Slashdot Mirror
AMD Makes 10-Nanometer Transistor
Yorrike writes: "Reuters is reporting that AMD are about to reveal their smallest double-gate transistor to date. From the article: 'The gate of the transistor, across which electrical current flows to turn the switch on, measures 10 nanometers, or 10 billionths of a meter.' The article goes on to suggest that this may lead to a 1 billion transistor chip."
Dr. Evil: "And I will design a chip with transistors... 1 MILLION transistors!"
#2: "Uh, Dr. Evil, we've already designed a chip with 1 million transistors, quite a few years ago in fact."
Dr. Evil: "How many is a lot then?"
#2: "1 billion would be very impressive. We're working on that right now."
Dr. Evil: "Alright then... 1 BILLION transistors."
This is the same transistor that IBM was talking about. They are sharing (or stealing) this technology. Electron microscope pictures are of the same transistor.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
That's true. I'd take an AMD at a slower clock rate anyday. But when consumers learn the real speed they're going, they don't like it. I've had a bunch of people buy new AMD systems, and when I tell them what speed they're actually running at, they get skeptical and don't want to buy from AMD again, even after I explain. Consumers don't like being lied to, and for the most part, aren't as dumb as some people make them out to be.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
What, where's not going to benchmark on Mhz cycles anymore?
I can already picture this:
"Buy Intel's new Pentra Plus 2004, the only processor with a billion transistors!!!" (yay, men in blue dance yadda yadda)
"Piter, too, is dead."
Great, but AMD needs to get their .13 micron process stable first.
-----------------------
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
Just think about all the DRM they can pack into that baby!
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
The earlier press release talked, in a half assed way, about the performance benefits. This one talks, in a half assed way, about the reduced size.
Of course, this happens because whoever digests these things for us unwashed masses doesn't understand what the hell they're talking about.
And the gate length has much more to do with the performance, not the transistor density, as the transistor density is dominated by the via sizes and interconnect sizes.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
.... this would be the "wee" size. "Not so wee" and "friggin' huge!" are now obsolete.
1) It's a basic idea in engineering that when you are dealing with something abstract (and these are so small that they qualify), then you have to relate it to something familiar.
2) (To quote from Billy Madison)
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Once the RIAA gets news of this I'm sure they'll find some hack think-tank that will make the proclamation that according to their data, there is a direct correlation over time between "Transistors Per CPU" and "Music Piracy". Lawyer parties will follow.
(When I started typing this, I was making a joke. But now that I've read it back a few times, this looks more probable than improbable.)
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Where on earth am I going to find a motherboard for a CMOS processor?
First CMOS, then Silicon, then Gallium (what ever happened GaAs anyway?), then Coppermine, and now back to CMOS with a silicon fin.....
Mmmrrrppphh, full circle you have come young Jedi.
-Yoda