mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > jasong

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-05-22, 20:24   #1
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5·701 Posts
Default Is Moore's Law wrong, or is it wrong-headed (6th time around)

Correct me here, but I believe Moore's law "died" around the time companies stopped spending everything they could on fabs and started cost-cutting more on production.

It makes me wonder if we've been doing the math with the wrong terms. Do you guys think a best fit geometric curve would look accurate on a graph of

(total computing power generated) divided by (cost of fab) <---- x variable
(time) <-- y variable
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-22, 22:47   #2
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

7×467 Posts
Default

Perhaps the answer is to be found in one of the six other threads which you have started about Moore's Law through the years?
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18885
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17637
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17167
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=8259
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6952
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=4602
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-25, 23:24   #3
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5×701 Posts
Default

What can I say, I like the topic.

Btw, Brian, does my avatar make me more, or less, appealing? ;)

Last fiddled with by jasong on 2016-05-25 at 23:26
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-26, 01:51   #4
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

23·19·61 Posts
Default

Trying to combine intel's Tick-Tock model with Kondratiev's cycles, we are now at the end of a big "Tick". Things were shrinking and becoming smaller and denser, faster and less power hungry. But that's not the end of the "law", by far. They will become "multi", or "different". Wait for the "Tock".
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-26, 12:23   #5
bgbeuning
 
Dec 2014

FF16 Posts
Default

Skylake chip geometry is 14 nm (10^-9).
One copper atom is 128 pm (10^-12).
So the Skylake CPU use traces (wires) 109 atoms wide.

Will a 10 atom wide trace work?
I doubt a 1 atom wide trace would work but I am no physicist.

They have already started going vertical. Old school chips
might have traces that are 200 atoms wide and an unknown
(to me) number of atoms tall. Maybe a 5 atom wide and 100 atom
tall trace would work.

(This has probably been covered in one of the previous posts
on this topic. I have not gone back and read them all.)
bgbeuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-26, 14:59   #6
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

23·19·61 Posts
Default

Or, we can say, a transistor is as big as the hepatitis B virus
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-26, 15:07   #7
Mark Rose
 
Mark Rose's Avatar
 
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

29·101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgbeuning View Post
Skylake chip geometry is 14 nm (10^-9).
One copper atom is 128 pm (10^-12).
So the Skylake CPU use traces (wires) 109 atoms wide.

Will a 10 atom wide trace work?
I doubt a 1 atom wide trace would work but I am no physicist.

They have already started going vertical. Old school chips
might have traces that are 200 atoms wide and an unknown
(to me) number of atoms tall. Maybe a 5 atom wide and 100 atom
tall trace would work.

(This has probably been covered in one of the previous posts
on this topic. I have not gone back and read them all.)
If I'm not mistaken, one of the advantages of the vertical gates is less electrical leakage from quantum tunnelling.
Mark Rose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-26, 15:22   #8
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2·3·1,013 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rose View Post
If I'm not mistaken, one of the advantages of the vertical gates is less electrical leakage from quantum tunnelling.
There is research being done into using the tunnelling, instead of trying to avoid it, as the basis of the transistor operation. Perhaps in a few years we will have QT transistors?

QT research is just one of seemingly thousands of other avenues begin investigated as successors to the current transistor designs. Perhaps the Star Trek isolinear circuits will be the new thing?
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-26, 15:34   #9
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

236548 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
Fantastic graphic! Thanks for posting it!
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-26, 22:51   #10
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

326910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
Btw, Brian, does my avatar make me more, or less, appealing? ;)
Well, yours originates from Africa and mine from South America, so we are unlikely to have met each other in which case being "appealing" is out of the question. Your original cat avatar (at least, that's the earliest one I can remember that you had) was quite frightening to the guinea pig.
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-26, 23:01   #11
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

66618 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgbeuning View Post
Skylake chip geometry is 14 nm (10^-9).
One copper atom is 128 pm (10^-12).
So the Skylake CPU use traces (wires) 109 atoms wide.

Will a 10 atom wide trace work?
I doubt a 1 atom wide trace would work but I am no physicist.

They have already started going vertical. Old school chips
might have traces that are 200 atoms wide and an unknown
(to me) number of atoms tall. Maybe a 5 atom wide and 100 atom
tall trace would work.

(This has probably been covered in one of the previous posts
on this topic. I have not gone back and read them all.)
Ahhhhhhh, but if we're willing to get into some ultra-weird physics, then we begin to realize that atoms have their own components. Put the right spin on things(pun intended) and you could have a one atom bit, as in a byte, on your hands.

Not that I could explain it. I'm wondering how hard a basic physics MOOC would be.(Forgot about Coursera)

Last fiddled with by jasong on 2016-05-26 at 23:06
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spooky? The arrow of time is downright dangerous in the wrong hands! cheesehead Science & Technology 4 2014-07-25 22:39
25.5 Time to Completion Wrong? lpmurray Software 9 2008-03-25 04:21
something wrong here? ixfd64 Lounge 2 2007-09-17 13:20
what wrong with this? graeme Lounge 22 2003-08-18 03:05
what wrong with this? Puzzles 0 1970-01-01 00:00

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:58.

Mon Mar 1 13:58:35 UTC 2021 up 88 days, 10:09, 0 users, load averages: 4.14, 3.10, 2.66

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.