Intel forges ahead to 10nm, will move away from silicon at 7nm
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
There is an interesting debate about feature size though. Devices on silicon for a long long time were essentially 2D, patterns on the top surface of Silicon. "Feature size" in this environment directly translated into area which directly translated into the die size.
As features got smaller you started getting 'trench fets' and other tricks to increase the effective size of the gates so that leakage current wasn't insane. So at what point then do the circuit elements become fully vertical, which is to say that viewed from the 'top' the transistor is 10 nm on a side but vertically its 22 nm 'tall' ?
And other tricks where the silicon layers are separately tested and 'thinned' and then packaged as a sandwich for final testing with ion implanters creating the vias between the connecting layers.
Really interesting work in that sort of stuff going on.
Moving to more complex 3d chips could help improve performance, but there are limits to the number of dimensions we have too.
I would bet that improvements will become less predictable, though. Unfortunately, investors really dislike unpredictability, so R&D spending will probably drop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_length
The lattice constant of unstrained silicon is 0.543 nm.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9092506
[2] http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-status-o...
That said, they are probably able to position those wires at a higher precision. Without being involved in the manufacturing myself, I deduce this mainly from looking at optical proximity correction[1], for example, it's clear that the final masks used for production have more detail. Another indication is the fact that different masks seem to be aligned to basically nm-level precision (otherwise, the different parts of transistors and the vertical interconnects (vias) between wiring planes would not match up properly). The photographs one sees of the final product also indicate this. This means that the location of wires could theoretically be controlled very precisely, but for a mixture of wavelength and other (chemical? surface tension?) reasons, the size of the wires cannot be made smaller reliably.
I'd be curious to know how precise this alignment really is, and I've never seen numbers for it, but it must be incredibly precise. Given that a large part of it can be done optically, this is not even that surprising, compared to some of the other magic that's going on here.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_proximity_correction
In fact I've yet to see java server-side stacktrace that's less than 100 lines long. Usually it's more like 1000 lines, with a few RMIs inside. On the other hand, the js stacktraces I've seen (mostly hobby projects, so I may be biased) are usually less than 50 lines, often just 10 or so. Not good, but much better.
Were those Java servers written in standard Java, though? Because it's possible to write pretty low-level code in java if you're willing to compromise on standards compliance. Non-GC'ed, direct memory access is possible, I think.
Far from a well-established point, and please do correct me if I am wrong, but ever since some point around 2008, the performance gain from CPU upgrade becomes kind of stuck, which sticks to around 10%-15% between generation.
Good abstractions come at a cost. You'll need more CPU power, but it becomes easier to write, read and maintain your code.
If performance becomes an issue, rewrite the critical sections to make less use of abstractions. If performance is a massive issue and it's not doable in a high-level language, then don't use a high-level language.
If CPU power stagnates, it doesn't matter. There is, and always will be, a place for abstractions, no matter what overhead they have.
JavaScript is very efficient in some respects: it trades off speed and memory usage for programmer productivity, safety, security and portability.
I don't believe this has to be true in the future (in fact, I'm not sure I believe it today either). This is a meme that we tell ourselves because we haven't invented clever enough programming languages or abstractions yet. This is exactly what I was referring to in my post. We as an industry would have to solve these problems at a fundamental level.
Take for instance manual memory management. People used to think that dynamic languages make this so much easier, but it has become much easier to write GC free programs (see C++11 and Rust).
I want to see more efforts in this kind of direction.
> JavaScript is very efficient in some respects: it trades off speed and memory usage for programmer productivity, safety, security and portability.
I take issue with this. JavaScript it is not a productive language at LOC scale. Security is par for the course. Modern systems languages are no worse or better. Portability I'll grant.
gallium arsenide (GaAs) has six times higher electron mobility than silicon, which allows faster operation... Conversely, silicon is robust, cheap, and easy to process, whereas GaAs is brittle and expensive, and insulation layers can not be created by just growing an oxide layer; GaAs is therefore used only where silicon is not sufficient.
-- WikipediaOne advantage of native III-V substrates is they are semi-insulating (very high resistivity) so there is no need for transistor isolation wells. However, insulated substrates could be obtained on silicon by means of wafer bonding with an intermediate dielectric layer.
I know I'd be keeping specifics as tightly controlled as possible until the last moment. It's one of those rare big jumps that really separate the players in the field.
It's a scary time for the industry, as Moore's law comes to an end.
(All that said, even if no one knows for sure what's coming next, that doesn't mean nothing will. The semiconductor industry is throwing billions of dollars and thousands of engineers at many potential solutions in parallel. Even if plan A falls through, there is always a heavily researched plan B, C, and D.)
I also note that Seymour Cray wanted to do gallium arsenide CPUs back in the late '80s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW7j2ipE2Ck .
By the way, an interesting alternative to blasting drops of molten tin in vacuum is to just build a multimillion dollar synchrotron and use its x-rays for lithography in a fab. This has a whole bunch of other problems, but it's an idea that engineers are seriously considering.
Most of my knowledge comes from my friend who used to work on the problem of inspecting x-ray masks.
Static RAM cells haven't scaled for about two generations now, but you could still scale functional transistors.
Now, even that is stopping. Moore's Law was more an economic law than a physical one.
Exponential growth has to run out sometime.
I don't know.. people said the same thing when clock rates got close to 4Ghz. We always seem to find ways to work around physical limits.
Things actually broke at 90nm. Gate leakage went up enough that most analog/RF circuits scaled their transistors back up to 130-150nm dimensions while the digital guys cashed in the density increase one last time.
65nm was the first node where static RAM cells didn't scale with the rest of the digital circuitry. RAM cells are more sensitive to leakage since they have a "writability constraint" where you have to be able to shove enough electrons from outside the cell, through a transistor, with enough oomph to change the state inside the RAM cell.
40nm was where RAM scaling really broke. Designers had to start jumping through amazing hoops to support tricks for the manufacturing guys to eke out the last jump even for standard digital circuits. Most technologies started trading off multiple gate oxide thicknesses to manage leakage current.
28nm was where everything basically went to hell. The strong form of Moore's Law (twice the transistors for same cost) broke. RAM cells are way off the scaling curve. Leakage is everywhere. Multiple gate oxide thicknesses are the rule, not the exception. Designers are jumping through tremendous hoops for manufacturing (aligning all gates in the same direction over the entire chip, for example).
Below 28nm has been a disaster, and, as pointed out, a lot of the sub-28nm stuff is more marketing than actual physical dimensions.
http://electroiq.com/blog/2014/02/the-most-expensive-sram-in...
I don't see that as a bad thing. There's plenty of optimization opportunities on the software level. Think of the difference between first-generation and last-generation console games.
eg Rainbow[0], BORPH[1], Mill architecture[2]
http://spie.org/AL/conferencedetails/alternative-lithographi...
That is the move from 22nm to 14nm did not give you double the transistor count from the same area die.
So has anyone done a comparison of transistor count on the same size die over the years depending on the process?