6 ms·
I don't think anyone doubts that we'll continue to make improvements in process technologies until the sun explodes, the main questions are pace and benefits.
by Quanticles 11y ago
I don't think anyone doubts that we'll continue to make improvements in process technologies until the sun explodes, the main questions are pace and benefits.
Yes, we can create shorter channels using more/different materials. Yes, we can get stronger gate fields using more/different materials. Yes, we can start building vertically and cool the chip using microfluidics. But, all of these things take more time than previous scaling efforts, and are going to have quantum scaling benefits instead of the classical scaling benefits that we had before.
Even now, companies have a difficult choice when switching to 16nm - is it worth the cost and effort? The rules for designing chips have double width each new generation too, making it harder to physically design in addition to the less-manageable transistors. We now have a bad combination of high supply and low demand - new processes double supply due to shrinkage, but reduce demand due to design cost & difficulty.
edit: Newtonian => classical
- jessriedel 11y agoThe opposite of 'quantum' is 'classical', not 'Newtonian'.
- weland 11y ago> Even now, companies have a difficult choice when switching to 16nm - is it worth the cost and effort? The alternative is to spread processing power over multiple cores and have programmers write code that takes advantage of that. We have a thirty year-long history of failures in that department. It has gone from "this is how we'll be writing code tomorrow" in the '80s to "this will FINALLY be a nail in the coffin of Moore's law, just wait and see" since the late 1990s. The cost is worth it because there are a lot of high-profile industries depending on it, and there is no credible alternative yet. Until that alternative -- which will be hardware in nature, not software -- comes up, the current trend is all we have.