Slashdot Mirror
Strained Silicon Chips From Intel
Quirk writes "NewScientist is reporting...
"Intel has taken the wraps off a secret technique it is using'Strained silicon' chips to increase the speed of its Pentium and Centrino chips. The technique boosts the rate at which transistors switch, without having to make them smaller.""
I know IBM has been publically working with this, at least in research, for a long time, and it's a fair bet other firms were too.
IIRC they've even used SSoI (Strained Silicon on Insulator) for some production ASICs...
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
Shoot, I should tell you about strained silicon. That overclocking experiment I did a couple years ago went horribly wrong when the water pump failed and smoke started pouring out of the case. THAT was decidedly strained silicon. :-)
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Intel sees chip futures strained
Intel strains to find new chips
Intel strains to make chips faster
etc... ad nauseum.
All of this is at the atomic level, but I do wonder how these things hold up to mechanical and thermal stress.
To stretch the silicon lattice, Intel deposits a film of silicon nitride over the whole transistor at high temperature. Because silicon nitride contracts less than silicon as it cools, it locks the silicon lattice beneath it in place with a wider spacing than it would normally adopt. This improves electron conduction by 10 per cent.
What temperature ranges does this become an issue? If my processor gets warm, will its performance decrease because the strain dissapeared?
Would mild mechanical stress on the chip (i.e. application of heat-sink) alter the strain?
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Still, Butler is frustrated with what he thinks of as myopia in the US computer business. "Europe and Japan have been investing in diamond semiconductor research," he says, citing the Japanese government's announcement in December that it would begin allocating $6 million a year to build a first-generation diamond chip. "Bob Linares has given the US the advantage, but nobody's paying any attention," he says. "If we're not careful, the Japanese or the Europeans are going to claim the diamond niche."
Indeed, Intel's top materials executives weren't aware of the latest research breakthroughs when I spoke to them in June, although they certainly understood the potential for diamonds in computing. "Diamonds represent a seismic change in semiconductors," says Krishnamurthy Soumyanath, Intel's director of communications circuits research. "It takes us about 10 years to evaluate a new material. We have a lot of investment in silicon. We're not about to abandon that."
Click here for full article.
In a response, AMD announced development of "stressed silicon", while VIA reportedly has only managed to "get their silicon slightly worried", according to one unnamed source. China, meanwhile, announced a multi-million dollar project to have silicon going into hysterics within five years.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
And the Intel fanboys make fun of the AMD fanboys? Very mature.
Intel and AMD both have a variety of technologies available to them, sometimes uniquely, sometimes shared or licensed.
Currently AMD holds the speed crown with the hammer series of chips. Before that, intel held the speed crown when the P4 series ramped up to the very high clockspeeds it was capable of. Before that, AMD held the speed crown when it beat intel soundly to 1GHz. Before that, intel was everything.
When you consider that now, AMD seems to be a low-end commodity CPU technology leader (first to get 64bit on the desktop and all), and intel have changed their plans by announcing work on an x86-64 CPU, but intel by far has a huge installed base and the same entrenched loyalty in consumers that Bill Gates enjoys (They are the biggest, most expensive company so their product is more reliable FUD).
I'm interested in seeing who will win out - the larger company with the market share (but less innovative product), or the innovator with a cheaper, more powerful product. I think intel will win, after observing the linux/windows market competition.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
If Linux could run all the programs that MS does, I would say your logic made some sense but the fact is that linux is "johny come lately" when 90% of the desktop was already tied to MS. Linux can't run everything that MS does and it is not realistic for most people to switch all software and everything they know to something completely new. That arguement does not hold true for the AMD/Intel market. What runs on Intel will run just as well on AMD with no change in user experience (often without any knowledge of what chip they are using).
I miss the Karma Whores.
There are several new technologies that either are speeding up chips, or will speed up chips, and the best part is that they'll all work together.
For some time, SOI (silicon-on-insulator) has been helping chip manufacturers squeeze out extra performance. And the straining of the silicon lattice (strained silicon) helps as well. And you can combine them into SSOI, strained-silicon-on-insulator.
Well, there's also one other technology that's been developed, called "fully depleted silicon". And guess what - it should/will be possible to make fully-depleted, strained silicon-on-insulator chips. (FDSSOI?)
Between moving to 90 nm, then 65nm, and then further, as well as integrating high-K dialectrics and fully-depleted, strained silicon-on-insulator manufacturing technologies, we've still got a lot of headroom to keep cranking out faster and faster processors. Moore's law has still got a long time to live. And that's even if we don't make any new breakthroughs, but my guess is that the chip makers will continue to pull aces out of their sleeves, so to speak.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
While technology could keep advancing for quite some time, that doesn't mean that advances will be economically feasible.
Take aircraft development, for example. The maximum speed advanced on a roughly exponential scale from 1903 through the mid 60s, culminating with an X-15 flight at around mach 6. Even today, researchers are tinkering around with models of aircraft faster than that. However, 99.99% of all passengers and cargo still move at the speed they did in 1960: about 500 mph. Why is this? Because fuel consumption and noise problems make it uneconomical to go faster than a 707. For air travel, every day reality has become decoupled from technological possiblity.
Likewise, CPU performance will almost certainly hit a wall where the power consumption makes it impractical for the average user to run more MIPS. Processor technology will continue to advance, but only for applications where power consumption is no object.
The problem is that when you can no longer target CPUs at the mass market, the potential revenue shrinks, so investment money dries up, slowing the development cycle. (This is a big part of the reason why 40 years after the X-15 and SR-71 we haven't come up with anything faster.) This will be the factor that ends exponential silicon CPU performance increases, even if there is no fundamental physical roadblock to producing faster processors.