Linked by fran on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 22:26 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems The CPU industy is working on 16nm chips to debut by around 2013, but how much smaller can it go? According to the smart guys, not much smaller, stating that at 11nm they hit a problem relating to a 'quanting tunneling' phenomena. So what's next? Yes, they can still add core after core, but this might reach a plato by around 2020. AMD's CTO predicts the 'core wars' will subside by 2020 (there seems to be life left in adding cores as Intel demonstrated a few days ago, the feasibility of a 1000 core processor.) A Silicon.com feature discusses some potential technologies that can enhance or supersede silicon.
Permalink for comment 450978
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: quantum tunneling
by Neolander on Wed 24th Nov 2010 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: quantum tunneling"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

@Neolander: I agree with you. But you have to ask yourself: what is the "speed limit" of processors. I hope you are referring to a current technological "speed limit". But even so. Why wouldn't the same "lean" engineering be applied to hardware engineering thus alleviating the "stagnation"?

If we can't shrink transistors due to the tunnel effect, nor make chips bigger due to electric currents (or light in recent designs from Intel) having a finite propagation speed, we'll reach a maximal amount of transistors per independent processor.

If we continue to put transistors in the same manner inside processors, we'll hence reach a speed limit.

If we put these transistors together differently or use them more efficiently, as an example by switching to a "leaner" processor architecture as I mentioned, we can reach higher speed. But it's not due to improvements in transistor technology, in the way we cut silicon, or things like that. It's a more abstract progress.

Thus I arrive at my point (at last). My view is that the bifurcation of the computational science demanded by the commodity-driven industry is the problem; sometimes it is less observable, sometimes it is more. I should note, however, that it is a natural bifurcation, an evolutionary one. It is a necessity stemming from the conceptualization of the creative process: language, grammar conceptualization per unit time for the successful creation of ye working thing that could be purchased. It is far easy to do it on "a sheet of paper" rather than on couple of million of transistors specially designed for a purpose. M?

But none-the-less, it is an evolutionary process, our technological advance. It cannot stagnate. It only stagnates when it is anthropomorphized in the context of "global economy".
[/q]
Not sure I understand this part, and it looks cut off in the middle ("M?"). Can you please try to explain it differently ?

Reply Parent Score: 2