Slashdot Mirror


Production of Photon Processors Expected in 2006

ThinSkin writes "Photon processors that transmit data via light, not electrons, are slated to enter production in mid-2006, ExtremeTech reports. Headed by a UCLA professor and a Nobel Prize winner, startup Luxtera claims that its optical modulator clocks in at 10-GHz, tens times that of Intel's optical modulator researchers talked about last year. Since the optical module exists as its own entity, it will require a standard CMOS processes to integrate the optical waveguides. Luxtera has worked closely with Freescale Semiconductor to develop this technology."

46 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Error In The Article by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Electrons ARE light particles.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    1. Re:Error In The Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, you're wrong--electrons are particles of mass. They travel in waves, just like electromagnetic radiation (that is, light), and have a distinct De Broglie wavelength, but they are not, themselves, electromagnetic radiation.

    2. Re:Error In The Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only thing I know about duality is that I'll be seeing this article again tomorrow.

    3. Re:Error In The Article by TummyX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but they are light. Certainly lighter than protons which are themselves light.

    4. Re:Error In The Article by Pla123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you mistake protons with photons.

      Photons are light. Protons are not.

      A Proton is a neutron with a positron.
      Electrons, positrons, protons, and neutrons are particles with mass and they are not light.

      When electrons or positrons move (current) they produce electro magnectic waves which are light.

      What they develop is the ability of devices like CPU and memory to comunicate using light and thus giving them more bandwidth.

      It's a small step toward faster computing and eventualy quantum computing...

    5. Re:Error In The Article by BeBoxer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Electrons, positrons, protons, and neutrons are particles with mass and they are not light.

      So they are what, heavy? It's a joke. Perhaps a little too subtle, but a joke none the less. Laugh. ;-)

    6. Re:Error In The Article by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Photons have no mass since moving at the speed of light requires no mass. They do have momentum but that is not how they cut metal. They have a lot of energy which is how they cut metal. It's really quite simple, lots of heat causes metal to melt thus a laser can cut metal by applying a lot of energy (which gets absorbed and transformed into heat) to the metal in a small area.

    7. Re:Error In The Article by novakyu · · Score: 3, Informative
      ... There's the saying, "Don't feed the trolls," but since this is marked "Informative", I should correct it on a few points:

      A Proton is a neutron with a positron.

      No, it's not. A proton is three quarks. From Wikipedia:
      Protons are classified as baryons and are composed of two Up quarks and one Down quark, which are also held together by the strong nuclear force, mediated by gluons. The proton's antimatter equivalent is the antiproton, which has the same magnitude charge as the proton but the opposite sign.

      A neutron may decay into a proton+electron pair, but a proton is most definitely not composed of neutron+something else. If nothing else, this should be the proof: neutron is heavier than proton---by conservation of mass and energy, neutron cannot be a component of proton.

      When electrons or positrons move (current) they produce electro magnectic waves which are light.

      No, it's not when they move that they produce EM waves. It's when they accelerate that it does (if you had been a physicist, this difference would have been carved into your very being). Moving charge only creates a magnetic field, which doesn't necessarily propagate as an oscillating field in space (i.e. EM wave). What you need is not a current but an alternating (as one example) current.

      It's a small step toward faster computing and eventualy quantum computing...

      Er... I know that you don't know what you are talking about, but this has nothing to do with quantum computing. (O.K. I haven't RTFM (nor do I have interest or time to do so), so I may be wrong on this, but...) This development is analogous to moving to fiber optics from copper cables---it does use a less "lossy" and perhaps faster medium, but it is in no way related to quantum computing.

    8. Re:Error In The Article by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Informative
      While most of what you say is correct, the following is wrong:
      If nothing else, this should be the proof: neutron is heavier than proton---by conservation of mass and energy, neutron cannot be a component of proton.

      The nucleus of every atom (except for hydrogen, obviously) is smaller than the sum of the masses of its nucleons. If your proof were valid, then they couldn't consist of the nucleons they consist of. The point is that the binding energy also contributes to the mass, and since the binding energy is negative (the bound state has less energy than the unbound state), this means it reduces the mass.

      No, the ultimate proof that a neutron is not part of the proton are accelerator experiments which agree with the established theories where the proton is not a neutron with a positron.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  2. How long until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    people start talking about the GHz Myth?

    My photons are faster than yours!

    1. Re:How long until... by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, it is a multiplier, even if it's not the only factor...

      Of course, it just amazes me to think about. With a main clock cycle of 10 billion cycles per second, there would actually be fractional cycles going on at hundreds of billions of cycles per second. The number is staggering; a couple hundred billion times the width of the outer layer of your skin would reach to the moon. The photons will travel through hundreds of thousands of hand-designed gates at the tiniest of scales.

      And, of course, the most common usage for this marvel of modern engineering will be to provide better lighting effects in video games. :P

      --
      I once listened to a Philip Glass record for an hour and a half before I realized it was skipping.
    2. Re:How long until... by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No offense, but we're more likely to see this kind of technology being used to make movies before video games. Hear me out.

      When newer processor technologies are developed, they're almost always deligated to server processors before they trickle down to desktop processors. (Of course, there are exceptions: MMX and its spawn, etc).
      br. I can't wait to see Pixar pick up the Apple Xserves based on an optical interconnected chip. The movies they'd makewould only get more spectacular.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    3. Re:How long until... by jafomatic · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No offense, but I'd rather we leverage this kinda thing in the pursuit of curing fucking diseases before we make the videogames.

      ...or the movies, whichever. Probably the movies first, since they don't need to render in real-time.

      --
      ::jafomatic
    4. Re:How long until... by PapayaSF · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, do you think it takes over 7 GHz to load a page on a website?

      Safe prediction: by the time we're using photon processors, yes, it will take 7 gHz to load a website....

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    5. Re:How long until... by danila · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There doesn't seem to be anything technologically spectacular about Pixar movies these days. Toy Story was impressive. Finding Nemo was impressive. But Incredibles and Robots are generic 3D animation (with supposedly excellent stories, characters, etc.). Pixar is not a 3D graphics pioneer and the only thing Apple Xserves will do is drive the costs down (or up) a bit. Graphically it will all look the same.

      I am much more impressed with Kaena, Immortel, Sky Captain, Advent Children and the like. Pixar is passe, it's just that most people haven't caught up with the fact.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  3. Uh, okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And who gets to use these? Are these like only special coprocessors for million-dollar supercomputers? Are they going to be x86-compatible? MIPS compatible? What?

    1. Re:Uh, okay by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Informative

      And who gets to use these?

      Whoever can afford them.

      Are these like only special coprocessors for million-dollar supercomputers?

      No. These are not "processors" of any sort. It is a new way to modulate signal between CMOS and optical at high frequency and small scale. It may provide faster bus speeds, assuming the reality matches the funding hype.

      Are they going to be x86-compatible? MIPS compatible? What?

      It will be "compatible" with any CMOS device that needs a bus to communicate with some other device. Since that includes all useful CMOS devices, it will be compatible with everything!

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    2. Re:Uh, okay by PxM · · Score: 2, Informative

      These aren't processors. They're more like modems. They convert the optical signal into electrons and let a normal electronic CMOS CPU proccess the data. The article is about the fact that this modulator can be done on the same chip as the processor and is ten times as fast as the next best thing.

      --
      Want a free iPod?
      Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
      Wired article as proof

    3. Re:Uh, okay by BitchKapoor · · Score: 2, Informative
      Since it's Freescale (née Motorola) that's mentioned in the article, any general-purpose CPU appearing from this effort will probably be ARM-based. However, the most likely application will be specialized processors for multi-gigabit network routers.

      Really? I wasn't aware that Freescale made ARM processors, too. After all, when it comes to microprocessors, they're primarily known for 68k and PowerPC.

  4. buzzword of this article by Prophetic_Truth · · Score: 2

    10ghz

    --
    time is a perception of a being's consciousness
    time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
  5. Whose bright idea was it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    to use light for your processor.

    Imagine Intel chips with this technology. Now instead of heating your whole room - you have an extremely bright night light. "Sleep" or "hibernate" will have a new meaning when you use it to turn off the main light in your room.

  6. Not a "Processor" by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's high bandwidth (10Gbit/sec) small scale (130nm) modulation from CMOS to optical. This is not "processing" in the sense of optical logic.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  7. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They'll just release the exact same chip as this guy in a year, only call it "Pentium 4 with photon extensions" and pretend they invented it.

  8. 10Ghz? by DrKyle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At first, I thought "Wow! That's like blazing fast speed!" And then I thought "Well, that sure beats having a couple PS3 cell processors hooked up together" And then i read the article... and was promptly disappointed. The 10GHz speed is how fast it can turn electrons into photons, but the chip is still primarily electron-based, so what is the real performance gain? They don't tell you because it probably isn't any yet.

    1. Re:10Ghz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blehh.... you're not making sense.

      The performance gain is up to the chip designers, who will design a chip as fast as they can. That wasn't the problem they were trying to solve.

      Rather, the problem this addresses is off-chip interconnect. Today chips communicate with the rest of the system via solder joints; this provides for very limited bandwidths, far far less than 10 Giga items per second. This is mostly because process improvements that have allowed us to shrink our chips have not allowed us to shrink our solder joints. So off-chip bandwidth has not been scaling well over the years and is a significant bottleneck.

  9. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    minus the omniture spyware tracking and massive banners
    ________

    Startup Luxtera has announced its plans to enter the CMOS photonics market, anticipating the day when microprocessors will transmit information via light, not electrons.

    The company claims that its optical modulator for transforming electrons into photons runs at 10-GHz, ten times the speed of an optical modulator Intel Corp. researchers began talking about last year. Beginning in mid-2006, Luxtera hopes to enter production of photonic devices using standard CMOS manufacturing processes. ADVERTISEMENT

    Although the majority of chip-to-chip communications are conducted using copper-based interconnects, researchers are already looking toward the day when the balance shifts toward optical transmissions, initially for chip-to-chip interfaces between microprocessors, or between a microprocessor and memory device. Fibre optics are a standard component of modern telecommunication infrastructures, and interfaces such as Fibre Channel also use optical fibre interconnects to link up devices.

    Although light slows down by some degree when transmitted through an optical medium, shifting to optical-based components is still too expensive than relying solely on copper, even when factoring in the additional power, heat, and crosstalk issues.

    "The problem here that we can solve is a matter of bandwidth," said Gabriele Sartori, Luxtera's vice president of marketing and a former advocate for the HyperTransport protocol developed by Advanced Micro Devices.

    Part of the relatively high cost of photonics comes from the fact that converting electrons to photons requires an intermediary device, such as the modulator Luxtera is designing. Today, that device exists as a separate module. Intel, Luxtera, and others are trying to integrate the optical waveguides within standard CMOS processes, that can be controlled by the standard voltage swings of a microprocessor.

    However, doing so requires that the optical vendor have close ties to a microprocessor manufacturer. At Intel, that's no problem. Luxtera, on the other hand, has worked closely with Freescale Semiconductor to develop the technology. Finding a partner like Freescale is "necessary," Sartori said. "You must walk before you can run."

    Freescale has taped out several engineering samples of the optical technology, including a chip, one side of which includes the optical interface built in. The sample chip use a 130-nm SOI process, the same technology used to fabricate the G4 microprocessor. Part of Luxtera's job has been to develop silicon libraries, the files used to design the photonic chips in the same way other libraries serve as the blueprint for making more conventional semiconductors.

    The 32-employee startup originally received $7 million funding from Sevin Rosen Funds and August Capital in 2001, followed by an additional $15 million by New Enterprise Associates in 2003. Eli Yablonovitch, a professor at UCLA who developed photoelectronic crystals, sits on the company's board, while Arno Penzias, who won the 1978 Nobel Prize for his work on the Big Bang theory, serves in an advisory role. Other board members include Andy Rappaport of August Capital, which funded Transmeta, among others.

  10. IBM, better info by tubbtubb · · Score: 4, Interesting


    IBM is working in this area also . . .

    Will be interesting to see a PowerPC with the guts of the VMX unit running at 10Ghz . . .

  11. More detailed article at Forbes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0411/068.html

    Interestingly, the 10Ghz figure comes from a measurement made a researcher at Sun Labs, who have been working with Luxtera for more than a year now. The article also talks about what other companies such as Intel and IBM are up to.

  12. FYI Freescale=Motorola by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Informative
    For those not up up on the twists and turns of the semiconductor industry, be aware that Freescale is Motorola's semiconductor division spinoff. They were responsible (with IBM) for the PowerPC, and developed the AltiVec (aka "Velocity Engine") vector processing technology used in current Apple PowerMacs. They still do a lot of microcontrollers for embeded devices.

    Just thought I'd clear up that potential confusion...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  13. solution for wiring problem? by tubbtubb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually this is less dissappointing that I originally thought --
    A major problem as CMOS processes get smaller and smaller is wires and wiring. Its really bad at 90nm and it looks like its going to be way worse at 65nm.
    Even if optical interconnects can just be used for long intra-unit busses (think L1 cache to fetch/decode unit, and there to integer unit and float unit, etc) we could see great performance gains.
    Something like when the upper metal layers in CMOS went to copper a few years ago.

  14. Optical interconnects by karvind · · Score: 5, Informative
    The summary is misleading (as pointed out by other readers) as it is more of optical interconnect technology.

    Other groups working on optical interconnects: (incomplete list)

    Heriot Watt

    Cornell University

    IBM Zurich

    Delft

    UIUC

    Intel

    Stanford

  15. maybe someone smarter than I can.... by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe someone smarter than I can explain how it all works.

    Okay, I am down with light based switching mechanisms and all that. But in my mind, I'm wondering how registers are "storing" information. Light, to my knowledge, cannot be effectively stored. I recall from a couple of years ago someone attempting to make progress in that area but I don't recall hearing that they were successful.

    I guess it's time for me to go back to school on this new technology 'cause I *just* don't understand it. Anyone who does understand it care to spit out a few paragraphs to summarize how it works assuming the reader already understands the basics of digital electronics?

    1. Re:maybe someone smarter than I can.... by katharsis83 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "But in my mind, I'm wondering how registers are "storing" information. Light, to my knowledge, cannot be effectively stored."

      That's not an issue here, from what I can tell. The 10 GHz number is modulating light to electrical signals. All the actual storage and processing will be done just as before; you still have your Flip Flops and storing the bits. The only difference here is that instead of copper interconnects, we use light pulses. The benefit of this new technology is that it can be done with normal CMOS fabrication techniques.

      Anyone with more experience with this stuff is free to correct/clarify.

  16. New meaning to deeply pipelined architectures by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Informative

    At 10 GHz and an index of refraction of 1.5, each 2 centimeters of light pipe adds 1 clock cycle to the latency to the system (2 clock cycles to the round-trip). Put a optically-connected device a foot (30 cm) from the processor and you have 15 clock cycles of data (or a 30 clock cycle response time) just due to the fiber, let alone any in the devices at either end of the fiber-optic pipe.

    Its always interesting to see what happens when the relative speeds of processor, memory, and interconnects change.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  17. Perfect! by RobertKozak · · Score: 5, Funny


    Now when I find a bug in my code I can just reconfigure the photonic matrix and reverse the polarity of the power coupling.

    And if that doesn't work I'll try modulating the field harmonics.

    This can really save me in a tight situation.

    Robert

    --
    Bet this .sig looks familiar.
  18. Re:Not a "Processor" [winhat] by winhat2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is a light, portable screen usually circular and supported on a short-term scale, but ultimately, they're just masking the real problem, which can only be solved by the level of thinking that created them.

    The average girl would rather have beauty than brains because she knows that the nature in which ramanujan was referred to as "indian math guy" in the sense of optical logic.

  19. Optical Modulator? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom! --Marvin the Martian

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  20. Put them on motherboards by al912912 · · Score: 2


    No. These are not "processors" of any sort. It is a new way to modulate signal between CMOS and optical at high frequency and small scale. It may provide faster bus speeds, assuming the reality matches the funding hype.


    I suppose then that putting them as the data bus to memory would be the best first thing to do. Imagine being able to read memory at register reading speed, that would be great even if you keep your same Pentium IV processor.

  21. Re:Seeing is believing by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I'll believe it when I see it in action."

    Yeah because companies are always promising more processing power, but they never deliver!!

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  22. "More light!" by lartful_dodger · · Score: 2, Funny

    what are they going to call this baby? Goethe?

    --
    The face of 'evil' is always the face of total need
  23. Slashdot mislead by photon317 · · Score: 4, Informative


    If you read the article carefully (which is laced with marketing hype and was obviously written by someone only passingly familiar with the technologies involved), you will see that nobody's promising optical cpu's in 2006. In anticipation of future optical chips and other technologies, Intel has begun developing one of the stepping stones toward this technological era, which is an optical/electrical gateway of sorts which can be built on a standard electrical chip to allow it to interface with optical components. Think a modern cpu, with some low level optical/eletrical interface on the edge of it so that a row of optical "pins" can stick out one side in addition to the normal electrical pins on the bottom.

    This little startup company is working on the same thing, and hopes to have it out soon. Their marketing article is trying to build hype so they can get more cash. Nobody will be selling anyone an all-optical cpu in 2006 (or 2007, or 2008, etc).

    --
    11*43+456^2
  24. I can hear it now ... by KSobby · · Score: 2, Funny

    The tech support calls for this will trump all: Tech Answer 1: Data loss? Ma'am, it says clearly in the instructions that this device is not to be used near any singularity of any kind. It's been known to warp and bend results. Tech Anser 2: Sir, the machine is acting slowly? Are you by chance going 299,792,458 m/s? That drops performance to 286 levels. What's that? you're running BSD? So why are you complaining? Plenty of horsepower for that.

    --
    "It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
  25. Just a modulator by Laaserboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the Article:

    The company claims that its optical modulator for transforming electrons into photons runs at 10-GHz

    I may not have a Nobel Prize, but I do have a Ph.D. in physics. Electrons do not tranform into photons. They may produce photons, but not turn into them.

    I see these articles that claim the creation of optical processors. But read the article, and all the researchers have to do is add a silicon processor and BOOM, we have an optical processor. It's not that easy.

    I remember the researcher who created an optical computer that was the size of a room. Why is this? Electrons are small. They bend around corners. They stay put. They move when you want them to. Photons do not bend well around small corners, do not support CMOS-like circuits and generally fail at most tasks of that versatile, tiny doer of great deeds, the electron.

    As usual, it's just an optical modulator. Boring old modulator.

  26. Latency != Frequency by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 5, Informative
    No you can't. Light is limited to c, just like the E field in the wires. At 3e8m/s, and a distance of 50cm to memory bit, that would take 0.5/3e8 ~ 1.7ns minimum for one way trip. That takes over 3ns to get to memory and back (ignoring any switching delays). 3ns makes the memory access time equivelent to about 333MHz.
    I think you are confusing latency and frequency. There are serious problems with long wires and high frequency because of parasitic effects. Light eliminates these parasitic effects, enabling a much higher bus frequency (clock rate).

    It may take a few nanoseconds for the light to bounce around, but that light can be modulated at extremely high rates (that electrical wires cannot). Managing latency is a well understood problem, generally solved by using speculation, buffering, etc..

    The fact is, if these parts are running at 10ghz, you will have 10ghz connections between connected parts (with a few nanoseconds of latency, which is mostly irrelevant).

    What light gives you is more *bandwidth*. That also means you CPU will not run any faster, but it should be able to access to more memory at once. Multi-core/multi-thread processors like what SUN is advertising would benefit a lot from this technology. Single thread processors like P4 will not see any benefit.
    Bandwidth is a measure of frequency and number of communication channels. This advancement does indeed provide more bandwidth, mostly because it can be clocked higher. All computer configurations could see substantial benefits because current electrical designs have highly limited bus speeds (it is not signal propagation that matters, but signal modulation speed "frequency").

    Anyway, current access times are now limited by the speed of light, so I guess it will not be getting too much faster.
    Again, signal propagation speed is mostly irrelevant. Signal modulation speed is what is important. Latency != Frequency.
    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    1. Re:Latency != Frequency by az4+h0th · · Score: 2, Informative
      It may take a few nanoseconds for the light to bounce around, but that light can be modulated at extremely high rates (that electrical wires cannot). Managing latency is a well understood problem, generally solved by using speculation, buffering, etc..

      The extra bandwidth does indeed allow more in-flight memory accesses, but there are many problems involved with this.

      First of all, there are implicit problems in the memory-level parallelism in applications. How many memory accesses are independent of each other? For example, code that manipulates hash tables or linked lists does not profit from additional bandwidth because the next memory access depends on the current one. Such code normally does things like:

      LD R1, 0(R1)
      do something on R1
      LD R1, 0(R1)
      etc

      See the dependency on R1

      Second, there are problems with the microarchitecture. Microprocessors contain two structures necessary to handle off-chip memory accesses: The Load/Store Queues (LSQ) and a special table to track these external accesses (called something like the miss address table, where miss refers to the corresponding cache miss). The LSQs track all in-flight loads and stores and they are used to check dependencies between loads and stores. The largest implementation I remember can track a total of 48 loads (is it p4?). The Miss Address Table contains references to all off-chip accesses. This table is usually smaller. Thus, even if all the memory accesses are independent and can be issued in parallel you cannot really take profit of all that bandwidth. Theoretically you can issue hundreds of memory accesses during the time an off-chip access is in progress. In reality you will end up with 20 or 30 (that does not include prefetches and alike).

      sorry for not including references

  27. What does this _mean_? by Alioth · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From TFA:

    Although light slows down by some degree when transmitted through an optical medium, shifting to optical-based components is still too expensive than relying solely on copper, even when factoring in the additional power, heat, and crosstalk issues.

    Is it just me or is this a really badly constructed sentence? It changes subject halfway through (from the speed of light in optical medium to the cost of copper).