Slashdot Mirror


Nanotechnology Gets Finer

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet reports on a new level of detail found in nanotech construction." From the article: "Japan's NEC Electronics has developed a technology to make advanced microchips with circuitry width of 55 nanometers, or billionths of a meter, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun business daily reported Sunday. Finer circuitry decreases the size of a chip and cuts per-unit production costs. It also helps chips process data faster."

2 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Nanotechnology? by Leomania · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've had sub-micron CMOS processes for years now. Many of us are using computers with 90nm chips in them. But I've never heard of it called nanotech before. Maybe it's not inaccurate, but in my mind that term is more descriptive of other materials employing nanoscale materials that never did before (clothing comes to mind).

    --
    You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
  2. Re:Don't we already have 35nm processes? by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    35nm is planned but hasn't actually been done yet. It's unlikely to help much either, because current leakage at those levels is being insane.

    Although we might not gain anything by going below 30-35nm gates, don't overlook the huge fallout rate of current photolithography (if you can still call it "photo" when dealing with "soft" x-rays as the light source).

    If you can produce, at your extreme limit, a 65nm feature, then trying to produce exactly 65nm features leaves almost no room for error. If, however, you can produce down to 5nm features, then you can manage 35nm features with a huge margin of error.

    Thus, your fallout rate drops from the current of over 50% (or so I've heard - I don't know the exact figure), to very nearly zero.


    The practicality of clock speed increases and heat/energy reduction aside, better photolithography (or whatever manufacturing techniques we eventually move on to) means higher yields of better quality at the same size.

    Also, consider the fact that some parts of a modern CPU run a LOT faster than other parts - Compare addition with division, for example. Addition has taken a single clock (less, actually, but assuming a serial dependancy, you can't do better than one op per clock) for several generations now, while division still brings the CPU to a crawl. If you could make a full adder "fast enough" at whatever size optimizes energy consumption (90nm seems pretty good at the moment; 65 might waste more than it saves), while chewing through power to perform a division in fewer clocks with 15nm gates - That would both improve performance and save power at the same time.