Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheLianeonProject t1_iuhe7ob wrote

That is crazy, at 1nm, the size of transistors is approaching atomic scales.

Make one wonder, what is next? There is a physical limit to the size of transistors. How will the economy respond to a slowing pace of innovation? Or will investments into quantum computing supplant silicon?

20

Absolute_Authority t1_iuhg56j wrote

Transistor sizes as '1nm' or '5nm' is just branding similar to Iphone 12 or Iphone 13. They aren't actually physically that small. It did used to actually be the size it was named but precisely because of the slowing pace of innovation you mentioned its become a marketing gimmick.

30

DavidBrooker t1_iuj8w47 wrote

There are structures at the scale in the name, but which structure they're referring to is ambiguous between different manufacturers (and sometimes generations). Intel's 14nm has similar transistor pitch to TSMC's 7nm process, for instance, and both have transistor pitches on the order of 40nm.

8

burner9752 t1_iuiz73j wrote

This used to be only true for intel, tsmc was using the correct size to naming scheme in the past.

−2

TheLianeonProject t1_iuhkdbg wrote

I know, but nonetheless, we are approaching a physical limit to the size of transistors.

−10

IgnobleQuetzalcoatl t1_iuhspjs wrote

I don't think you knew that given the first sentence in your original comment. I didn't either. After some quick googling, looks like the 5nm process has transistors spaced around 51nm at minimum.

6

685327593 t1_iuhgibd wrote

The process node names no longer actually refer to any real life feature size.. not even close. Moores Law is dead, but the marketing people don't want to admit it yet.

13

punxcs t1_iuhmo31 wrote

Moores law being dead is equally marketing BS from people who want you to pay more.

Gordon Moore himself predicted the law to no longer be applicable beyond 2025, the law itself cannot be dead because it’s a fundamental observation of technological progress, not a pet hamster.

Who knows what technological breakthroughs will occur in the next two years.

13

cpt_melon t1_iuhr6fv wrote

Moore's law is not about technological progress generally. It's a specific observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit double every two years. Since we are reaching the physical limit of increasing transistor density, Moore's law is dead.

​

>Who knows what technological breakthroughs will occur in the next two years.

That is literally not the point.

9

685327593 t1_iuhsyaz wrote

The original law also said costs would halve every 2 years and that's been dead for a while now.

2

685327593 t1_iuhn5zg wrote

You're just arguing semantics. The point is density is scaling much slower than it used to. Call it what you will, but what matters is we aren't going to see the big leaps in performance and cuts in cost anymore.

1

punxcs t1_iuhvmpf wrote

True I am i guess, it’s just it’s very tiring having people arguing over what tech companies say, nvidia wants the idea of cheaper components to make items gone because they can charge more at every level and people will pay it.

The cost cutting it seems like has never been passed onto consumers.

Much as how RNA vaccine research had its Breakthrough out of necessity, I am sure that issues like quantum tunnelling, or computing, and whatever the future of computing is, will be worked out by people who have been working on it for decades.

1

685327593 t1_iui2pdb wrote

There's a lot to unpack in that comment, but for the sake of brevity I'll simply say there is no logical reason to expect a new technology to come around and bail us out right as the old technology is reaching its limits.

PS: The COVID vaccines we are using now were developed before a single American had even died of COVID. The technology was already there, the issue was simply all the regulations in the way. Operation Warp Speed didn't develop a new technology, it just cut all the red tape to cut the licensing time down from 10 years to 1 and obviously funded the construction of new production facilities to allow the process to be scaled up rapidly.

5

babwawawa t1_iuhp8cw wrote

Compute density measured at a global level continues to increase at an exponential rate, and is a much more relevant predictor of technological progress than individual chip density.

0

685327593 t1_iuhq1ay wrote

The cost of new fabs is increasing exponentially, clearly that can't continue forever.

0

TheCriticalAmerican t1_iuhfvux wrote

>How will the economy respond to a slowing pace of innovation? Or will investments into quantum computing supplant silicon?

This is my big question too - TSMC is barreling towards a future that has a literally dead end at it and I don't know what their plan is. I think the next big thing will be a shift to something like photonics chips - something China is already doing.

4

TheLianeonProject t1_iuhkria wrote

Glad I am not the only one wondering this. Do you have any good resources on photonics? Would like to write about it.

Given that chip production and new innovations, in general, are becoming more and more capital intensive, it probably make sense to make massive investments into emerging technology now, to head off tech stagnation in the coming decades.

1

685327593 t1_iuia91x wrote

In most industries tiny improvements are the norm. It's very unusual for an industry to be able to improve as quickly as the semiconductor industry has and it should be obvious it can't keep going forever.

1

jchamberlin78 t1_iuhxrx9 wrote

I think that there will be new innovations in multi-core processors... With processors becoming task specific to improve throughput. (Like Tesla's self driving core).

1

aquarain t1_iui19s9 wrote

They have been working on the photonic chips essentially forever. There is hope that the breakthrough will come when transistors no longer advance, because they must. In addition to scaling clocks to terahertz the photonics don't produce anywhere near as much heat so you can stack them like the layers in flash memory. The cores will likely be very basic risc cores from the first.

Quantum computing is rather specialized. Non Von Neumann architecture. Unlikely to enter mainstream computing any time soon but irreplaceable for the applications that need it.

1

heckdditor t1_iuhw63w wrote

That's crazy they are saying the same shit since 90nm.

Come on, technology find it's ways...

0

685327593 t1_iuif6mo wrote

That's not how it works. Technology can't just magically ignore the laws of physics. In most industries progress is painfully slow or non-existent.

1

SuperMazziveH3r0 t1_iujijda wrote

We thought laws of gravity would be impossible to defeat, yet there were plenty of innovators that incorporated properties of physics to achieve manned flight. While we won't break laws of physics in our lifetime (I think), there will be ways to mitigate the limitations of physics

−1

685327593 t1_iujj4jh wrote

The point is we're not going much farther with MOSFET transistors. We need a completely new technology.

1

SuperMazziveH3r0 t1_iujjaqn wrote

Yes.

And there will always be new technology.

−1

685327593 t1_iujjr61 wrote

One day, but there's no reason to assume it will be soon. Could be 100 years from now.

1

heckdditor t1_iuiguqw wrote

Technology will find it's way. :)

−2

685327593 t1_iuj9hj3 wrote

Why should this be different than any other industry?

1