, the cited family figures do not settle the choice. Compare the qualified retention and endurance ratings of the exact parts, and measure representative update time in the intended system. The right result may depend on other design requirements that these sources do not quantify.
The same caution applies when looking for a price or capacity verdict: the cited figures do not establish a universal cost winner or provide a complete cross-market capacity comparison. Compare current candidate-device information and the full system requirements rather than assuming the faster or higher-endurance example will necessarily be the better fit.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Sources and scope
The numerical write-speed and endurance comparison is from Texas Instruments’ MSP430 FRAM Quality and Reliability, revised May 2014. The 125 ns-per-word example is from the MSP430FR5722 product page. FRAM retention testing is described in the same quality report; flash retention conditions and the stated temperature-dependent values are in Understanding MSP430 Flash Data Retention, revised August 2018. TI also frames the selection decision as choosing between an MCU with flash or FRAM in FRAM or Flash: How to Select the Right MCU for Your Application. These documents support a useful MSP430-specific comparison, not a general performance or lifetime guarantee across all FRAM and flash products.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is FRAM always faster than flash memory?
No universal ranking follows from the cited numbers. TI reports typical MSP430 FRAM writes above 2 MB/s and MSP430 flash at about 14 kB/s when erase time is included. Those are family-specific figures, and a raw access specification is not directly comparable to erase-inclusive throughput. Compare exact parts using the same workload and include erase, setup, controller, bus, and software costs where applicable.
Best Value
- 5-in-1 Connectivity: Equipped with a 4K HDMI port, a 5 Gbps USB-C data port, two 5 Gbps USB-A ports, and a USB C 100W PD-IN port. Note: The USB C 100W PD-IN port supports only charging and does not support data transfer devices such as headphones or speakers.
- Powerful Pass-Through Charging: Supports up to 85W pass-through charging so you can power up your laptop while you use the hub. Note: Pass-through charging requires a charger (not included). Note: To achieve full power for iPad, we recommend using a 45W wall charger.
- Transfer Files in Seconds: Move files to and from your laptop at speeds of up to 5 Gbps via the USB-C and USB-A data ports. Note: The USB C 5Gbps Data port does not support video output.
- HD Display: Connect to the HDMI port to stream or mirror content to an external monitor in resolutions of up to 4K@30Hz. Note: The USB-C ports do not support video output.
- What You Get: Anker 332 USB-C Hub (5-in-1), welcome guide, our worry-free 18-month warranty, and friendly customer service.
Why does the MSP430 comparison show a large FRAM write-speed advantage?
TI attributes part of the difference to avoiding the erase bottleneck in the compared flash implementation. TI describes MSP430 FRAM as directly addressable without that segmented erase-before-write workflow. The effective speed advantage depends on the device and update being measured; it should not be generalized to every FRAM or flash product.
Do reads use up FRAM endurance?
In TI’s MSP430 FRAM discussion, reads involve a write-back, so reads as well as writes affect endurance. TI describes flash endurance as affected by write access. Check the endurance definition for the exact part, and include the relevant access activity and frequently used locations in a lifetime estimate.
Which retains data longer, FRAM or flash?
The cited TI material does not establish a universal winner. MSP430 FRAM retention testing includes a cumulative 1,000-hour bake at 125°C, while TI’s flash report describes a different test case and cautions that its plotted values alone are not qualified performance. For a real design, compare the exact parts’ qualified retention ratings at the expected storage temperature.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsCan I use TI’s 100-year flash retention figure as a product lifetime?
Not by itself. TI’s 2018 flash report lists about 100 years at 25°C for a stated 170°C, 420-hour test case, but cautions that the plotted values alone do not represent qualified MSP430 flash performance; further tests are used for qualification. Use the qualified rating for the exact device and conditions instead.
How should I compare FRAM and flash for my embedded design?
Start with the exact candidate part numbers and the application workload. Compare complete update time rather than mixing raw access timing with erase-inclusive throughput; check which operations count toward endurance; and verify qualified retention at the expected temperature and duration. Also assess capacity, memory map, access granularity, write-time power, controller and software support, and total system cost.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
