Slashdot Mirror
Gallium Arsenide Semiconductors on the Horizon
Masem writes: "According to this Chicago Tribune article, Motorola has developed a cheaper solution for putting gallium arsenide on top of silicon in order to allow for better chip designs with speeds nearly 40 times what silicon only chips would allow. While it was well known that gallium arsenide addition was favorable, it was also very expensive; Motorola's new process (covered by 200+ patents) should keep the chip prices low when these new designs are released in 2 years." The AP says they've applied for 270 patents.
geeks don't respect any form of intellectual property. It's called ratioalisation. If they admit that these things have value, they have to admit that they are morally bankrupt.
There are two schools of thought when it comes to computers and the world around us.
One might say that computers and ourselves are becoming too involved with each other, us being dependant on the computers.
The other says that each technological breakthrough is a good thing, advancing us to a greater extent each time.
I subscribe to the latter view.
Taking in this point, cheaper chips are something that we should really be striving to produce. If we could come up with microchips so cheap that they cost fractions of pennies yet had the processing power of, I don't know, an Atari ST (8Mhz IIRC) then think of the places we could put them - and cheaply !
For example, The London Underground 'tube' network in England is currently trialing a new ticketing system whereby rather than having a cardboard ticket with a magnetic stripe down one side, they issue tickets which have so-called 'smart chips' inside them.
The flipside is good for LU - think how much extra effort it would be to forge a ticket.
For the everyday train user it makes life just that bit easier. No more scrabbling around for your ticket, as long as it's somewhere on your person you'll able to walk straight through the ticket barrier without having to even think about it.
Now where's my 2GHz G4!?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The articles I've seen on this aren't very detailed as to how the technology actually increases speed, but I would have to guess that the new material allows for less logical gate latency which then allows for faster chip operation. Anyone know if I'm close?
~ now you know
This is excellent news!
Speed in future communication equipment WILL depend on gallium arsenide (GaAs), after all. It's well known that electrons travel five to six times faster in GaAs than silicon. I can't wait to see how fast Motorola's new chips become with this addition.
Great, now maybe the G4 really will be as fast as the P4, or even faster!
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
Am I the only one that finds it just a little bit of stretch to talk about about fantastic technology that helps to make GaAs cheaper for real life applications on the one hand -- and then mention 200+ patents on the other hand?
I know, I know, that the hope of financial gain provides the dollars for this kind of research, but let's be real: it won't be that cheap.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Hmm, I remember an article in Scientific American at least ten years ago which contained the quote
Gallium Arsenide, the technology of the future.
Always has been, always will be.
This still seems to be true.
Motorola's new process (covered by 200+ patents)
hmm... which means we'll be forced to buy these from Motorola for a few years...
I don't think so.
:)
A major limiting factor for CPU design today is wire delay. Electricity runs over silicon with third speed of light (I think, something in that range, anyway), so you can't speed that up more than 3 times (and even that is highly unlikely). If the gate delay being reduced by 40 times, we won't get chips that are 3 times faster, using the same design, IMHO.
Though this would be quite an improvement
m
hahahahahah
The company wants to make money. They want to make money for a loooonnnngggg time. They are protecting their technology with lots & lots of patents.
The prices will NOT be low.
I think that patents are more generally used for inventions that a company produces, while trademarks protect the logo or name of a company.
So Motorola would patent its chip manufacturing techniques, but it would get a trademark on the way they write the word "Motorola" on their products.
Gallium arsenide chips have been around for a long time, but as the article says, they are limited to niche applications due to cost. Still, there was one company which actually shipped a mainframe built on GaAs chips -- Convex. It's actually kind of hard to find info on them these days (they were swallowed up by HP in the mid 90s), but this EE Times article has a bit of info.
Free Hans!
Hmm... I'm thinking some colored filters and a rotating mainboard and we have ourselves some disco-qauke III action!
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Back when I was a hardware guy, GaAs was a last
resort. A GaAs PAL device was 30% faster than
anything else, but it was also expensive, flakey,
hot, only available from one manufacturer, and
suffered chronic yield problems. I saw more than one product suffer in the market because of problems acquiring the single GaAs device that it used.
It looks like they're going to fix the expensive
issue; I hope that the other problems are addressed
as well.
For GaAs (III-V) research in the UK, check out the EPSRC UK central facility webpage at the Electrical Engineering department of Sheffield University.
snip
Motorola's new process (covered by 200+ patents) should keep the chip prices low when these new designs are released in 2 years." The AP says they've applied for 270 patents.
snip
Nothing can keep prices low if one company owns
all the IP. They can charge what they want.
They can liscense the IP to others at high enough
prices to ensure that everyone else using the
process is priced the same.
Patents allow monopoly pricing!
How will this help the rest of us, the masses that don't use motorola technology? (especially when you consider the patent stuff) From what I can see, if motorola can make cheaper chips, those that don't want to use their technology will have to pay a higher premium for their chips until someone comes up with yet another (patented?) method to make things cheaper/faster.
Of course, that's probably the switching speed of GA transistors, not overall performance gains.
Does anyone know what percentage of time in the typical processor is spent waiting for transistors to switch versus simple speed-of-light propagation delays, or any other bottlenecks that this doesn't cover? In other words, how much bottom-line clock speed increase would this be likely to give?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The AP story also states that it is 35 x faster not 40.
GaAs chips running up to 40x faster than straight silicon? What good is a CPU that can run at 30-40GHz to a computer that still uses slow IDE hard drives?
Perhaps the computer makers should push for faster, cheaper disk/memory tech instead of ever-faster CPUs.
Cheap SCSI, anyone?
******
"What makes you think I care about your opinions?"
Nothing to see here. Move along, please.
Okay, this just happens to be the research area I work in--and I know full well the problems associated with getting high quality GaAs on Si. It's not nearly as simple as it sounds. So, it appears that Motorola found a "magical" insulating layer to put between the Si substrate and the GaAs layer. Wonderful. But it won't ever be anything but a novelty.
Here's why: In industry, everything is driven by economic margins. Plus, the pure Si industry is now very mature and they will not simply add new machinery to their processes that screw up their entire production line. That makes sense, really. Why on earth ruin a perfectly great production line just to toy around?
The other great point is final production cost. There is no way the pure Si industry will adopt a single step that is far costlier than the rest of their production line combined. Then add to the fact that those industries are adverse to any step that may slow down their production runs or cause unnecessary problems.
Sorry, people. If you want GaAs on Si, there is only one way that it can be made which will result in something the Si industry is not too adverse to. That means epitaxial growth of any buffering layers followed by high quality GaAs growth. The biggest problem that still hasn't been worked out is how does one go about making proper interconnections? Also, the buffering layer can be very conductive--and that is sometimes very hard to control. Motorola has got their heads up where it doesn't belong if they think the world is going to go crazy over this.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
both the post this is a direct response to and the one above it are totally stupid bullshit.
******this has been a slashdot public service announcement... thank you******
- one of my professors, ca 1983
Does anyone remember him? he died a few years ago in Colorado, not from electricution, or from brain overload, but in a car accident on one of the Highways there.
o ld man/publications
Historically, this man, the founder of Crey, had a little problem convincing the rest of his constituents that Gallium Arsinide was the way to go. He took his personal fortune, and set out on his own to try to proove everyone wrong.
There is infact a HUGE problem with Gallium Arsenide... besides the fact that putting it on other materials (even manufacturing it in fact) has historically been insanely expensive (or in the case of my sisters work at Michigan, incredibly dangerous, explosive, or totally toxic to all life) and while everyone in Materials science has been bouncing around ideas about how to actually put it on other materials as a thin film cheaply for years, there have been few publicly available methods.
In the case of my sister at Michigan, most of the trouble was in the synthesis process. She couldnt just make Gallium Arsenide, and THEN apply it in thin film form to other materials, she actually had to synthesize AND deposit it at the same time. This leaves allot of space for impurities, or just failure.. or in the worst case, massive explosions... so it had to be done at a small scale, and it cost millions...
In reality, the world has been chasing this problem for 20 years. At one point people wanted to use the substance in stoplights, in computer chips, and in 500 other random applications. Mr. Crey really took it the furthest, but his untimely death probably functioned to delay the availablility of computers running on Gallium Arsenide chips by years.
Motorolla may have allot of patents, but we should leave it up to them to actually proove that they will be able to sucessfully release such chips onto the market. Such a process is more than just micro engineering, its a chemical process, that could, depending upon the process, turn chip manufacturing into a subset of the Chemical industry.
Just a rant. Sorry
If you want a place to get started on reading about GaAs research, try the lab of Rachel Goldman at Michigan:
http://msewww.engin.umich.edu/research/groups/g
Motorola, like other semiconductor companies, will likely license the technology out to other companies. Don't get your panties in a patent knot...
I had no idea that every time an operation is performed on the CPU, it has to save something to the hard drive</sarcasm>
Gallium Arsenide is a very dangerous poison. If a cylinder of it leaks into the air, every person within 1 km needs a total blood transfusion or dies in a couple of hours. Don't put this in my state.
It also sounds like you need to check out advances in other areas besides chips - such as serial ATA (600MB per second is promised)
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Whether this will take succeed or not, there's no doubt that we will keep wanting faster chips.
But a funny thing hit me when I read the words "Gallium Arsenide." It reminded me of a lecture in one of my Comp Sci classes, when the prof described the nasty environmental effects of creating these chips in the first place.
I wonder if, at the same time as we ask what will make for faster and cheaper chips, someone somewhere will start to ask if there's a way to make these manufacturing processes safer.
The plants that manufacture our computer chips are generally pretty nasty environmental hazards.
byroniverse
A) GaAs has a crumby native oxide
B) there isn't a very good or simple complimentary process for GaAs. This is murder for power disapation, which is really the main problem in high speed devices.
1) first of all, if the speed (transistor activity that is) is actually 40 times faster, then wouldnt that generate quite a bit more heat? hey, i mean we have enough heating problems in terms of chips anyway, we dont need for every chip to need a water cooled peltier system in order for the damn chip not to overheat! 2)200+ patents. wait...can anyone say monopoly?
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
I remember from a materials science course that GaAs semiconductors were more resistant to electromagnetic fields' influence... What kind of applications could these chips be better for than straight silicon? The military has plenty of applications... but what industries could specifically benefit from cheap electromagnetically "rugged" chips?
Hasn't Vitesse been doing Galium Arsenide semiconductors for the past 10 years?
-Ted
is Motorola going to build the cost of cleaning of the extra toxins when they produce these? or will they wait until public outcry to clean up their mess decades later?
my understanding is that GAs are very toxic. anyone have any data on this topic?
jherber
he was just speaking of making them :
a) worthwhile to produce on a performance gain v. cost increase comparison.
b) being affordable once produced.
i know it's hard to fit a single thought in when you're busy trying to get first post, but c'mon..
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I believe GaAs works just like light-emitting diodes; LEDs don't get hot because electrical energy is converted directly to light, but at the same time there is no "cooling" of the LED taking place either. I don't know of anything that can convert heat directly into light. (Unless you count blackbody radiation given off at optical wavelenghts by very hot objects -- let's hope your CPU never gets that hot!)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
"Gallium Arsenide Valley". I'm just not seeing it.
...but... In the past couple of weeks there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about Motorola seeking to sell its semiconductor business because it just wasn't performing. Now, all of a sudden, that division comes up with a "holy grail" of chip manufacturing. Hmmmmm. Does this mean the executives at MOT are so dumb they didn't know there R&D boys had a world beater coming down the pipe? (OK. OK. They're pretty dumb. But are they THAT dumb.) Or does it mean that the R&D boys are trying to get some extra hype for something that may-be-ok-but-is-not-all-that-great? Far be it from me to think that people may be trying to use publicity as a tool in an internal power struggle. Oh, no. Couldn't possibly happen. I guess I'm just too cynical.
There's a similar article in EE times. www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010904S0028) Sounds like they're using something called a "compliant substrate". The idea is that if the substrate is very thick relative to the film being grown then the tendency is for the film to deform it's lattice to match the substrate. The lattice strain stores energy, and as the film increases in thickness the amount of strain energy per unit volume of film increases. If the mismatch between substrate lattice dimensions and film dimensions is large enough the strain energy per unit volume can become large enough to nucleate dislocations at the interface. These dislocations allow the film to "relax" back to something near it's equilibrium lattice dimensions by periodically deleting or adding atomic planes near the interface. The problem is that these dislocations can thread up into the top of the film (i.e. where the device layers are) and act as non-radiative recombination centers and carrier traps. The dislocations can also jump from one layer to subsequently grown layers. A compliant substrate tries to force the substrate to deform, and thus the strain E in the film never gets high enough to nucleate dislocations. For example, if you make the substrate very thin then as the film grows the substrate will deform to match the equilibrium lattice dimensions of the film rahter than the other way round. Traditionally in Si technology this has been done by ion implanting O2 in a thin layer some small distance below the surface fo the wafer. The wafer is then annealed to let the crystal structure recover from all the damage the ions did to the surface. This leaves a thin layer of "single crystal" silicon floating on a thin layer of glass. At growth temperatures of >1000 C in MOCVD the glass layer is fairly gooey, and the thin silicon layer practically floats on it. So as long as the epi film is thicker than the Si compliant substrate you're golden. But this adds 2 steps to the production run, and ion implanting isn't generally a high throughput process. (i.e. $$$$$$$$$$$$$) Seems like Motorola's trick is to deposite a layer of some oxide with a crystal structure similar to GaAs. They then let oxygen diffuse down into the Si to form glass. So they bipass the implantation step. The intermediate layer probably doesn't match the GaAs exactly anyway, which means you still get dislocations. Alot fo Motorola's research time and patents were probably devoted to converting existing techniques for reducing dislocation density to work with the intermediate layer material. Anyway, I hope this gives you some idea of why I'm kinda skeptical. Old dog, maybe not-so-new tricks. But if Motorola has pulled it off it would be pretty sweet.
Butthead: I'm angry at numbers. Beavis: Yeah, there're like too many of 'em.
You'll be seeing 3.5-7GHz 64 bit PowerPC chips by the end of 2002.
I remember Cray used to use GaAS semiconductors many moons ago. They used to have these large clumps of circuits with wires running to them zip tied together. Then they were placed in a "cooling tower" and swam in chilled 3M Fluoronert soultion. The "Love Seats" that surrounded the base of the Cray's were actually the cooling hardware. I remember when I was younger I used to picture going on a date and sitting on the Cray love seat. :)
How come they have so many new inventions for this new chip? What - none of them could have fit on any of their older technology? Yes, I'm sure a lot of effort went into that thing, but to get over 200 new ideas on one product (especially one that is mostly an old idea that's just been too expensive before) seems amazing.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
The second problem is the lack of a good thermal oxide in the GaAs material system. Silicon uses SiO2 which is an excellent insulator and more importantly has an extremely clean interface with silicon, so there are very few traps at the oxide-si interface. Because GaAs doesn't have a good oxide, MOS field-effect transistors (MOSFETS) are impossible and so digital GaAs chips use MESFETS, which are FETs without the oxide. It turns out the good oxide in silicon makes a lot of things possible that are impossible in GaAs. For example, the si oxide makes for a very high input impedance for Si transistors so they can be used to make dense RAM and very simple registers that rely on a high impedenence node. This structures are not possible in GaAs so more complicated, higher power circuits are required in GaAs to achieve the same functionality.
Thank you for clearing that up :-)
You save billions -- since you don't have to do the R&D, hire all the talent, build the factories and labs. You also have zero risk -- it's not you fighting for your life against Intel.
As for embedded processors -- you won't suffer, because Motorola accounts for a monstrous amount of those. Chances are you've used 15 motorola products today already.
As for computer chips -- Motorola has been ahead of Intel for years. No secret that risc is better than cisc. Intel chips are faster, but they're the size of a shoe-box, they sound like DC 10's, and you can saute mushrooms with their waste heat. Motorola chips are small, fanless, and you can just about run them off a clock battery. If you haven't switched already, then it can't be bothering you too much.
Sorry. (In,Ga)(As,P) LEDs can emit in the visible range, but not GaAs.
Most of the stuff I've read about GaAs chips indicates they're used in RF signal processing. If Motorola makes them inexpensive, will they also show up as CPUs in desktops, laptops, and PDAs?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Is this simple a clock speed multiple? For example, the PowerPC G4 currently tops out at 867 MHz. If it was made with this new gallium technique, would it then be able to be clocked up to 30 GHz?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I seem to recall that this material was brittle, and that in addition to chemical process challenges, there tended to be a lot of breakage
of wafers due to vibration and stresses of the manufacturing line. However, not being a materials type, I'd like confirmation of this.
Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!
One of the hardest things to do in photonics has been to get diode lasers and detector (which need to be a direct bandgap semiconductor--i.e. not silicon) and their driver circuitry (usually silicon) close together. If they're physically separated then you need to put some sort of electrical interconnection between them, usually a wire bond or something, then you need a huge driver for the bond pads. Or you can use flip chip bonding and stick the GaAs optoelectronics right on the silicon--but this is really tricky.
But if you can grow GaAs on the silicon you can have the optoelectronics monolithically fabricated with the silicon. Then you can have literally thousands of lasers on a chip and do away with all the bond pads (well, except power...) It is conceivable that free space or guided wave optical interconnections could do away with all of the annoying and slow electical buses inside your machine with something much faster and smaller!
Cray already built a microprocessor out of GaAs... then they went bankrupt, I believe.
Its important to be able to integrate inductors onto chips in order to reduce component count and to provide a degree of uniformity in consumer designs like Wireless. Unfortunately, having a silicon layer under the GaAs makes for a lousy inductor as it absorbs much of the field. The same problem is true for SiGe. Plain old GaAs is not dead and is getting even more important as lower freq spectrum space is being used up, pushing applications above 4Ghz.
Wow. You're actually crying.
thw chip of the future. Always have been, always will be, the chip of the future.
They're licensing the tech to other corps. like Intel.
;)
Motorola only has an interest in underpricing Intel and AMD for this tech if it intends to take those two on in the desktop proc. market. I doubt Motorola has a desire to do so. It has quite a nice, niche market now. Competition is expensive.
Derek