Slashdot Mirror
The End Of The Innovation Road for CMOS
Elledan writes "According to this EE Times article, CMOS technology (also used to create CPUs with) is getting near the moment when we will no longer be able to create smaller structures with it. With the date for this moment set around 2012 and with no replacement technology in sight, this issue might become a real problem in the near future, as the article explains."
At what point does the performance of computers become "adequate"? Once a technology becomes mature, a slow rate of improvement becomes acceptable. Reliability gets fixed, design improves, niche markets get filled. Internal combustion engines, houses, aircraft, ships, bridges, for all of these the lack of a Moores Law isn't a "problem". Perhaps if Moore's Law finally packs in for computers, we can all stop chasing progress and concentrate on things like social implications, human factors, and software that does something useful.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
How many times have we heard this prediction?
I remember when 200mhz was the end of the road. 'They' always manage
to give us another 10-15 years. It's like drilling for oil.
Besides, while Mhz makes a big difference to speed, design is more important.
Even if we hit this wall, we'd just continue to improve in other areas.
This is a different kind of FUD, but FUD it is.
rhadc
Would it really be so bad if manufacturing advancement in the hardware sector slowed or stopped? Companies would be forced to develop new features (like MMX or AltiVec) to differentiate their chips. Work would shift to bringing the rest of the computer up to the top speed of the processors, which it has lagged behind by orders of magnitude for years. The oft-hated hardware upgrade cycle would slow down greatly. Machines would be useful for much longer, and depreciate less. Software developers could no longer rely on increased performance, and would be forced to do real optimization.
A lot of people are saying that stopping/slowing hardware advances would improve software - it won't. The proof is in the gaming area - they optimise it as far as possible while still making the game profitable and they need the latest hardware all the time.
The reality is that software has aquired a whole heap of extra features that we take for granted and they take up space. There is no reason to want highly optimised code because it limits what is financially viable to develop. Optimisation is hard, takes time and costs a heck of a lot of money, there would be a lot less software out there if it had to be fully optimised to be usable.
In short, just because you think you're "l33t" by optimising your code so it runs on a 286, you're just wasting your time because computers are fast enough to not need that. Look at the amount of processor cycles donated to projects like Seti@Home - there is no need to optimise code, so stop whinging.
Slowing the hardware improvement cycle will just slow/stop the innovations in software. The first place it will hit is scientific areas, then the gaming arena and it will hit the average user because the cool high-end stuff just won't trickle down to them (like video editing has recently done).
You can certanly use MEMS techniques to make a better electrical circuit. (Though I am not familiar with applications in digital devices)
MEMS techniques can for instance help in creating excellent on-chip inductors, important for RF applications.
However, it is not given that the Next Big Thing in digital devices will be electronic at all. Maybe we'll find ways to make micromechanics perform better than electronics.
Chip makers complain because the "CAD Community" isn't coming up with solutions to some of their problems, but University R&D programs are unable to keep up with fabrication standards as the equipment gets more expensive.
Isn't this a problem waiting for a few self-interested chip-makers to whip their wallets in the direction of a few universities?
Historically, increased CMOS speeds have come from one thing: shrink the features. Atoms being small, this works for quite some number of doublings. Techniques such as strained Si, alternative gate dielectrics, etc. are a qualitative change in strategy. They have potential to help, but they don't have the long-term extendability that we've seen from shrinkage. Let's say strained Si gives a factor of 8 in mobility. That's great, but in 3-4 years it's done and we need some other idea orthogonal to the previous one. Having to come up with a qualitatively new enhancement every 3 years is very different from the make-it-smaller world to date.
Curtains for windows?