Slashdot Mirror
Reinventing The Transistor For Molecular Computing
unnique writes "MIT's Technology Review, has an article on HP's research into finding a new way to make transistors smaller, and further stretching Moore's law." The article has some nice illustrations of the nano-componentry they're working on, too.
its really more of an OBSERVATION than a LAW. a THEOREM at best. While it has held true through my short lifetime so far, it certainly does not qualify as a LAW.
*****"I think we've picked the winner, something that will allow this thing we call Moore's Law to continue on for another 50 years. I used to think it was impossible. Now I think it's inevitable."****
This seems to be a stretch of the imagination. Moore's law defines, specifically "the number of components per integrated function" doubles every 12-24 months (is historically slightly more than 24 months), but is also (perhaps improperly) used to say that performance of processors doubles in that time.
In any case, following the progression of Moore's law from 1965 to today and through for the next 50 years reveals a minor (perhaps major) flaw in this scientist's assertion.
1971: 2,250 - Intel 4004
1982: 120,000 - Intel 80286
1993: 3.1 million - Intel Pentium
2003: 55 million - Intel P4 Northwood
2013: 1.76 billion
2023: 56 billion
2033: 1.8 trillion
2043: 57.6 trillion
2053: 1,840 trillion
The atomic diameter of an average old atom of some metallic element that would be used in transistor fabrication is about 10^-10 meters. The atoms in their molecular "crossbar" technology would be much larger, plus inter-atom spacing of about 0.3nm... we can assume there would be an element every 1nm.
With 1.84 quadrillion elements per component, we're talking 42 million components on a side, assuming uniform density and perfect 100% usage of space on the atomic level, these chips are just about half a meter in size.
Ok, so I proved myself wrong! Moores law has the TECHNICAL possibilty of holding true for the next 48 years. Beyond which, atomic structures themselves make the process of shrinking the components all but impossible.
Stewed Squirrel
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Cute story, but there's one major problem (besides the fact that it's simply untrue)....
Ok, I'm only going to say this one time, so don't forget it: Moore's law applies to the size of the gates, not the speed!
For some reason, people seem to think that it applies to speed, but it is simply an observation on gate density. Gate speed has never followed Moore's observation for more than a very short period of time. The reason today's chips are so much faster is that (a) gate speed has increased due to more efficient designs and better materials, (b) gate density has increased roughly according to Moore's "law", and (c) die size has increased due to better manufacturing processes, since the better yields allow larger dies to be cost-effective.
Moore's law is a great trend, but in reality it has nothing to do with speed increases, except that decreasing the size of a gate decreases propagation delays. The improvements in speed that have been made are more due to the number of transistors on a die, which have shot up due to (b) and (c), while each gate is faster due to (a), and only slightly (b). We have faster gates, on a bigger die, at a higher density.
--That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
Actually, Moore's "Law" does not refer to gate size. If anyone reads the actual history, Moore was referring to the number of components per die, since there has always been a trade-off between the complexity of the die and yield. While this may indeed lead to higher densities, density is, stricltly speaking, not what Moore was talking about. That said, Moore's Law is neither a law, nor very important.