Slashdot Mirror


Strained Silicon to Perpetuate Moore's Law

An anonymous reader noted a story floating around about a new technology known as strained silicon (or maybe 'Stained' since the article calls it both ;) which AMD & IBM figure will make CPUs 24% faster. A little bit on how it works as well, but not much substance.

230 comments

  1. More info... by Folmer · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:More info... by swordboy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just a note,

      Intel has been using strained silicon since Prescott. They made the same claims before releasing it. But we can see now that it really doesn't make much of a difference so they're removing the emphasis from clock speed and optimizing for lower speeds.

      Nothing to see here. Old news.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    2. Re:More info... by Squareball · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't spoil my dreams of a G5 PowerBook using this with a slower clock speed to bring it up to the current desktop G5's speed damn it! :)

    3. Re:More info... by ShadeARG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why not just link to all Google sources on this topic?

    4. Re:More info... by Bender_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And a slight addition: It does not perpetuate moores law, it is just mitigating the problems that occured with gate dielectric scaling.

      Moore's Law requires constant downscaling of the gate insulator in the transistor. Recently the industry came to a point where the tunnelling current through the insulator became so high that it is not possible to make it any thinner. This problem can be counteracted by increasing the channel mobility using strained silicon.

    5. Re:More info... by leathered · · Score: 3, Informative

      The news here is that IBM and AMD have perfected strained silicon with their Silicon on Insulator (SOI) process, an achievment that should lead to even better results than just strained bulk silicon.

      --
      For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    6. Re:More info... by phsdv · · Score: 2, Funny
      yes, you are correct.

      This only shows that anonymous readers, that apperently do not even know how a transistor looks like, should not be allowed to post articles about Si or CMOS technology on /.

      I guess I have to say now: oh wait, this is /. to get moderated funny?

    7. Re:More info... by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't let Prescott be the poster boy of any fab process. A look at Dothan on 90nm and strained silicon should provide a more accurate example of just how the process helps. Prescott is limited by its thermal properties and is a very transistor-wasteful design that the finest manufacturing process out there can't help. Given a more...sane design (say, Northwood, Banias, K8, PPC, etc.), the process definitely helps. Again, Dothan is a great example of a perfect process shrink and migration to strained silicon.

    8. Re:More info... by zaffir · · Score: 1

      If you listen to the Geeks In Space archives, there's one episode where they talk about strained silicon, and how they weren't sure what it was because the story in the submission bin required a wall street journal subscription.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    9. Re:More info... by wyohman · · Score: 1

      Moore's law = Moore bullshit From one graph in one research paper we derive this nonsense?

    10. Re:More info... by Technician · · Score: 1

      PDF including cross section SEM photos are on the Intel website.

      http://www.intel.com/research/downloads/bohr-str ai ned-silicon-120403.pdf

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  2. not just Strained Si, but DSL by tubbtubb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Strained Si methods have been around for awhile. The PowerPC 970FX uses it, for example.
    This method (called DSL, or "dual stress liner", not only stretches
    the NFETs, it compresses the PFETs.
    See a better article here.

    Also, IBM is awesome.

    1. Re:not just Strained Si, but DSL by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's distressed denim for all my CPU's. Or is it strained carrots? Whirled peas? Dangit!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:not just Strained Si, but DSL by Bob+Wehadababyitsabo · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the 970FX uses strained silicon on insulator (SSoI) cores, also increasing power effeciency.

      --
      fsck -u
    3. Re:not just Strained Si, but DSL by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but isn't Moore's Law complete bunk? I mean, if from 1980 the 4.77MHz would double every 18 months, today we'd have something like a 30GHZ processor.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    4. Re:not just Strained Si, but DSL by fwc · · Score: 1
      Excuse me, but isn't Moore's Law complete bunk? I mean, if from 1980 the 4.77MHz would double every 18 months, today we'd have something like a 30GHZ processor.

      Moore's law actually says we'd double the NUMBER OF TRANSISTORS, not actual speed. For this metric, it's pretty close.

    5. Re:not just Strained Si, but DSL by kd5ujz · · Score: 2, Informative
      Moore's law stated that the number of transistors on in an integrated circuit would double every 18 months, and thus processing power. It did not state frequency.

      This is the quote, from Moore's paper in 1965 that started it all.

      The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000.
      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    6. Re:not just Strained Si, but DSL by jaeson · · Score: 1
    7. Re:not just Strained Si, but DSL by Random832 · · Score: 1

      actually, moore's law says the transistors double every two years - the 18 months figure is a "performance" one based on transistors, clock speed, everything combined. [if i remember correctly]

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    8. Re:not just Strained Si, but DSL by Bedouin+X · · Score: 1

      And this has exactly what to do with their substantial technical innovations?

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
  3. Hmmm by Neil+Blender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    24% does not perpetuate moores law.

    1. Re:Hmmm by kenthorvath · · Score: 2, Informative
      24% does not perpetuate moores law.

      It does after about 3.23 iterations...

    2. Re:Hmmm by ViolentGreen · · Score: 2, Informative

      24% does not perpetuate moores law.

      Moore's Law has nothing to do with clock speed.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    3. Re:Hmmm by DLWormwood · · Score: 2, Informative
      24% does not perpetuate moores law.

      Yes, it does. But, only for about four months. Given that transistor density is supposed to roughly double every 18 months...

      0.24 x 18 months = 4 months and 10 days, or so

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    4. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24% does not perpetuate moores law.

      Moore's Law has nothing to do with clock speed.


      Did I say anything about speed? I said the increase does not perpetuate Moore's law. Christ, do I have to spell out everything I post so that a third grader can understand it?

      NB

    5. Re:Hmmm by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think it does, because it could mean about 5 months' perpetuation.

    6. Re:Hmmm by drMental · · Score: 2, Funny

      24% does not perpetuate moores law.

      Moore's Law [wikipedia.org] has nothing to do with clock speed.
      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.


      To use an analogy. A car today with one engine will have two engines in 18 months and four in 36 months.

    7. Re:Hmmm by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Replace Engine with Pistons or Horse Power and it makes more sense.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    8. Re:Hmmm by Sique · · Score: 2, Funny

      So I bought my car five years ago with 81kW (113 HP), and I could have bought a similar car for the same price with an 162kW engine 42 month ago, and half a year ago I should have been able to get a 32-piston-648kW (904 HP) car for the same money?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:Hmmm by MagnusDredd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Replying to your sig:

      Actually car analogies can work.

      It's just that the wrong analogy is used. Clock speed is analogous to engine RPM. Further extending the analogy is IPC is equivalent to gear ratios. So my car at 3000 RPM may do 70 MPH in 5th gear, while a porche at 3000 RPM may do 125 MPH in the same gear due to the higher gear ratio.

      Most people can understand that some chips can do more per cycle than others (IPC vs. gear ratio), and that a certain number of cycles (Mhz vs. RPM) is not an indicator of how fast you may be going/how much you get done.

      You are correct in that Moore's Law has nothing to do with clock speed.

      I am rather annoyed at the term "Moore's Law" in the first place however. It's not a law, theory, or hypothosis, it's an observation.

      The laws of physics are not like traffic laws, they cannot be disobeyed. If it can be, then it is disqualified as a physical law, and it doesn't matter anyway.

    10. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24% does not perpetuate moores law.

      Yes, it does. But, only for about four months. Given that transistor density is supposed to roughly double every 18 months...

      0.24 x 18 months = 4 months and 10 days, or so


      Could you point me to the company that releases next generation processors every 4 months? I want to buy some stock.

    11. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.

      No, but your sig is just like an obnoxious bumper sticker.

    12. Re:Hmmm by databyss · · Score: 0

      Adding more pistons adds more friction and overhead in running the engine.

      The horsepower wouldn't double simply by doubling the number of pistons.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    13. Re:Hmmm by Random832 · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually, you want 18 months * log[2](1.24) i.e. how often a 24% increase has to happen for it to double every 18 months

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    14. Re:Hmmm by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the benchmarks for the latest and greatest compared to the 3.06Ghz processors available 24 months ago?

      Adding transistors doesn't mean a linear speed increase either, not by a long shot.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    15. Re:Hmmm by DLWormwood · · Score: 1
      actually, you want 18 months * log[2]

      You're right, of course. Multiplying over time is logarithmic. I was just being snippy about the original knee-jerk reaction in the grandparent post.

      Pity you weren't the one who got the mod point, though...

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    16. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And speed was NEVER moores law. Which is the wrong way of thinking of it. Speed has just been along for the ride.

      Transistor count doubles about every two years. It is ALL about the cost of the chip. Total chip cost falls by half every two years. Because size gets smaller you can make more chips with the same amount of material. Also defects on the waffer while about the same do not take out as large % of the total chips produced by the waffer. Therfore you have more to sell.

      Cost akso falls as less packaging is needed. As you have 'integrated' surrounding chips into one. Less packaging means less cost. Most of the cost back when this became 'law' was in the package. These days I would be willing to bet a good portion is in manufacture steps and people.

      There is an excelent artical on ars about it...

      http://arstechnica.com/paedia/m/moore/moore-1.ht ml

      The 24% should be interesting as it will mean less heat. Heat for chips of this type mean failure. As this is mostly the point of strained silicon. To move more electricity more effeciantly. Since they are doing that they can crank up the clock speed a bit. On the same NUMBER of transistors. Or they can leave it the same speed and have a 'cooloer' chip that uses less power (aka laptops)...

    17. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imagine a beowolf cluster of these... anyone?

    18. Re:Hmmm by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      The laws of physics are not like traffic laws, they cannot be disobeyed. If it can be, then it is disqualified as a physical law, and it doesn't matter anyway.

      if you want to be anal about it than the laws of physics arent actually laws but are only theories that are right so often that we call them laws. Theres always the infentessimal chance for example that something will fall up instead of down, its just that the odds are so slim its not within reasonable (or even unreasonable) possibility.....

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    19. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Korea only old people obey the laws of physics.

    20. Re:Hmmm by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Don't take it personally. The number you used was in reference to the clock speed but it isn't clear what you mean. If spelling it out means communicating clearly instead of trying to get a first post then by all means do it.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  4. has to be done.. by CdBee · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you overclock any CPU by 24% it'll be strained.

    Or charred

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:has to be done.. by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      Depends on the CPU. The vast majority of Bartons and low-end P4Cs can do 40-50% just fine, let alone 24%. My 2.4 can run 3.6 pretty easily. And a 1.8Ghz Barton can often hit 2.6Ghz.

  5. IBM Does it again by Erect+Horsecock · · Score: 5, Informative
    Strained silicon is not new tech, it's a couple of years old. The idea (at least the way IBM does it) the silicon wafer is "doped" with germanium which causes the lattice of the Si atoms to spread out further which allows carriers to travel faster across the transistor.
    The germanium is removed to help improve power consumption even further and lower core temps. This is where the IBM and Intel process differ. Intel does not remove the doping material from the wafers, and well... We see how that has affected their CPUs at 90 NM.
    The new process only dopes the silicon under certain types of ICs and not others..

    Actually Zdnet described it better so I'll just quote them
    In DSL, different straining materials are applied to the top of the transistor layer and then etched away from where they aren't needed or from where they can even degrade performance. Materials that create tensile strain to benefit N-channel transistors are applied across the surface of the wafer; chemical etching then removes those materials away from the P-channel transistors.

    Subsequently, a layer of material for compressing the silicon lattice, which benefits the P-channel transistors, is applied and etched. The materials for straining N-channel or P-channel transistors can be applied in either order.

    "On the P-channel transistors, you want to increase the density of atoms because the holes can move more quickly," said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight 64.

    Kepler did not disclose the materials used but said they were fairly conventional nitride films and inexpensive. Plus, applying the straining materials after the transistor layer is complete is easier.


    If anything this will finally allow for a G5 Powerbook and a
    --
    I hope you die painfully and alone.
    1. Re:IBM Does it again by Erect+Horsecock · · Score: 1

      that should be "Allow for a G5 powerbook and an Athlon64 in notebook that isn't a desktop replacement"

      --
      I hope you die painfully and alone.
    2. Re:IBM Does it again by PhotoBoy · · Score: 1

      IIRC Intel doesn't remove the doping because it's an IBM (or possibly AMD) patented process and they'd have to pay a license for it.

    3. Re:IBM Does it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe Strained Silicon was invented by Gene Fitzgerald who was working for Bell Labs in 1991! The spinoff company Amberwave was bought by IBM. IBM and Intel have done many great things in the world of semiconductors but you must give credit where it is due.

      http://www.amberwave.com/newsevents/pressreleases2 001_003.php
      Halfway down under Senior Managment

    4. Re:IBM Does it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good post, Erect Horsecock.

  6. works by... by cervisco · · Score: 0, Funny

    Reports are the strained silicon technology works by collecting the mammary secretions of exhausted porn stars...

  7. Doesn't make cpu's 24% faster by neomage86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This technique will allow transistors to react 24% faster. That doesn't neccesarily translate into faster cpus. For example, if this makes transistors run hotter, they will have to lower density. Furthermore, Intel already uses a version of this.

    1. Re:Doesn't make cpu's 24% faster by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      This technique will allow transistors to react 24% faster. That doesn't neccesarily translate into faster cpus. For example, if this makes transistors run hotter, they will have to lower density. Furthermore, Intel already uses a version of this.

      Well, they claimed that it doesn't affect, or even marginally decreases, power consumption.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    2. Re:Doesn't make cpu's 24% faster by dbacher · · Score: 1

      However, Intel's approach (as stated in several of the articles linked here) can't be produced on standard assembly lines, and requires what IBM described as a "technologically unfeasible" process to produce chips, while apparently the new approach runs on standard manufacturing equipment.

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
    3. Re:Doesn't make cpu's 24% faster by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. This technology reduces the resistivity of silicon, allowing for smaller transistors, and therefore, more transistors per chip. This means that clock rates overall may be increased. It is true that intel already uses a version of this technology, but that's hardly relevant, since IBM does as well.

    4. Re:Doesn't make cpu's 24% faster by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Sure, more effecient, same power usage, that extra energy has to go somewhere, so it goes into heat.

      What extra energy?

      Essentially all the energy put into a computer goes into heat. A small amount comes out as light (from LEDs, cold cathode if you're a modder, and monitor if you count it), sound (clicky hard drive, fans and speakers), radio waves (see: tempest attack; please shut down computers before landing), and kinetic energy (from convection and/or fannage) but the vast majority is heat. This is especially true of the CPU.

      Therefore, at the same power consumption, two CPUs will produce almost exactly the same amount of heat. When they talk about efficiency, this is in terms of computations done vs power consumed and heat produced.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    5. Re:Doesn't make cpu's 24% faster by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      "Computation power," while requiring energy (computation in general is thermodynamically unfavorable) does not actually output energy from the CPU. It all goes into heat, radio waves, etc, and into power from the output pins. This power is not included in power consumption, and even it is eventually consumed (turned into heat) by capacitance on the motherboard and such.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  8. By no means new by brucmack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This technology is by no means new... It's in both Intels and AMD's 90 nm offerings, and it has been discussed for years.

    This is a good article (from 2002!).

    1. Re:By no means new by hawkbug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really... read it again, they talk about removing the stuff from the new CPUs for AMD and IBM. From what I understand Intel does not remove it.

  9. Stained Silicon huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that what you get if your computer is sitting too close with the case cover off, during your one-handed surfing?

    1. Re:Stained Silicon huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be talking about
      strained beets.

    2. Re:Stained Silicon huh? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Strained Silicon is the status of your girfriends breats after a 2 hour intermammae

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
  10. Strained silicone? by RandoX · · Score: 3, Funny

    There has to be an implant joke in here someplace...


    //Yes, I know silicon != silicone.

    1. Re:Strained silicone? by Bobdoer · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that it's rarely the silicone that's straining.

    2. Re:Strained silicone? by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      And it starts:

      "Anna Nicole Smith walks into a chip fabrication facility..."

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    3. Re:Strained silicone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you get modded funny just for mentioning the possibility of a joke?

  11. It's strained by jayteedee · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's strained silicon which gets it's name from stretching the silicon.

    http://www.intel.com/labs/features/si12031.htm

    http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/press/strain edsilicon/

    --
    Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
  12. Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful



    The time it takes for a signal to propagate down a wire is now much more important than it used to be.

    A 24% increase in transistor speed is not going to instantly create a 24% faster processor.

    Slow wires (relative to transistor speeds) will soon dominate.

    1. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this has been the case for some time. Faster transistors do not help the fact that side wall capacitance is starting to really dominate timing with thinner wires that are still relatively thick (and closer together now).

    2. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Hmmm i can imagine a dialogue between a the wires and the electrons in a chip.

      Electrons:Look! strained silicon! SUPER SPEED! 24% w00t!

      Wires: NOT SO FAST!

    3. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by Ianoo · · Score: 1

      You're quite right.

      Light can only travel around a metre during the tick of a clock on a 3GHz processor. Electrons are significantly slower than that.

      Wire delays already dominate. The next big thing may be unclocked designs (although faster transistors will always help!).

    4. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wire delays are not because the electrons move slowly. Electrical energy can move faster than individual electrons.

    5. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The time it takes for a signal to propagate down a wire is now much more important than it used to be. A 24% increase in transistor speed is not going to instantly create a 24% faster processor. Slow wires (relative to transistor speeds) will soon dominate.

      Wait -- I'm getting confused here! You're using Amdahl's Law to clarify a point about Moore's Law? :-)

    6. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by Preferred+Customer · · Score: 1

      Yes, this reminds me of something I can't figure out. It's a string of marbles thing. Imagine a string of marbles stretching from NY to CA all touching one another. Push on the first marble in NY. How long before the last marble in CA moves?

      Does it move immediately, or does a pressure wave or something have to propagate along the string? Seems that if it moved immediately, a signal would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

      Can someone enlighten me please?

    7. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by innosent · · Score: 1

      umm, did the marble from NY suddenly show up in CA? If you push on a marble, each marble down the line will move the distance you pushed it, at the speed you pushed it. It's not like pushing on a marble suddenly makes it appear across the country.

      --
      --That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
    8. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by Preferred+Customer · · Score: 1

      But the marbles are all touching so they move together at the same time. Or, substitute a stiff, long iron bar for the marbles. That is, the bar is 1 inch high, 1 inch thick, and about 2500 miles long. You push on the end of the bar in NY. When does the end in CA move?

    9. Re:Transistors 24% faster, NOT processors. by innosent · · Score: 1

      Assuming a non-compressible substance is used, immediately. The same force acts on the marbles or bar at every point along the bar.

      --
      --That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
  13. Spelling Errors? by Grey_14 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It Really really makes me sad, to see CmdrTaco making a jab at someone elses spelling error...

    1. Re:Spelling Errors? by se2schul · · Score: 1

      Spelling errors aren't nearly as annoying as comma splices ;) Hello pot, this is the kettle... ss

    2. Re:Spelling Errors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, it Certainly certainly is, sad.

    3. Re:Spelling Errors? by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

      Spelling errors aren't nearly as annoying as comma splices ;) Hello pot, this is the kettle... ss

      El Duchi, is that, you,?!

      --

      If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

    4. Re:Spelling Errors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is only one comma in the OP's sentence. While it is unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence, it is (barely) acceptable when you consider that commas are commonly used to denote where pauses would exist in the sentence if spoken. The sentence would thus have an unusual pause in it, but one that might be considered to lend weight to the feeling of sadness the OP professes.

      If you really wanted to criticise the post, you should comment on the capital 'R' in the first "really", and the lack of a comma between both "really"s :)

  14. Not 'new' but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a more recent development than cheese.

  15. Perpetuates? by hanssprudel · · Score: 0


    Moore's law says that the speed of processors should double every 18 months. At that rate, 24% is the increase in speed of a little more than 5 months.

    1. Re:Perpetuates? by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 1

      Moore's law says that the speed of processors should double every 18 months.

      Moore's law is about the number of transistors per square inch doubling every 18 months, not the speed of the processor

    2. Re:Perpetuates? by chemical_9 · · Score: 1

      Moore's law says that the speed of processors should double every 18 months.

      Moore's law actually says the number of transistors will double every 18 months. This doesn't necessarily mean that the speed will double. I don't think the speed of the transistor has too much to do with Moore's law, unless the speed of the transistors has some connection to the number of them on a chip.

    3. Re:Perpetuates? by aceat64 · · Score: 1

      Moore's law states that the number of transistors will double roughly every 18 months.

      Wikipedia article

    4. Re:Perpetuates? by Stripsurge · · Score: 1

      I think its finally time for a new type of mod point: -1 for misquoting Moore's "Law"

    5. Re:Perpetuates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I don't think the speed of the transistor has too much to do with Moore's law, unless the speed of the transistors has some connection to the number of them on a chip"

      Well, it does. Smaller transistors obviously mean that you can fit more on a fixed size chip, and has also helped improve traditional limitations on transistor speed like gate capacitance.

      The link between transistor size and speed is not perfect, but certainly there is a fairly strong correlation.

    6. Re:Perpetuates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he said the density of transistors would increase at that rate (number of transistors per square inch). This is mostly due to transistors shrinking. Generally speaking, smaller transistors are faster. And putting them closer together also reduces propagation (i.e. wire) delay. While this doesn't necessarily translate into performance doubling, his prediction definitely implied that performance would also increase. And that doesn't even take into account using the additional transistors for more cache or other architectural improvements.

      (Though as others have pointed out, transistors are getting faster at a faster rate than wires are shrinking, so propagation delay is becoming a bigger and bigger factor.)

  16. No, not the speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What AMD & IBM and all other manufacturers failed to realize is that to generate sales, you don't have to make CPUs 24% faster, but to make CPUs in pretty colors and different shapes. A processor with flashing neons while playing a cute little tune would become the next big thing. Add to this the ability to play games and watch videos directly on the processor and you are on your way to richness.

    1. Re:No, not the speed by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Because that works so well for the Mac ;)

    2. Re:No, not the speed by hunterx11 · · Score: 1
      A processor with flashing neons while playing a cute little tune would become the next big thing.

      The next big thing? I read on /. that they were going to stop production of the Pentium II. I assume this means that the moon suit disco parties are going to end.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
  17. Get to the heart of it by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0, Redundant
    What it appears is that IBM has a better process for this than Intel because IBM has less changes to make otherwise than Intel's process (which leaves the Germanium behind) does. This is good for IBM and its partners.

    What is unclear is if this 24% speed improvement is solely due to this new process, or is part of several IBM technologies together.

    As a result, best to wait and learn some more before going out and selling all your Intel stock.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Get to the heart of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the cost of germanium is not sky high in the quantities required to implement IBMs technique, pennies saved are pennies earned, right?

      Is it possible that the brainiacs at IBM could recover and reuse the germanium they remove?

  18. Per cent by Gates82 · · Score: 1
    It is hard to trust a source that uses per cent instead of percent and does not differentiate between strained and stained.

    --
    Who is hotter? Ali or Ali's sister?

    1. Re:Per cent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Per cent" is perfectly legitimate. It's from French (a language you're too dumb to understand, I know), and it means 'per one hundred.' As in, 24 per 100==24%.

      Duh, you ass-faced fucktard.

  19. simplify the instruction set. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I don't understand why, a minute ago, when I clicked on Read More, so I could post my reply to this (I know a lot about this subject), the damn /. thing said "Nothing to see here. Moving right along." There was no story, no reply button, nothing.

    So you idiots won't get to see what I was going to say about this subject.

    ...

    Ok, ok. I'll say what I was gonna say. Combine strained silicon with 0.13 micron, super cooling, and, say, 1 volt, with a simpler instruction set, where each instruction is executed in, say, four clocks, and you could get the equivalent of 8 ghz performance (say, if you extrapolate the performance of current 2 ghz Intel processors) out of a processor running at, say, 2 ghz. That is my estimate.

    Actually, I think the most ridiculous thing about today's processors is the fact that their instruction set is so damn complicated that the processor spends a ton of time just decoding the instructions. Why not, instead, simplify the instruction set, based on studies of patterns of code produced by contemporary compilers, and increase the speed of execution without having to increase the clock, strain the silicon, etc...

    Believe it or not, I know of a computer that was built in the late 70's that could multiply numbers faster than today's fastest Pentiums can. It was a 4-bit computer, with a 16-bit instruction set, and each instruction had within it two instructions and a sub-instruction. The computer was dirt slow, but the instruction set was designed according to the needed software patterns, so that things got executed FAST. The guy who built that computer was a true hacker, not the contemporary h4x0rz that invent the psychopath instruction sets of today's processors.

    1. Re:simplify the instruction set. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to 1980, look up the term RISC.

    2. Re:simplify the instruction set. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Believe it or not, I know of a computer that was built in the late 70's that could multiply numbers faster than today's fastest Pentiums can.

      Believe it or not, I know of a computer that built in the 20s that could multiply numbers faster than than your 70s computer. It was a single bit computer, with 2 bit instruction set. Of course they didn't have alot of memory, so the input to this computer was just two buttons. The guy who built that computer was a true hacker, not the contemporary h4x0rz that invent the psychopath instruction sets of today's processors.

    3. Re:simplify the instruction set. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The computer was dirt slow, but the instruction set was designed according to the needed software patterns

      In case you didn't realise, we already have our needed software, and no matter how inefficient, Intel and AMD are our bitches and have to make CPUs that run our software. In your fantasy land all this can be changed but until then, stop whining.

    4. Re:simplify the instruction set. by anagama · · Score: 1

      • Believe it or not, I know of a computer that was built in the late 70's that could multiply numbers faster than today's fastest Pentiums can.

      I wonder if this really is flamebait or an unfair mod. I'd really like to know but there are no citations accompanying it. A quick google search isn't all that helpful although there are some brief summaries of mechanical computers and the like around (referencing a response to the original post which mentioned a fast one from the 20's - a joke I'm sure). Can anyone substantiate this guy's claims or certify them as bunk? It's an interesting statement but seems quite hard to believe.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:simplify the instruction set. by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

      Well now...
      Transmeta has a self optimizing 'microcode' so no bitch there.

    6. Re:simplify the instruction set. by Ffakr · · Score: 1

      First off.. I don't believe you (about the 70's chip being faster than today's fastest Pentium[IV]s)

      Second.. what you are describing is NOT general purpose CPU but a very very simple DSP or ASIC. DSPs are designed for specific purposes and they run those calculations much faster than a general purpose cpu.. but the problem is, they aren't well suited to doing things like Compression, 3D, and running your word processor at the same time. You want to simplify the instruction set so much that it isn't useful as a computer processor?

      third.. REAL RISC, like Alphas, have been proven to be very very fast, but wait till you need to do a calculation that you don't have an instruction for.. then you're building an algorithm with various instructions and that is NOT faster. Back when Alpha's were destroying x86 and PPC boxes in a lot of benchmarks, the Pentium and the PPC even more so would absolutely obliterate it in RC5 bruteforce cracking. Why? Because the Alpha didn't have a required instruction in hardware so they had to work around that in code.

      fourth.. I've absolutely no idea what you are talking about with 8GHz performance? What's super cooling? Liquid Nitrogen? Strained Silicon won't get anything like a modern processor to run at 1 volt on .13 micron unless you clock it really low. And why is a 4 stage pipe going to magically make this chip as fast as an 8 GHz PentiumX? Because it has a lower latency of ticks? If the latency is 4 ticks but it runs at 200MHz.. and your P4 has a latency of 25 ticks and it runs at 3000 MHz.. the P4 has a lower latency BY TIME! That's what really matters isn't it?

      finally.. I wish you luck with your 8000+ (pr rating of course) box that can only add and subtract. I'm sure it will be a fabulous computing experience.

      --

      I'm not feeling witty so bite me

    7. Re:simplify the instruction set. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      No chance. First, the poster has no clue about modern processors -- that stuff about a 4-cycle "simplified" instruction set performing like an 8ghz processor was pure nonsense -- so I doubt he actually knows anything about historical computers either. Nevertheless, since a modern processor (e.g. 2Ghz K8) can perform a 64-bit multiply in 2 ns, there's simply no way 70's tech could even come close.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:simplify the instruction set. by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Believe it or not, I know of a computer that was built in the late 70's that could multiply numbers faster than today's fastest Pentiums can.
      Sure, sure, *you* know of this computer, but you'd never reveal your sources, or they have died, or whatever. A useless statement. You're also being disingenuous with your description of how fast it is. It would be impossible for a 4-bit computer to be faster than a 32-bit computer at multiplying 32-bit words. You're also ignoring the issue of clock speed. Yes, we have deep pipelines now, and your hypothetical simple machine might beat a deeply pipelined machine right as the race starts, but it'll eventually be left in the dust as the pipeline fills up.
    9. Re:simplify the instruction set. by omb · · Score: 1
      Absolute nonsense

      RISC cpus, run, as a main instruction set, exactly the same instruction set that makes up the x86 microcode, ie no Pentium/AMD actually executes the x86 intruction set, it mearly interprets it; huge numbers of transistors are used for optimisations eg Register Renaming.

      This is a systems/application availability issue.

      When the current monopoly is broken, RISC cpu architectures, using 64 bit ALU, and probably statistical (huffman) op-code compressinion will be the future.

      Finally, remember that RISC was, almost, an accident --- (Google RISC Peterson Berkeley)

    10. Re:simplify the instruction set. by omb · · Score: 1
      OK I do UNDERSTAND that hardly anyone understands contemporary technology history or design, BUT

      (a) in the 70's there were both 32 and 60+ architectures made by IBM and CDC; these were computers, not chips and 32/36/48/60/64/80 bit ALUs were common (b) the dominant technology was bi-polar not cmos; and bipolar is faster, saturated bipolar is wire!

      (c) ALU layering and SaturatedCarryPath (Kilburn) adders mean that you can build much faster multipliers in this technology since the ALU is unclocked, and knows when it is finished, in each multiply step

      Thus the design of the mill can be much more agressive. You can use an asynchrounous element in a synchronous design, but not in FET designs where capacitance rulers

      The sense of the original post, 4 bit micros eg the 4004 have nothing to do with this.

  20. Not a perpetual solution. by flaming-opus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Strained silicon is a great technology. you get 30% (or whatever) better electron mobility, which makes for faster capaciter discharge, and thus faster transister switching, and reduced heat generated in the process. However, you can't strain it much more than they already have. It bought the lithography folks another few hundred megahertz, but it's not going to keep moore's law alive for another couple decades, at least not by itself.

    Strained silicon doesn't really address the two big problems facing silicon lithography: leakage current, and the ever rising costs of dynamic power costs. Even with strained silicon there are still hundreds of millions of capacitors, each charging and dischanrging billions of times a second. If the frequency increases by some number X and the number of caps increases by some number Y, you have to drop the charge on each cap by X*Y or the dynamic power usage goes up. Furthermore, leakage current, which used to contribute almost nothing to the energy needs of a CPU, now makes up a good percent of the electrical and heat budgets. The drains are just too close to the body. There are too few atoms of semiconductor to act as a resistor.

    It's a nice one-time speed bump, but it does solve the hard problems, just puts them off for another year.

    1. Re:Not a perpetual solution. by flaming-opus · · Score: 1

      Oops. -DOESN'T solve the hard problems, just puts them off-

    2. Re:Not a perpetual solution. by ajs · · Score: 1

      "It's a nice one-time speed bump, but it does solve the hard problems, just puts them off for another year."

      I think that's kind of the point to ML. After all, if we suddenly discovered a way to increase density by 10x, then we'd have defeated ML.

    3. Re:Not a perpetual solution. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      They key aspect here should be the control over the threshold voltage by using Ge of different mole fractions. In the context of the long channel V_t model, we can also control this by controlling the substrate bias. The published theories indicate that the V_t plateaus out with gate length. This threshold voltage shift is the key advantage that strained Si offers over Buld Si. This technology seems to offer a nice possibility.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    4. Re:Not a perpetual solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please make up your mind on whether to use -er or -or. I'd recommend using -or.

    5. Re:Not a perpetual solution. by Bender_ · · Score: 1


      Well.. consider two things: 1) Vt control is already possible by controlling the work function of the gate and the channel doping. 2) There aint no such thing as substrate bias in SOI.

    6. Re:Not a perpetual solution. by XchristX · · Score: 0

      http://ej.iop.org/links/q48/LstL+NKIoZOJ2EVKEr,5vQ /sst4_9_l01.pdf

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  21. Strained Layer Superlattices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    *If* this is a strained-layer-superlattice, the technology is at least 20 years old, having been used in Solar Cells in the 80s (see nrel.gov ).

    Alternating thin layers of different lattice constant materials can change the semiconductors properties, in particular, the bandgap. It is possible to turn Si into a direct-bandgap material (like GaAs) this way.

    The problem in large scale mfg (back then) was eliminating crystaline defects.

  22. Durability? by rewt66 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Strained" is exactly that, the silicon lattice is under strain. What does this do to the durability of the chip? Does it make the chip more subject to breaking from physical shock (dropping your laptop, for example)? Does it make the chip more subject to failure from the stress of power-up?

    1. Re:Durability? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Straining the silicon may have no impact on it's strenght and may still be benefical (strainig stell can make it much more strong, at least). But this have nothing to do with the computer strenght that is limited bu the board not by the microprocessor's chip.

    2. Re:Durability? by Sean+Johnson · · Score: 1

      RTFA: it means the atoms are streched further apart so there are less collisions for the negative charges to go through.

      It would be the definition of strained in this sense: "To pull, draw, or stretch tight: strained the sheets over the bed.", instead of in this sense:
      "To exert or tax to the utmost: straining our ears to hear."

      --
      >>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
    3. Re:Durability? by corngrower · · Score: 1

      Maybe its more like pre-stressed. That's what makes concrete beams on bridges and overpasses stronger.

  23. Re:amd64/opteron clock speeds by cyngus · · Score: 1

    Ummm, no. Its going to take a lot more than that to do Intel in. They've been the leading maker of x86 processors, well, pretty much since there were x86 processors. They are not going to dissappear over night.

  24. Just buy a mac :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Macs use IBM chips. This is how Mac is the fastest PC ever !!!

    Just buy a mac :-)

    1. Re:Just buy a mac :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 no DoOd! Da mAc is da FaStEst sOuPEr comPooTer evAR@!!@!!@11!

  25. In the current issue of... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    Science & Vie has an article on a new form of carbon that might replace silicon.

    I have the paper edition here... professor Andre Geim scraped a small slice of graphite until he got it down to just one atom thick... it's called "graphene" (in French), for which he discovered interesting properties.

    This material was already known, but its properties unknown because previous methods of making it produced unstable graphene.

    1. Re:In the current issue of... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      it's called "graphene" (in French), for which he discovered interesting properties.

      Graphene's akin to the new carbon nanotubes recently used to make ultra-fast transistors and other cool stuff.

  26. The major problem is design tools, not technology by StandardCell · · Score: 4, Informative

    The major Electronic Design Automation tool vendors today have yet to come up with effective ways on how to design with and verify very high gate densities devices on the digital side. If you think that 90nm is easy, ask Intel's Prescott core team on why they think 100W out of a processor is "normal". It's not just power, for example, but clock/power gating melding efficiently with the functional aspect of the design. Power analysis and signal integrity (i.e. crosstalk) design flows are only getting more and more complex, and more designs require respins to the tune of almost a million dollars per mask set.

    Let's also not forget the analog world, since analog CMOS is notoriously difficult to design linearly across +/- 10% voltage ranges and through temperature and process variations. The problem was bad in 0.18um, very bad in 0.13um, awful now in 90nm and a nightmare in 65nm. All the secondary transistor effects that affect the usually "normal" operating points of logic gates only make things worse for the analog and mixed signal designers. This is not only for integrated analog and mixed signal interfaces but also for on-chip phase/delay lock loops and other assorted necessary goodies.

    Nobody has the design expertise or the tools to effectively model all of these phenomena and get them working as efficiently as they'd like. In my experience, it's more of a hack and check mentality that is increasingly pervasive. Once you've stuffed so much analog and digital together, trying to functionally verify it to a particular degree of certainty is a major hassle. Data sets are getting astronomically larger, and simulations are still AFAIK not able to be multi-threaded, leaving you at the mercy of your computing power. Sure, you can use strained silicon and SOI to help you out, but you can't ignore the rest of the design issues because they will only get worse. This is where the EDA tool vendors like Cadence, Synopsys, Mentor Graphics and the rest of them need to come up with some more innovative ways of doing business. Otherwise, we'll have a lot of technology that is manufacturable but cannot be designed with.

  27. Moore's Law: Actual Definition by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Actually Moore's Law says that the number of transistors per square inch in an integrated circuit will double every 18 months. While this has roughly translated into 2x speed increases in the same period, this has mostly been coincidental.

    Linky

    Google is your friend.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  28. Where will Intel go? by eddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, but what are they going to do with their desktop x86-CPUs during 2005? The P4 is dead in the water at just below 4GHz. The dual-cores and above aren't ready for another 12 months.

    When was the last time that nothing happened to a processor line for twelve months? The P4 in its various incarnations is their main desktop platform and its offspring (Xeons) are on the server side too.

    I guess they could push the Pentium-M for desktops, but... let's just say that they've sort of made their bed with the gigahertz-race.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:Where will Intel go? by jarich · · Score: 1
      No, but what are they going to do with their desktop x86-CPUs during 2005?

      You underestimate the power that is Intel!

      They'll hire more blue guys and release the P4-Zooper Speedy edition (a P4 with a cool sticker on it) and win it on marketing alone.

      I'm only half joking, sadly enough...

    2. Re:Where will Intel go? by 0racle · · Score: 1

      they've sort of made their bed with the gigahertz-race
      Yes intel is doomed because of course, nothing ever changes

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:Where will Intel go? by avandesande · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its funny that the blue guys only seem to show up when intel is getting its ass kicked. Last time I saw those stupid commercials was when the athalon hit 1000 ghz, now they are back!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Where will Intel go? by SenorChuck · · Score: 1

      Wow.. where do I get one of these 1000GHz processors? That's gotta produce some serious BTUs!

      --
      A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
    5. Re:Where will Intel go? by KingPunk · · Score: 0

      i'd like to order a shelf full please!
      and intel said AMD had nothing on them. ;)
      whew, 1000GHZ .. must i say that this perpetuate moore's law?

    6. Re:Where will Intel go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what changes will be made to the P4 line while Intel is bringing dual core to the market? they'll release prescott 2M, doubling the cache. what isn't talked about much is the performance hit, or more, the performance rearrangement that will come right along with dual cores. a dual 3.2GHz P4 system won't compete with a single 3.8, it won't be as prone too delays, but average performance will suffer, so you may have to wait an extra half a blink of an eye come '05.

  29. Nope. by eddy · · Score: 1

    Moore's law says that the speed of processors

    No it doesn't.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  30. More processors and more cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even as we approach Moore's stump, or maybe it's just a dog leg (a stumpy moorish dog leg?), L1 cache is getting bigger and faster. Faster switches are making 2 x CPU processors and faster off CPU buses practical. The AMD 'Opterons' will not be so dear as to be out of reach of the 'average' PEECEE using guy.

    We don't need no stinkin Moore's law!

    Ever consider that Al Gore might have cost you your job? Yes, with 'the internet' anyone who works at a job that may be done remotely has a whole bunch of competition!

  31. Summary: by pb · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. Note that strained silicon is already in use.
    2. Extra nerd points for quoting what Moore's law *really* states!
    3. [...] No profit for you!

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    1. Re:Summary: by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      " 2. Extra nerd points for quoting what Moore's law *really* states!"

      This question is predicated on there being an official "Moore's Law". There isn't. Just a lot of paraphrases of a prediction Gordon Moore made back in the 60's that should the trend at that time continue, computing power would double every year.


      Do I get double extra nerd points?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    2. Re:Summary: by pb · · Score: 1

      See 3. :)

      --
      pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    3. Re:Summary: by Sean+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Do I get extra-super-duper nerd points for pointing out that Gordon Moore mande this statement in the seventies rather than the sixties?

      --
      >>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
    4. Re:Summary: by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Actually it was in 1965. Here is a link to a summary on Intel's site, along with a link to the origional paper published in April, 1965:

      http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.ht m

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  32. Re:amd64/opteron clock speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With luck AMD'll be a goner too soon, along with the whole crufty x86 architecture and the x86-64 band-aid on a leak in the dam.

  33. Teach Chip to eat his 'strained silly cone' by crovira · · Score: 1

    I think I'd hate to be called Chip.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  34. Re:Moore's Law: Actual Definition by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

    Thank you. I posted something similar above (including the same link.) That seems to be a common misconception around here.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  35. Stained Silicon... by vurg · · Score: 1

    ...sounds like a good title for a porn movie about a nerd whose life is about to turn around.

  36. Moore's Law? by jtbauki · · Score: 1

    There is so much wrong with the phrase "Moore's Law". First of all, it's not a LAW! As members of the science and engineering community, we understand that a Law is one of the highest designations we can give a phenomena. It implies that there exists consistent empirical evidence for the phenomena. Evolution and Relativity have far more evidence yet they are still theories. Second, why is Moore getting so much credit for what the engineers and scientists at Intel and AMD are doing? The scientists and engineers are the one that are developing new technology and advancing the speed of the CPU. Moore did nothing more than point out an interesting statistic. Maybe they should credit Newton for inventing gravity. "Newton's Law of Gravity." Sorry for my rant. I dont' know why "Moore's Law" bothers me, but it does.

    1. Re:Moore's Law? by k98sven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's nothing wrong with "Moore's Law".

      As members of the science and engineering community, we understand that a Law is one of the highest designations we can give a phenomena. It implies that there exists consistent empirical evidence for the phenomena. Evolution and Relativity have far more evidence yet they are still theories.

      What a load of utter rubbish. The reason some things are named 'laws' and some things are named 'theories' has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of them. Things were called 'laws' back in the 17th-19th century when a lot of people actually thought that they embodied some exact and final property of nature. None of them did.

      The truth is, that most of the things called 'laws' are exactly like 'Moore's law': an ad-hoc mathematical description of an empirical observation.

      Boyle's law, Hooke's law, Avogadro's law, Newton's law of gravity, Ohm's law, Arrhenius' law, and so on and so on. All of these laws were derived essentially the same way: By fitting a curve to experimental data.
      Boyle and Avogadro didn't know what a gas was made up of. Arrhenius did not understand statistical thermodynamics, Newton did not understand gravity.

      Now the theories you refer to, are something completely different in both rigor and how well the describe things. For instance the 'theory of relativity' is based on a set of basic postulates, from which the rest follows mathematically.

      Einstein did not go out and measure the relationship of mass and speed and fit a curve to it. He made a few assumptions (some of which noone had dare make before) and worked out the physical consequences, arriving at something which just-so-happens to match reality far better than Newton's fitting-the-simplest-curve approach did.

    2. Re:Moore's Law? by jtbauki · · Score: 1

      Boyle's law, Hooke's law, Avogadro's law, Newton's law of gravity, Ohm's law, Arrhenius' law, and so on and so on. All of these laws were derived essentially the same way: By fitting a curve to experimental data. Boyle and Avogadro didn't know what a gas was made up of. Arrhenius did not understand statistical thermodynamics, Newton did not understand gravity. The difference here lies in the fact that those laws are based on physical properties of the universe! Moore's law is dependent on humans to develop technology. We could, in theory, stop advancing technology thus stopping Moore's law. We can't, however, prevent gas from being related inversely between pressure and volume.

    3. Re:Moore's Law? by agrippa_cash · · Score: 1

      So you believe that the Murphey's Law influenced the designation of Moore's Law as such?

    4. Re:Moore's Law? by jtbauki · · Score: 1

      Yes, the designation "law" is being overused

      I don't know why everyone keeps defending Moore's law. In time, it'll be broken. Just like the curse of the Bambino. Then, what will those people say about Moore's law?

    5. Re:Moore's Law? by k98sven · · Score: 1

      The difference here lies in the fact that those laws are based on physical properties of the universe!

      So how do you reconcile this with your previous definition of 'law' being 'the highest designation we [the science and engineering community] can give phenomena' and also mentioning evolution, which is hardly a 'physical property of the universe' by any account.

      Moore's law is dependent on humans to develop technology. We could, in theory, stop advancing technology thus stopping Moore's law. We can't, however, prevent gas from being related inversely between pressure and volume.

      Moore's law is an approximation of the speed of computer development, made at a specific point in time. Noone, and certainly not Moore himself, would ever claim it would be valid forever.

      We can certainly prevent gas from being related inversely between pressure and volume. Try increasing the pressure. The ideal gas law is an approximation, which is actually only valid as the limit when the pressure drops to zero. If you increase the pressure enough, the gas will eventually liquify, something which Boyle's law of gases doesn't account for at all.

      Again, a 'law' is an ad-hoc empirical description. All these physical laws have certain ranges of validity.

      For the gas law, it's when the pressure approaches zero. Ohm's law only applies to Ohmic materials. Hooke's law only applies to small deformations (and is rather crude despite that), and so on.

      Moore's law is only applicable to the late 20th-early 21st century. So?

    6. Re:Moore's Law? by cot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Einstein did not go out and measure the relationship of mass and speed and fit a curve to it. He made a few assumptions (some of which noone had dare make before) and worked out the physical consequences, arriving at something which just-so-happens to match reality far better than Newton's fitting-the-simplest-curve approach did."

      I think you're selling classical physics short. Newton's laws are hardly just empirical rules of thumb. I think there's hardly anything as beautiful in its simplicity as the principle of least action, and classical mechanics is embodied in it.

      Kepler's laws fit your description fairly well, but Newton's laws were and still are rather profound in their scope.

      --

    7. Re:Moore's Law? by n1vux · · Score: 1
      Moore's Law and Murphy's Law (USAF, WP) were both apparently named with concious irony (*, **). Debating their status as Natural Laws is so 19th Century, and would probably amuse those who named them.

      The amazing thing is how well Moore's law has stood up against repeated Malthusian forecasts of its demise. One still presumes that the fences of quantum uncertainty, relativistic delay, and heat production will prevent Moore's law from continuing number of device doubling indefinitely, without major paradigm shift (async to beat the clock?reversible to beat heat & entropy? optical? quantum?), but mere technological advances may continue far beyond my Malthusian imagination.


      ================
      Cole's Law -- Finely Sliced Cabbage with dressing.

    8. Re:Moore's Law? by jtbauki · · Score: 1

      That fact of the matter is that I was ranting and I admitted it so. You trying to prove your point is becoming silly.

      me: I don't like the name Moore's law because it's not a law. btw, this is a rant.

      you: Not all laws are true laws. They are approximations.

      me: The laws you mentioned are based on the universe, not man-made. Still don't like the name.

      you: Not all laws are true laws. They are approximations with limits.

      STILL DON'T LIKE THE NAME!!!
    9. Re:Moore's Law? by k98sven · · Score: 1

      I think you're selling classical physics short. Newton's laws are hardly just empirical rules of thumb. I think there's hardly anything as beautiful in its simplicity as the principle of least action, and classical mechanics is embodied in it.

      Kepler's laws fit your description fairly well, but Newton's laws were and still are rather profound in their scope.


      You're absolutely right about this. Newtonian mechanics as a whole is something more than an ad-hoc set of equations. In general, Newton did more than just curve-fitting. He did work from a basic set of postulates when it came to mechanics.

      This is why I specifically referred to Newton's Law of Gravity. His gravity law is an empirical rule of thumb. In my opinion.

      He couldn't really justify the way he defined the center of gravity, or why the force had to be inverse-square.

      But all of his mechanics are not purely empirical, no.

    10. Re:Moore's Law? by cot · · Score: 1

      The inverse square law is a fairly basic consequence of the geometry of our universe. There's a reason it applies to gravitation and electric and magnetic fields as well.

      Basically, for anything that can be considered a point source with isotropic flux of "whatever" eminating from it, the flux density will drop off as 1/R^2 in a flat 3D universe.

      The theory is fairly simple compared to GR, and quite macroscopic of course, but it seems pretty well motivated to me.

      --

    11. Re:Moore's Law? by omb · · Score: 1

      The Mathematician, scientist, engineer

      Plus ca change

  37. Re:Yeah, _Moore's_ Law, not the Universe's by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    putting a name in front of it takes away from the word "law"'s status as a grand designation. It's an observation made by a guy named Moore, not a fundamental law of the universe. Come up with an explanation for things falling down which is better than gravity and we can start calling gravity "Newton's Law of Gravity", an interesting statistical analysis which shows that things tend to fall down.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  38. Colors by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 1

    IBM went multi-colored back in 1970-71 when the 370's came out. Before that they were blue only. They had pink, blue and what other colors I can't recall, but it was a big deal back then.

    1. Re:Colors by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      IBM went multi-colored back in 1970-71 when the 370's came out. Before that they were blue only. They had pink, blue and what other colors I can't recall, but it was a big deal back then.

      The other colors were probably harvest gold and avocado green.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  39. Re:The major problem is design tools, not technolo by tubbtubb · · Score: 1

    Sombody mod the parent up. The major challenges at
    65nm aren't going to be the individual device speeds,
    but things like wiring, noise, leakage, and even electromigration.
    And designs are going to get far more complex as
    marketing drones realize that just dividing
    tasks into more and more stages to increase
    clock speed has diminishing returns and drives
    up power. As the parent mentioned, this
    added complexity will bring massive tool
    headaches.
    That being said, I think all of this extra work
    will be good for the EE job sector, no?

  40. erp... by sweatyboatman · · Score: 0

    say wha?

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:erp... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why you are playing games, instead of designing the hardware on which they run.

  41. Re:amd64/opteron clock speeds by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    " If AMD can increase the clockspeeds really well on their 90nm chips intel is a goner."

    Actually, what AMD needs is not faster processors, it's higher production capacity. They're not getting 300mm wafers until 2006. Their deal for increased capacity with Chartered I read starts in 2006. By then, Intel will no doubt be catching up in terms of performance. Not that anyone needs top performance these days...

  42. Diamonds are a chip-manufacturers best friend by jjr23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What ever happened to the idea of using a diamond substrate for chips instead of silicon? I remember reading about this 6 months ago: some MTI group were perfecting a system that could manufacture diamonds in a high-temp/pressure chamber, cheap enough that it would be viable to use instead of silicon. The diamond was supposed to have much better thermal properties and allow much faster chips....

    1. Re:Diamonds are a chip-manufacturers best friend by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

      It's a WIP
      It's a deposition from plasma process and grows up and out.
      In order to run on say a 3" fab line you need 3" wafers. The WIP is growing the 'seeds' to the point that they are large enough to grow cylinders from. It's pretty slow but will speed up once they reach 3". Once you've gotten to 3", then the 'seeds' will be sliced off. After that, it's exponential scaling as each 3" dia becomes thick enough to cut off a new 'seed'. Most of this stuff will be going into 'black' projects for the first few years.

  43. Irrelevant to Moore's Law by rkischuk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Speed increases in processors have nothing to do with Moore's Law, which predicts the doubling of the NUMBER of transistors in integrated circuits every two years.

    Is it an interesting technology that we'll benefit from? Sure. But the mention of Moore's Law on this topic is just plain careless.

    --
    Seen any BadMarketing lately?
    1. Re:Irrelevant to Moore's Law by Galvatron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Moore never invented a law. He made a prediction about transistor density. This has been extrapolated into a law, which we've named after Moore, which generally states that computer equipment improves on virtually every numerically measurable front at an exponential rate. So a reference to "Moore's Law" is entirely appropriate.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  44. Re:Yeah, _Moore's_ Law, not the Universe's by jtbauki · · Score: 1

    That is true. I agree that putting his name in front does signify the "law" is merely his observation. However, considering the amount of "non-science" people in the community, I doubt they would see it that way. That is a big problem between science and non-science people. Sometimes, I see people mocking or emphasizing that Evolution is a THEORY (usually religious people), not a fact. I have to explain to them that a theory is actually a powerful statement in science, backed up with a lot of evidence.

  45. Repost from last year - with New Scientist article by philj · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here.

  46. Not about bras? by spamfodder · · Score: 1

    Darn, and here I thought it'd be another article about the new exploding wonderbras.

  47. Re:amd64/opteron clock speeds by Dead_Smiley · · Score: 1
    "Not that anyone needs top performance these days..."

    Maybe YOU don't need top performace these days, but you aren't everyone are you? That is a very narrow minded view.

    --
    I know what the Internet is, what the hell is this Interweb business?!
  48. Am I the only one who does not care by jj_johny · · Score: 1
    It used to be interesting to read about advances in fab processes and the like. Maybe it was because the effect of a new process looked to help out all those futuristic stuff that just needed more power. Maybe it was that we were all focused on HW and the screwdriver work that was a big part of any IT job. Well whatever it was, its long passed.

    When you can go out and buy a new computer for $400 that would blow the doors off any 5 year old system and you can't come close to using your computers power except for complete garbage software. (Yeah, and I don't need to here from all you about needing more power. Yada, yada, yada.... just get a better machine. There are so few things that the really powerful machines are used for .... but anyway.)

    So what is this going to do? Shave a few bucks off my computer? Give me even more power I don't use? Allow more bloated code to run?

    1. Re:Am I the only one who does not care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about you though ;)

      Any advance in computing speed is useful for any task that is computationally intensive - you should be aware of that. From large-scale tasks that require supercomputers and clusters, to personal applications that we don't have yet, this is a good thing.

      And any advance in the theory of materials science, whether for processor production or not, is a good thing too.

      Your statement reeks of the sort of misguided things people have always been saying - as a small example on a similar topic, I bet when you got your first harddrive you never thought you'd fill it. You probably thought that way about the first couple you owned. And yet, nobody has a problem filling them :)

      Any expansion of limits will result in an expansion of the things we'll do to reach the new limits :)

  49. Damn by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    I was looking forward to a breather in Moore's law. It seems like I just got this 1.1 Ghz Celery machine, and it's already considered fairly pokey in comparison to other machines. Frankly, I'm starting to resent having to buy a new desktop machine every 5 years just to keep up. Oh well. Might as well hop back on the bandwagon. I'm off to check pricewatch.com to see where I can get some strained silicon at a good price...

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  50. MOD PARENT UP! by PaulBu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Conventional processor speed it determined by the RC constants of its longest nets, not that much by the transistor speed. Your average FET can amplify signals in ~10 GHz range, and a bipolar -- GaAs, InP, SiGe -- transistor works just fine up to almost a 100 GHz, but it does NOT translate into digital processing clock speed much above 4 GHz, all due to wiring and its RC.

    Paul B.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by vgrinber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, when you say that a FET can amplify signals in the ~10 GHz range, you're talking about the small signal model (i.e. oscillation with amplitude which a small fraction of the supply voltage). This reasoning doesn't necessarily apply to digital logic.

  51. CmdrTaco corrects spelling? by NickDngr · · Score: 2, Funny

    CmdrTaco is pointing out someone else's spelling error. The end is near.

    --
    Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?
    1. Re:CmdrTaco corrects spelling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, it's okay. Your post is a dupe of one above.

      I'm pretty sure that aborts the possibility of an apocalypse.

      So thanks. If it wasn't for you, it'd be raining blood and chicken entrails right about now... which is really inconvenient when my washing is outside drying.
      (Bless you and your /.ing ways.)

  52. Ooh, look who's an editor now? by lawpoop · · Score: 1
    "a new technology known as strained silicon (or maybe 'Stained' since the article calls it both ;) "

    Since when did Slashdot editors start editing other people's articles?

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Ooh, look who's an editor now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know... They've been editing content for the sake of bias (their socialist high-school ideas) for a long time now...
      http://blarmy.blogspot.com/

  53. AMD release by DoctorDeath · · Score: 1

    Here is the news release straight from AMD http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_543~91999,00.html

    --
    Sig temporarily out of service.
  54. Software Inpired "hack n' check mentality" by xtermin8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A long time ago, software programming was done by people with some exposure to electrical engineering and specifically computer hardware. But from there programming became increasingly messy, less of a science. Lisp lost to C, then C++, then Java. Software Engineering has become an oxymoron; Cutler's latest Operating System has become WinXP and the situation you describe for hardware is the norm for operating systems. It would not surprise me if hardware industry becomes more infected by the "hack and check mentality." I think EDA tool venders are unlikely to do the "right thing"

    1. Re:Software Inpired "hack n' check mentality" by ufnoise · · Score: 1
      A long time ago, software programming was done by people with some exposure to electrical engineering and specifically computer hardware. But from there programming became increasingly messy, less of a science. Lisp lost to C, then C++, then Java. Software Engineering has become an oxymoron; Cutler's latest Operating System has become WinXP and the situation you describe for hardware is the norm for operating systems. It would not surprise me if hardware industry becomes more infected by the "hack and check mentality." I think EDA tool venders are unlikely to do the "right thing"


      The important of electrical engineers in EDA is that they have domain knowledge, and are able to understand the problems that customers are trying to solve. The problem is getting good EE's with decent programming skills working on a software system that was well architected in the first place.


      The code has to be correct, but it also has to be fast in order to compete in this industry. C and C++ are excellent languages to do this. They require an understanding of how computers work and allow you to trade off efficiency for elegance.


      You might think that "hack and check mentality" is bad in the EDA companies. It is even worse at the hardware companies who have to deliver EDA software to their fellow coworkers under serious time pressure. They cannot wait 6-9 months for the next software release from a vendor.

  55. Re:The major problem is design tools, not technolo by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Simulation time is a major pain. Separate simulations using different process parameters can be run at the same time on separate machines, if you have enough software licenses.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  56. Re:amd64/opteron clock speeds by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well theoretically you can have a lesser product and maintain market dominance. Not just slower clock speed, but even lower performance. Certainly the features and quality of the product has an impact, but I thinkt he biggest contributing factor is the marketability. If you can lock vendors in (microsoft), or make your brand name fashionable (nike, pepsi/coke), etc then you can hold a market.

    Think about it, is coke/pepsi really about the product at all? It's flavored sugar water, there are plenty of companies that do a better job (higher quality, better taste, lower cost, whatever). This shows you the power of locking in vendors (restaurants, sporting events, etc) and applying some sort of collective desirability (drinking coke/pepsi is more fashionable than drinking faygo?).

    Are consumer grade electronics any different? Maybe if the computer market was more like washing machines than it is like soda/shoes/cars we'd

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  57. AMD release by DoctorDeath · · Score: 1
    --
    Sig temporarily out of service.
  58. Anyone else remember by Kithraya · · Score: 2, Informative

    one of the last episodes of Geeks in Space where this got mentioned as a submitted (but rejected) story? Looks like the submission approval process is taking a little long these days...

    1. Re:Anyone else remember by Asterax · · Score: 1

      Heh, yes, I was just going to mention that. Maybe they've progressed since the initial story was mentioned on GIS.

    2. Re:Anyone else remember by Kithraya · · Score: 1

      Hopefully so, given how long ago that was. What was that, a little over two years ago?

  59. Re:The major problem is design tools, not technolo by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    Separate simulations using different process parameters can be run at the same time on separate machines, if you have enough software licenses.

    I thought that simulations of these levels typically required several (dozen) machines for hours or days.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  60. Re:The major problem is design tools, not technolo by lastninja · · Score: 1

    I had a teacher who told us that Cadence and the others spent extremely much money on research during the dot.com boom, then when the downturn hit they had to shelf a lot of that research. Hopefully now that the economy is picking up they will be able to conclude their research.

    --
    John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
  61. Moore's Law is not about speed by tsmoke · · Score: 1

    Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on a chip will double every 18 months, not that the speed will necessarily increase.

    Nice call, CmdrScriptKiddie.

  62. it's phenomenon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As members of the science and engineering community, we understand that a Law is one of the highest designations we can give a phenomena
    As members of the science and engineering community, we know it's phenomenon. Nitpicking, but so are you...

  63. 24%? Oh, come on. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Informative

    Think about 10,000% faster, or even more.

    Strained silicon is just one of the last tweaks of the silicon era. The future is either carbon, or optics.

    I'm not saying that 24% isn't good (it is). But rather that it's just a short-term achievement.

    1. Re:24%? Oh, come on. by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Well, ya, ofcourse it is a short-term achievement. Isn't that the point? It buys IBM, Moto, AMD and Intel(and Sun and, and...) some time before they are no longer able to produce faster stuff.

      Besides, the point is somewhat lame... Multiprocessor boxes, higher bus speeds, harddrive rpms (massive flash storage to replace hdds) and card speeds and bandwidth have lagged behind for decades, time for them to catch up!

      On that, why don't we(we are, somewhat) move to a distributed PC system similar to a router, where our Video cards' GPU(OS X, Longhorn) do the video stuff, our sound card processor does sound, our nic does network, etc... Take the load off the main processor and distribute it to the other components, with the main processor being a mother/over-seer and a 'helping hand' style role. Even to the point of your video card being able to talk directly to your sound or harddrive, without going through your main processor. Makes sense to me. Then it won't matter if 4GHz is the max speed, because we will have 2-10 processors(working on specific roles) in the box.

      Our video cards are sorta moving this way, i know.

    2. Re:24%? Oh, come on. by willijar · · Score: 1

      While optics is good for improving communications bandwidth it is not so good for processing. Indeed the same properties which make it good for communications (the difficulty of getting photonics to interact with each other) is precisely what makes it unsuitable for all but the simplest processing functions. Electrons on the other hand interact with each other easily making them good for processing put poor for communications.

      If you look at where optical processing research is heading currently it is primarily for tag based routing in high speed networks (beyond 20Gbps) - any more advanced processing in the network is carried out electronically on a 10GHz or lower demultiplex.

  64. Where is the research on optical computing ??? by zymano · · Score: 1

    I am not talking about quantum but optical.

    I hear no mention of it. Optical is fast and energy efficient.

    I also don't hear much about spintronics.

  65. Re:The major problem is design tools, not technolo by ballpoint · · Score: 1
    That being said, I think all of this extra work will be good for the EE job sector, no?

    Alas, no. If EEs don't deliver the bang for the buck, investments will be reduced so that there will be less money to spend on EEs, leading to fewer EEs and/or less well paid EEs.

    Another way to think about this is as follows: if an industry realizes large improvements in its products quickly, customers will be eager to spend. If not, customers won't, but will continue to use their old stuff.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  66. Re:amd64/opteron clock speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a goddamn genius.

  67. hmmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strained? Floating about? Come on, I KNOW someone funnier than me can do something with that!

  68. wires aren't always the bottleneck by tubbtubb · · Score: 1

    Sure, wire delay (and wiring in general) is a big problem,
    but your post seems to imply that this advancement
    is worthless because wire delay is always the
    final limiting factor of a proc's clock speed.
    What about designs where a designer wants to
    cram a 16bit adder into a cycle using standard
    cells and no custom layout? I bet device speed
    would be the limiting factor there.
    Also faster devices will help with buffering long wires.

  69. The Three Processing Technologies by speedplane · · Score: 2, Informative

    Strained Silicon is one of the three, relativly new, big processing technologies that makes chips go faster without changing any of their design. I say relativly new because, as someone mentioned before, they have allready been used on some PowerPC chips.

    The two other main technologies are Copper wiring (used by intel since the coppermine PIII 800Mhz) and something called silicon on insulator or SOI. SOI is, to the best of my knowledge, only being used at IBM for the G5s but I could be wrong.

    Instead of using silicon as the base material and then etching away at it, SOI starts with an insulating material (normally some form of Silicon like SiO2) and then layers the silicon on top with Silane gas etc.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:The Three Processing Technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:The Three Processing Technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOI is already used by AMD in all Athlon 64 chips.

  70. Re:The major problem is design tools, not technolo by tubbtubb · · Score: 1

    Agreed, assuming the # of EEs is fixed. But if a company has the forsight to prepare for these
    problems such that the rate of large
    improvements can be maintained, everybody wins.
    The industry knows about these problems, and I don't know about other companies,
    But my company is hiring.

    Yes, in the US.
    And not just Co-ops, new hires and H1-Bs, but also US citizens with lots of experience.

  71. News? Next we'll hear about punchcards.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    My thoughts exactly. Why does strained silicon suddenly turn up as news? Perhaps the real news is about "stained silicon"? Perhaps it is just reposting Reg news without any editorial skill.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:News? Next we'll hear about punchcards.... by cofaboy · · Score: 1

      The Reg points out that IBM/AMD remove the germanium after the silicon straining process whereas INTEL do not.
      This removal is the new part of SSoI and is being called SSDoI, strained silicon direct on insulator.
      It would appear that the removal of the germanium has a positive effect upon the leakage and speed of the transistor.
      IBM announced about a year ago that they were investigating a new technique for strained silicon at a rough guess this was it and was a lot more advanced than was let on at the time.

      --
      In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
  72. In other news... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

    Strained Peas to Perpetuate Bland but Nutritious Baby Food.

    (sorry, got nothin'....)

    1. Re:In other news... by corngrower · · Score: 2, Funny

      Visualize whirled peas!

  73. Re:Yeah, _Moore's_ Law, not the Universe's by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    so members of the science community not only know that it's the highest designation something can be given, but they also understand the difference so that they know it's not the highest designation something should be given. Woopie. :)

    Maybe they should start calling it the evolution hypothesis? :)
    The real problem there is that "evolution" is just as blanket a statement as "religion". Most people who say "Evolution is just a theory" are really talking about only specific parts of it, like speciation. Meanwhile, many people who say "religion is full of shit" are really only talking about a specific part of a specific religion, like giant talking hotdogs of holyness

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  74. Re:Moore's Law: Actual Definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are right.

    But I doubt that the speed increase is any more coincidental than the density of transisters.

  75. Agreed to that... by PaulBu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But still even for small blocks (like your 16 bit adder) where lines are relatively short, charging and discharging of gate capacitance (expecially for modern thin gates) is another limiting factor in both speed (RC) and power (F*CV^2/2).

    A related thing (that I personally worked on for many years) is how do you build general-purpose computing logic where you connect gates not with your standard "wires" but with real (matched) transmission lines. Belive me, it is not a trivial task, even if you have an ideal transmission lines (i.e., superconducting) and your active devices can operate at hundreds of GHz, you STILL get your "clock frequency" in the order of several 10s of GHz for small blocks, not hundreds.

    Paul B.

  76. There never was nor will be. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It bought the lithography folks another few hundred megahertz, but it's not going to keep moore's law alive for another couple decades, at least not by itself.

    This has been true for every innovation since before Moore first made his observation that is now known as Moore's Law.

    To get a 100% increase in transistor count (or popularly and probably more relevently, processor performance) every 18 months has required numerous individual ideas, each of which is worth a one-time-only boost of 30%, 20%, 10%. Hell, a lot of times we're happy with 1%. Moore's Law isn't a Law like gravity, it's a testament to how successfull engineers have been in finding those 10%, 20%, 30% increases repeatedly and consistantly for several decades. There have been predictions that Moore's Law would end due to some problem for almost as long, and the truth is that it would end if the stream of innovations like strained silicon ever stopped.

    You probably realize that, I just wanted to state it explicitly for those who may think Moore's Law is some trend that will continue on its own until some major roadblock is hit. There's always a major roadblock but engineers keep finding ways around them because they rock.

    Oh, and I agree that the major problems today are wire capacitance and leakage current. Wire cap has been known as a big hurdle for quite a while, since just from the math you could tell that when you scale down the transistors get smaller and faster but the wire cap stays constant. Leakage current seems to have more or less snuck up on the industry, though, and it's causing some shakeups that may disrupt Moore's Law for a bit. You can already see it if you look at performance graphs for the last few years.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  77. I, for one by claussenvenable · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our new stressed-out Si-based overlords.

  78. Why is it necessary? by Dan+D. · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It seems to me that if we finally stopped trying to eek out every last ounce of power from a specific technology that the industry might finally have a chance to mature to an unprecedented level.

    I mean, lets say things just suddenly stop and say 10ghz is the max chip speed and every other thing intel tries explodes the chip within 10 seconds. So maybe intel folds because of that (I'm a bad american... I really don't care about a companies right to profit. (i also have corporate grammar)) But some other chip maker can then take this speed limit and generate a process to develop that chip for extremely low level costs. Or maybe other people come along and argue for power and heat friendly chips which are only slightly less than the upper bounds.

    Then us software people start to run out of the excuse of "Hey, you should upgrade, then it'll run faster." And we can get down to the business of making the software just work correctly without having to worry about the next big thing we should be taking advantage of (sadly Game devs are still screwed for many more years.) We might even take the time to build software to eek out every possible advantage from the cpu ... you know ... back like we did when we thought 640k would be enough for anybody.

    Then give it a few years... say 50. And suddenly bio computing or quantum computing takes shape and a new industry of chip design is born and bolsters us into the next phase... but in the meantime we've done a good job of building a nice little base in the phase we are in. Use it as a benchmark against the designs of the next phase.

    I guess I don't see hitting this wall a bad thing. It seems that knowing there's a wall in front of you stimulates more in trying to get around the wall than seeing an endless open field does in making you feel like you might as well just sit down and take a breather.

    --
    People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
    1. Re:Why is it necessary? by Arkaein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things will slow down sooner or later, but frankly I'd prefer later. As long as we have the luxury of doubling performance every few years I say lets do the most we can with it.

      Eventually things will settle down, and people wishing to perform even greater computational feats will be pining for the rapid technological pace we have today.

      In any case there's no use fighting progress, and if the market truly decides to demand stability over performance products will be made available. it's already ahppening as comapnies are getting less and less return on shiny new 3 GHz PCs. There will probably be a divergence between everyday desktop systems and high end workstations used in scientific computing and related areas (like the old days coming back again, just with more computers all around).

  79. Only 24%? by argent · · Score: 1

    I think that's proof Moore's Law is dying. Once upon a time anything that didn't promise at least a factor of two in performance over time didn't excite anyone but fab tech freaks.

  80. While your reasoning is correct... by PaulBu · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... your numbers are the other way around!

    In 1 ns (1GHz) light travels roughly a foot (1/3 of a meter) in air or low-Er coax. In 0.3 ns (3 GHz) it's 10 cm -- see, an order or magnitude! ;-)

    But as I pointed out couple postings above and what teh GP I think had in mind was not speed-of-light limited communication latency, but RC delays of (non-matched) metal wires.

    And it does not really matter how fast electrones move on the wire (though it matters inside transistor gate) -- you are limited either by speed of light propagation in matched line OR the time it takes to charge C through R to threshold voltage V.

    Paul B.

  81. is BSD outlasting Moore's law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well?

  82. You think IBM was bad? by Dwonis · · Score: 1

    Volkswagen

  83. extend, not perpetuate by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    This will extend Moore's law a little (actually, not even that; it will extend speed improvements), but it won't "perpetuate" it. Perpetuate = make perpetual; this is a one-time deal.

  84. strained silicon refinement by mid-2005 by SailorBob · · Score: 1
    http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml ?articleID=55301263

    AMD, IBM to use strained silicon refinement by mid-2005

    By Peter Clarke
    Silicon Strategies
    December 13, 2004 (6:34 AM EST)

    LONDON -- Engineers from Advanced Micro Devices Inc., IBM Corp., Sony Corp. and Tohiba Corp. have developed a strained-silicon transistor technology called "Dual Stress Liner," which can improve the performance at a given power consumption, AMD said Monday (Dec. 13).

    The team is due to present a paper on the topic at the International Electron Devices Meeting in San Francisco this week, and AMD said the company and IBM are both expected to deploy the technology at the 90-nm manufacturing node in the first half of 2005.

    AMD did not say if or when Sony or Toshiba would make use of the technology. The process development allows transistor "speed" to improve by up to 24 percent at the same power levels compared to similar transistors produced without the technology, AMD said. This process makes AMD and IBM the first companies to introduce strained silicon that works with silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology.

    AMD said it intends to integrate the DSL strained silicon technology into all of its 90-nanometer manufacturing process technologies, including those used for future multi-core AMD64 processors. The first 90-nm AMD64 processors using the technology are expected to ship in the first half of 2005.

    Similarly IBM plans to introduce the technology on multiple 90-nm processor platforms, including its Power Architecture-based chips, with the first products slated to begin shipping in the first half of 2005.

    "This achievement with AMD demonstrates that companies willing to share their expertise and skills can find new ways to overcome roadblocks and help lead the industry to the next generation of technology advancements," said Lisa Su, vice president of technology development and alliances at IBM Systems & Technology Group.

    --

    Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!

  85. WOW by confused+one · · Score: 1
    Look!

    Someone read an article about a technology that's been in literature for a while and in working silicon for over a year... Thought it was something new... and got it posted on /. as NEWS.

  86. IB Who? by IPFreely · · Score: 1
    Interesting. IBM helps facist in 1937.

    I wonder which companies are helping the facist in 2004?

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  87. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  88. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  89. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion