Slashdot Mirror


Intel, IBM Announce Chip Breakthrough

Intel announced a major breakthrough in microprocessor design Friday that will allow it to keep on the curve of Moore's Law a while longer. IBM, working with AMD, rushed out a press release announcing essentially equivalent advances. Both companies said they will be using alloys of hafnium as insulating layers, replacing the silicon dioxide that has been used for more than 40 years. The New York Times story (and coverage from the AP and others) features he-said, she-said commentary from dueling analysts. If there is a consensus, it's that Intel is 6 or more months ahead for the next generation. IBM vigorously disputes this, saying that they and AMD are simply working in a different part of the processor market — concentrating on the high-end server space, as opposed to the portable, low-power end.

112 comments

  1. Two breakthroughs in one day? by zero-one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With this breakthrough and that other one perhaps Moore's Law needs updating.

    1. Re:Two breakthroughs in one day? by kharchenko · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, Moores' law didn't account for dupe postings. If we could just post this news a few more times today we could jump decades ahead in terms of transistor density! Keep up the pace dear editors :)

    2. Re:Two breakthroughs in one day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a more complete new posting than the last -- it's the only explanation if you take into account the slashdot "department" that published it.

    3. Re:Two breakthroughs in one day? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      ... perhaps Moore's Law needs updating.

      Moore's "Law" isn't - it's more a rule-of-thumb.

  2. Not news by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry but why is this being reported again now? We already knew Intel and IBM had achieved a 45nm process and that it would be coming to mass-market chips in 2007-08. It's 2007 and it's here. Hooray and all that, but is a company following through on its claims really so shocking that it constitutes being reported again... twice?

    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    1. Re:Not news by unc0nn3ct3d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      pretty sure this article was more about the switch to Hafnium as an insulator as apposed to the 45nm technology. Also the fact that they are using a new silicon substrate over the existing standard...

    2. Re:Not news by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      The hafnium and high-k metal gates are pre-requisites for the 45nm process. The two articles highlighted might vary somewhat in focus but they're definitely reporting the same thing.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    3. Re:Not news by unc0nn3ct3d · · Score: 1

      Hhehe, and of course If I would have read the other article would have seen it too was about hafnium and the new substrate as well.. So I retract my above statement, you're comment about this not being news is totally correct..

    4. Re:Not news by Bender_ · · Score: 2, Insightful


      That is not true. There will be a number of companies doing 45nm without high-k and metal gates.

    5. Re:Not news by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Well whether they use that particular method or not, the point is that the existing materials Intel are using for the 65nm process apparently aren't up to the task at the 45nm scale. If that's wrong well I guess I've been misled by the articles I've read on the subject.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    6. Re:Not news by Bender_ · · Score: 2, Informative


      The alternative would have been just to shrink the devices, gain less on performance and use circuit techniques to battle parasitic power consumption. That is what most companies in cost sensitive markets are going to do.

    7. Re:Not news by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      > "is a company following through on its claims really so shocking"

      Yes. Yes it is

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
  3. Chip Breakthrough.... by Prysorra · · Score: 3, Funny

    But can they keep up with Lays? :D

  4. RFI? Electromigration? by caitriona81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But how much further will that get them before RFI makes it a moot point? At that small of a pathway, I'd think that random radio signals and electrical noise would be disastrous.
    Also, how well does this survive long term? Is it resistant to electromigration over time?
    All great to hear, but I'm not sure how long this will let them keep pace with Moore's law, at best it buys a couple more years of progress on current processor designs I guess.

    1. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Good point. That is the very reason NASA sticks to 386 and earlier vintage computers from what I have read. Outside of the insulating atmosphere, cosmic rays pass throuh and have a tendency to be larger then the cicuit gap. This makes for some interesting and adverse additions to any computation.
            Every now and then the normal press reports new advances in biological comuters, light based, heck I even read of a wooden one once... Nothing it seems ever comes of it though except interesting grad student papers Electronic comps are the work horse for now, and, for the future it seems we will just see....Moore of the same ;)

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by myurr · · Score: 1

      But that may be all it takes. It's not like they're going to suddenly pack up their bags and stop researching this stuff. Each advance only ever buys time before the next advance is required.

    3. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by ssista537 · · Score: 1

      One reason why the industry moved to Cu interconnects as compared to Al is due to lower electromigration. Due to the specific microstructure in Cu and also due to its low bulk diffusion it is much more resistant to Electromigration. Having said that as the nodes start shrinking this might become a problem in the future........ May not be at the 45 nm node though.

    4. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by Kohath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are many, many people spending their careers solving those types of problems.

      It's not really interesting when someone does something in 45nm. It's interesting when enough of the problems with 45nm are solved for it to actually be practical to make 45nm-based chips.

      So, the answer to your question is: someone figured it out already.

      Electromigration is only an issue at high current densities. For clarification, "high" is defined as the density where electromigration becomes an issue. The solution is use less current, use more metal so the current is less dense, or find a material that can handle higher current density.

    5. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by caitriona81 · · Score: 1

      Electromigration takes some time to show up though. If they are just announcing this process now, what problems are going to show up 3, 4, 5 years down the road?

    6. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether the engineers do their jobs and check their current density. If they do, no problem. If not, some percentage of the chips with eventually fail. Worrying about it doesn't help. Engineers checking it is the only thing that helps.

    7. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by skoaldipper · · Score: 0

      It's not really interesting when someone does something in 45nm. It's interesting when enough of the problems with 45nm are solved for it to actually be practical to make 45nm-based chips.
      Well said. Even the article mentions it as (I believe) "evolutionary not revolutionary". The standard transistor design has not changed to my knowledge but only one (or two) substrate mediums from which it's made. However, I think the molecular (DNA) logic gate model would qualify as (at least) "revolutionary" (if not "evolutionary" as well). And to your point, I believe even a molecular computer has already been demonstrated, but in realistic terms is far from practical.
      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    8. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by cheezedawg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Golly- I hope that all of the PhDs working on Intel's 45nm process are reading /. today. I bet they never thought about that.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    9. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      NASA sends up several thinkpads with every shuttle launch. They have been doing so since 1993, and they have upgraded many times to more modern machines. STS-114 was the first to fly several A31p thinkpads with 1.8Ghz p4s.

      For the mars missions and things like it, radiation hardened processors like the RAD750 are used. It seems that everything in use is at least pentium class.

    10. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      The shuttle internal systems run on obselete crap. That's why they send up laptops.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by elteck · · Score: 1

      RFI: Actually the smaller te circuit, the better it's RF Immunity, because the smaller the wiring the less effective its antenna efficiency is.
      But I can assure you, since we crossed the 100MHz barrier, a lot has been done to improve RF immunity. Todays system boards and chips are RF-designs, also to keep reflections small and maintain signal integrity. All traces are transmission lines, which have good RF-Immunity as well.

      Electro migration: This is the reason why switching currents (also known as shoot through current / overlap current) have to be reduced with feature size. Wiring already occupies a lot of die area.

    12. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by Manchot · · Score: 1

      Testing for electromigration issues is standard operating procedure for companies like Intel. They basically pump insanely high amounts of current densities through their devices and see how long they take to fail. Then, they can use that figure to extrapolate how long they'll take to fail under normal conditions. Basically, they can test years worth of damage in days. Asking whether Intel checks for this is like asking whether car companies check to see if the engines start up before selling them. Of course they do.

    13. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Informative

      No the shuttle and station run on older stuff because those processors are radiation immune, and they are critical systems that cannot crash. The laptops are for everyday work that do not interface to the shuttles systems. If they crash from the radiation, the astronauts simply put it aside and grab another one.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    14. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside of the insulating atmosphere, cosmic rays pass throuh and have a tendency to be larger then the cicuit gap.

      No, cosmic rays go through the whole planet -- a little atmosphere won't stop 'em. It's radiation in general, and while they run radiation-hardened versions of those chips, it's a harder to harden processors that are denser or just more complex.

      That and they just don't need more horsepower -- for the extremely specific purposes they're used for, they may as well be ASICs. They do take fairly current (and ruggedized) laptops up with them for general-purpose use.

    15. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by stevesliva · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The shuttle internal systems run on obselete crap.
      Obselete, incredibly reliable, utterly adequate rock-solid gold. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Launching enormous rockets with software control is possible to screw up. Given the choice, I'd rather fly with the proven computers.
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    16. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      The shuttle used hand woven magnetic core memory until 1990.

      It's obselete crap, even after the 1990 upgrade. It was designed in the 60s and the only reason it wasn't decomissioned 3 decades ago was political, no one wanted to admit they dumped billions of dollars down the toilet.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    17. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      That's why they replaced some of the most obselete parts of it (like the hand woven magnetic core memory) in 1990, right?

      It's crap. Everyone knows it's crap. It would have been shelved a very long time ago if it weren't for politics.

      Do you refuse to use any bank that doesn't use a Univac? You realize Univac came out 10 years before the shuttle computer was designed, right? That's how obselete the shuttle computer is.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    18. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      You realize Univac came out 10 years before the shuttle computer was designed, right? That's how obselete the shuttle computer is.
      In actuality, it's 10 years more obsolete than the Shuttle's computers, and as we all should know, ten years is an eternity in the computer world.

      Yes, if you must know, I thought your comment deserved another with an equally absurd thesis.
      --
      ± 29 dB
    19. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      The shuttle used hand woven magnetic core memory until 1990. It's obselete crap, even after the 1990 upgrade. It was designed in the 60s and the only reason it wasn't decomissioned 3 decades ago was political, no one wanted to admit they dumped billions of dollars down the toilet.

      You should really research things before placing an opinion. It would really reduce the amount of bullshit you write.

      You can't really fly anything beyond Pentium class of processor because you get radiation upsets. Even at that you have to disable the cache. The shuttle uses proven technology, which is by necessity older, because the computers have to be fault tolerant.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    20. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by mrhartwig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The shuttle used hand woven magnetic core memory until 1990.

      Yep. Stable, information-retaining (unfortunately, it even retains info after immersion in seawater), and basically immune to cosmic ray disruptions. Which doesn't require a lot of error-correction circuitry.... Not terribly data-dense or fast compared to semiconductor (part of the reason to replace it, after all) but it works.

      It was designed in the 60s...

      Actually, the computers themselves were designed the 70s, with updates in the 80s; core memory (I don't think you meant that) was actually from the 40s & 50s, with significant updates afterwards. You know, of course, that it took years of system integration testing after the new HW was finished before the new semi-conductor memory (along with the upgraded CPUs, etc.) were flown? Some silly idea NASA has about trying to make sure stuff that keeps people alive isn't broken in any way. ...the only reason it wasn't decomissioned 3 decades ago....

      Right. If it flew in 90 (might have actually been 1991 iirc, but maybe not) it's still only been flying for 17 years. How do you decommission something 13 years before it first flew?

      Just because something's old doesn't mean it's not useful. There are also cost/benefit factors in replacement; in this case (probably; I don't pretend to know all of the reasons) external requirements that have nothing to do with HW (like testing regulations) greatly increase the cost of replacement. Plus, you have the whole anytime-you-change-you-increase-risk problem; there's a reason that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an adage.

    21. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by mrhartwig · · Score: 1
      Oh, yeah -- I can be more absurd than you. Since all computers are based on transistors, we should scrap them all. They are, after all, based on technology designed in the 1940s and absolutely must be obsolete.


      Nyah, nyah.

      interesting footnote
      I learned something while looking in Wikipedia to find out when the "Univac" (there were more than one, of course) was released so I could compare it to the IBM System/360 (from which design, eventually, came the Shuttle CPUs). UNIVAC I, from 1951, used tanks of liquid mercury for memory. UNIVAC II (1958) had core memory. Wow!

    22. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      The difference between banking on a Univac and flying a spaceship with a radiation-hardened 386 is that improvements on the 386 aren't necessarily reflected in spaceship-flying performance, whereas improvements on the Univac show distinct benefits in banking. The laws of physics work just like they did the first time we put a shuttle in space; on the other hand, transaction volume and reporting complexity has increased tremendously since the first mechanical accounting machines. When we build a new shuttle with more complicated flight control requirements, we'll need new computers to fly it. Until then, there's really no sense screwing with the known-good system.

      To head off the anticipated "but the shuttle is crap" argument, I'm not going to contradict that. As a reusable spacecraft, the shuttle is woefully obsolete and inappropriate for the task. We should have started designing and building a new one years ago. The limited capabilities of the shuttle have in turn led to some questionable design decisions on the ISS and limited development of out capability to do something other than go to LEO and come back. I'm just saying that if you're going to fly a space shuttle, the stock flight computer is all you need.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    23. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      G3 class PowerPCs can be flown, that's 300Mhz or so.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    24. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      They only upgraded a few parts of it in 90. Just like the rest of the shuttle, it's a mix of obselete materials and components, with newer stuff band-aided on where possible. It's a junkpile.

      Core memory wasn't used until the late 50s BTW. They used stuff like delay lines in the 40s and early 50s.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    25. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      G3 class PowerPCs can be flown, that's 300Mhz or so.
      Yes a G3 class processor is flown, but not at 300MHz - that's the terrestrial version (the PPC 750). The space version is radiation hardened by derating the clock to 166MHz, and removing the off board cache. As a result, the effective speed is about the same as a Pentium.
      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    26. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      To think we've gone from mercury memory to the RoHS banning anything remotely fun in electronics...progress is pretty amazing. ;)

      --
      ± 29 dB
    27. Re:RFI? Electromigration? by afidel · · Score: 1

      It would seem to me that using a processor like the MIPS processors used in the HP Nonstop platform would be the ideal situation, all path's are ECC'd and all processing operations are done by two cores and the results are checked to make sure they match, this should deal with everything short of being in a solar flare where the error rate exceeds the ability of the systems to correct.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. Is this kdawson's first front page dupe by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Welcome to the club! On your application as editor, did you have to swear that you don't actually read slashdot as a precondition for employment like all the other editors?

    1. Re:Is this kdawson's first front page dupe by dreddnott · · Score: 1

      Hey now, you should be positively thanking him. The previous posting had an awful summary that didn't mention IBM, AMD, or the fact that the new High-K replacement was based on hafnium (they misspelled it as halfnium in the actual article, which was even worse).

      At least with this summary we'll get cool arguments about Intel vs. AMD and IBM and conspiracy theories and stuff.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    2. Re:Is this kdawson's first front page dupe by QuickFox · · Score: 2, Funny

      they misspelled it as halfnium That's no misspelling, it is halfnium! You could have understood this yourself, if you hadn't been so quick to dole out criticism, and instead had spent a second considering the fact that they reduced the size from 90 nm to 45 nm.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    3. Re:Is this kdawson's first front page dupe by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      apart from the dupe, kdawson is possibly the best editor they have. I for one, blame our new firehose overlords - so its our fault for voting for 2 of the many posts about this news.

  6. printer/ad free version by farker+haiku · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  7. Axiom? by rumith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Intel announcement is new evidence that the chip maker is maintaining the pace of Moore's Law, the technology axiom

    I thought it's an empiric law; the definition of axiom is quite different from that.

    Intel said it had already manufactured prototype microprocessor chips in the new 45-nanometer process that run on three major operating systems: Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.

    Again, I thought it's the operating systems who run on microprocessors, not vice-versa. And I [not being a kernel developer, though] can't see any reason for an OS to stop functioning on a new processor model if the architecture is intact and no serious hardware-level bugs are introduced.

    1. Re:Axiom? by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Intel said it had already manufactured prototype microprocessor chips in the new 45-nanometer process that run on three major operating systems: Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.

      Again, I thought it's the operating systems who run on microprocessors, not vice-versa. And I [not being a kernel developer, though] can't see any reason for an OS to stop functioning on a new processor model if the architecture is intact and no serious hardware-level bugs are introduced.
      Well, yeah. That's pretty much the point. Usually, a first go a new processor has serious hardware bugs and doesn't run very well. Running existing O/S's in real silicon is a very important step in the creation of a new processor. If things are going smoothly with the design, and they have it running real code more quickly than they figured, then it speaks well to the possibility of them being able to ramp up production easily.
    2. Re:Axiom? by grimJester · · Score: 1

      The OS'es running on the prototypes is probably meant to show that there are functioning processors made using the new process, as opposed to a couple transistors in a lab. A kind of proof this isn't just vaporware to boost stock prices.

    3. Re:Axiom? by igrokme · · Score: 1

      To Moore and logicians, it's an empiric law. To many business plans (Intel's and AMD's not the least), and arguably to the technology sector as a whole, it has been made axiomatic.

      Moore himself has argued against this usage but he does not control what assumptions people stake their business plans on, even when they are based on his empiric laws.

    4. Re:Axiom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point for announcing that! It shows that the process is stable enough to have a processor team go through all the motions necessary for designing and verifying the processor--including all of the simulations necessary for validation of high-speed circuits. All of it implies the process is stable and correlates with models used for simulation--not just that they laid it out, taped it out, manufactured 1000 of them and 1 happened to work by sheer probability. BZZZT! Just the opposite ... the process is ready to rock and roll ..... believe it.

    5. Re:Axiom? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      If Moore's law was an axiom, we would probably have to redefine time again.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  8. This is a big deal by noopm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a graduate student researching this field, this is an amazing bit of news! - The intel high-k announcement is a *major* breakthrough, and a new, disruptive technology for chip technology especially as far as the the introduction of new materials in the Fab are concerned (and trust me, Fab engineers are paranoid about such kinds of shifts). It essentially involves replacing the SiO2 dielectric gate insulator with a new class of materials, very likely Nitrided Hafnium Silicates (though they have not publicly acknowledged the silicate part, they just mention it as a compound of Hafnium - it is the leading contender in the field).

    The high-k film can be made physically thicker than the very thin SiO2 layer (which is only around 12 Angstroms thin at the moment, making it leak like a sieve) without messing up the capacitance requirements for the transistor. The introduction of new metal gate instead of the classic poly-crystalline silicon (called poly) is also abig deal, and there is greater secrecy on what those materials are. The wikipedia article on high-k has the details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-k_Dielectric

    1. Re:This is a big deal by obious · · Score: 1

      As an CompE undergrad, my studies revolving around SiO2 have all of a sudden become history lessons

    2. Re:This is a big deal by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      So back to the roots huh? MOSFETS had that first M for a reason ;)

    3. Re:This is a big deal by NoMoreFood · · Score: 1

      Great... I work in the nuke industry. A bigger demand for hafnium is going to make our subs cost like 3 zillion dollars instead of 2 zillion :P

    4. Re:This is a big deal by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      What do you think about this post?

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    5. Re:This is a big deal by noopm · · Score: 2, Informative

      > What do you think about
      > http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21912 8&cid=17787848

      HfO2/Hf Silicates is mature technology (Obviously, else they wouldn't be in production this year) - however, I disagree with it having been mature for more than 10 years. There were all sorts of compatibility problems with respect to the new layer of "foreign materials" killing the mobility of the electrons responsible for the transistor action in the absence of the kind of relatively perfect interface that Si/SiO2 had. Finding new metals for the right band alignment (different for both the PMOS vs NMOS) was an added absolutely non-trivial challenge. The amount of research activity that this problem has generated is insane. For example, a prominent research review article that was published back in 2001 "High-kappa gate dielectrics: Current status and materials properties considerations" by Wilk et. al, (J. App. Phys. 89, 5243-5275 2001) has been cited 1429 times since then when I checked today and it's still growing...

      Ten years ago, scaling down of SiO2 had not really hit the wall, it was coming; so they began this work back then; It's only the last couple of years that frequency scaling has not been going upwards... The real fear was if high-k technology would miss the "45 nm technology node" - in which case it might have had to wait till the 38 nm or whatever node that came next. It was thus a question of timing, and frankly it is impressive that Intel/IBM has managed to converge upon a set of solutions which have overcome all the new problems** that the new manufacturing technology (they use ALD, atomic layer deposition) and new materials and their interfaces bring about. Hopefully these chips won't start exhibiting flaky behavior when the overclockers get their hands on these chips....

      ** Some of the tough problems they had to solve include (sorry for the karma whoring, check the wikipedia high-k article for the links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-k_Dielectric)
      * Permittivity
      * Band gap
      * Band alignment to silicon - sufficiently large band offsets are needed to keep the leakage current low and protect the film from hot carrier injection.
      * Thermodynamic stability
      * Minimization of electric fields due to phonons in the dielectric to reduce scattering in the Si substrate so as to achieve high mobility of charge carriers in the MOSFET channel
      * Minimization of the concentration of electrically charged and/or electrically active defects in the film
      * Film morphology - Amorphous or epitaxial films seem to be the promising candidates - polycrystalline materials are generally ruled out.
      * Interface quality
      * Compatibility with the current or expected materials to be used in processing for CMOS devices
      * Process compatibility - for one, the film must survive sufficiently high temperatures such as a Rapid thermal anneal to 1000 C for say, 10 s (as dictated by the CMOS technological process)
      * Reliability
      * Stability against degradation by the electric field and injected carriers.
      * Precursor availability
      * Precursor and process costs

  9. AH HA! by frankwolftown · · Score: 1

    Take that Gordon Moore!
    And in your face space coyote!

  10. Rename? by somegeekynick · · Score: 5, Funny

    What, now Silicon Valley becomes Hafnium Valley?

    1. Re:Rename? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sure. And in another 30 years or so, it'll be Quaternium Valley. Oh wait, that can't be right...

    2. Re:Rename? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      What, now Silicon Valley becomes Hafnium Valley?

      I know silicon is a pretty common element, how difficult is it to find hafnium? If it is rare, could this lead to super expensive chips?

      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:Rename? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Probably not. From my understanding of this new tech, silicon will remain the substrate of the chips. Hafnium is only used as an insulating material layered on the top. So the quantities of hafnium will be extremely small in relation to the amount of silicon. Along with a smaller (45nm) process, the total amount of hafnium in a single chip should be quite small.

    4. Re:Rename? by autophile · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, now Silicon Valley becomes Hafnium Valley?

      Let's hope that real estate prices get cut in haf :(

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    5. Re:Rename? by Mspangler · · Score: 2, Informative

      From webelements:

      "Most zirconium minerals contain 1 to 3% hafnium. Hafnium is a ductile metal with a brilliant silver lustre. Its properties are influenced considerably by the impurities of zirconium present. Of all the elements, zirconium and hafnium are two of the most difficult to separate. Hafnium is a Group 4 transition element.

      Because hafnium has a good absorption cross section for thermal neutrons (almost 600 times that of zirconium), has excellent mechanical properties, and is extremely corrosion resistant, it is used for nuclear reactor control rods.

      Hafnium carbide is the most refractory binary composition known, and the nitride is the most refractory metal nitride (m.p. 3310C)."

      Intel is not going to be burned by thermal problems again, and you can also hide behind your CPU if "the big one" goes off in the neighborhood. OK, several CPUs and a water tank. But still.

      Most efficient.

      Last price I could find is $150/pound.

  11. Love the picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's got to be the biggest 45 nanometer wafer I've ever seen! And probably the most expensive dud, since that guy ought to know that there's no point in dressing up in a bunny suit if you aren't wearing a hood.

  12. Re:Please tag article... by dreddnott · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article's summary is far more accurate and informative than the other one. I posted several times in the older post to help clear up some misinformation (the article it linked to misspelled hafnium as "halfnium" and only mentioned it once, and never mentioned IBM or AMD).

    --
    I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
  13. Whaa? by Godji · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there is a consensus, it's that Intel is 6 or more months ahead for the next generation. IBM vigorously disputes this, saying that they and AMD are simply working in a different part of the processor market

    Didn't read TFA, but is it possible to have a consensus with one party vigorously disputing it?

    1. Re:Whaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It is the consensus of my friends that I am a jerk. I vigorously dispute this.

    2. Re:Whaa? by UltraAyla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would seem to be consensus of the analysts, but who knows how accurate that is if one company is disputing the information leading to the consensus.

    3. Re:Whaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, yes? If the consensus is between analysts.. IBM doesn't have to agree and can claim any old thing (and maybe they're right).

    4. Re:Whaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have a brother, don't you?

  14. How long for this to reach laptops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am thinking of buying a new laptop soon. I have a few questions:

    1. Is this technology applicable to laptops?
    2. If so, how long will it take for it to be integrated into laptops?
    3. Will it make them more or less expensive?
    4. Will it be a huge jump in performance, or a smaller one?

    And most of all, would it be ok to go ahead and get a laptop now or better because of either cost or performance to wait until they have integrated this into a laptop?

    1. Re:How long for this to reach laptops? by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      never buy anything

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:How long for this to reach laptops? by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Personally, I never base my purchasing decisions on announcements but rather on my current needs. If I need a laptop, I'll buy whatever's available now which would meet my needs and try to get it at the best possible price. Otherwise, I'll never but anything 'cause by the time that new technology is available commercially, something better is announced.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    3. Re:How long for this to reach laptops? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      1) Yes
      2) Next year
      3) More expensive
      4) How much are you willing to spend?

    4. Re:How long for this to reach laptops? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      True. I am delaying a laptop purchase right now, but that's just because I don't want to buy an Apple laptop immediately before a new version of OS X comes out again. I had enough fun with using 10.3 in a Java 1.5-centric university to wait out a couple months for the next version. But that's arguably an Apple-user-who-doesn't-want-to-buy-retail-OS X-specific problem.

      Generally speaking, if you don't plan on relying on a proprietary system there's not much to hold out for, unless $HARDWARE with $FEATURE comes out $SOON and you really want/need $FEATURE.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    5. Re:How long for this to reach laptops? by julesh · · Score: 1

      1. Is this technology applicable to laptops?

      Yes. It allows faster chips with lower power consumption, and Intel have stated they're targetting low power apps.

      2. If so, how long will it take for it to be integrated into laptops?

      Not until end of the year.

      3. Will it make them more or less expensive?

      The ones with the technology will initially be more expensive, as always with new tech. But the older designs will become less expensive and after a while the new tech will drop to about the same price as the current tech. This is the way it always works.

      4. Will it be a huge jump in performance, or a smaller one?

      Without actually seeing a review of the new chips, it's hard to tell, but I'd be hoping for a 25-30% increase in cycles per second for the same power usage, or a slightly lower drop in power usage for the same speed.

      And most of all, would it be ok to go ahead and get a laptop now or better because of either cost or performance to wait until they have integrated this into a laptop?

      Depends. You're looking at waiting an entire year. They'll be pricey when they do come out. You'll have to make the decision yourself.

  15. hafnium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it because hafnium is haf-thick? :-)

  16. Hafnium? That's weak ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait until I produce my super-duper fulium-insulator chips!

    1. Re:Hafnium? That's weak ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Holmium, which is actually an element like Hafnium?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  17. Moore's Law is Dead! Or not! by mschuyler · · Score: 3, Funny

    The funny thing about this is that every few weeks you read some article that says, "Yup! That's it! We simply cannot get any more out of Moore's Law! It's dead."

    Then a couple weeks later someone says, "Yup! We're gonna squeeze a few more years out of Moore's law. New advance! It isn't dead!"

    Moore's Law is like the Energizer Bunny. It just keep's going.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:Moore's Law is Dead! Or not! by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      I think they (Intel) estimated at some point that the Moore's law would work at least to 2015. At that point they would need to start working with something smaller than atoms to keep it up.

      But of course the processor development can still continue after that. We could for example stack many layers on each other to get a 3d chip.

      Or who knows if we learn how to manipulate the particles of the atoms (or something similar) and create a chip using those.

    2. Re:Moore's Law is Dead! Or not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the definition. If you take the official definition, "number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost doubles every 24 months", then Moore's Law is still valid.
      To consumers and even many geeks, it is more common to think of Moore's law as saying for the same price in about 18 months, you can get a computer twice as fast. To keep this economic expectation sort of alive, the industry has gotten very desperate. They went multi-core and changed the specs to take that into account. Very few kernels and programs take advantage of multi-core, so for most people a 3 year old computer will perform almost just as well as a new computer.

    3. Re:Moore's Law is Dead! Or not! by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      If you change the definition to something Moore never said, then of course it might not fit.

      Moore's original definition had to do with number of transistors on "an integrated circuit." The original graph didn't even specify size. (Goto Intel.com, search Moore's Law, all that stuff is there.) That engineers have been unable to keep up with exploiting the law isn't really all that surprising or uncommon. However, the interesting thing about Moore's Law is that if you extrapolate the graph backwards in time, it still fits. Take the original switches in the Hollerith card reader used to tabulate the 1890 census, through all the iterations from electrical circuits (like in the old telco switching rooms)to vacuum tubes of the Eniac to transistors of the size used in two-transistor radios to core memory to the 45 nm chips of today or tomorrow and the graph is boggling. The Law has been functioning since the 1890's. And there is no real reason to think it can't keep going, if you don't fixate on silicon. Every time Moore's Law has met an impasse in the past, e.g. vacuum tubes, the technology changes the medium to something else, first to transistors, then to integrated circuits. Moore has said he thinks the law will go to 2015, but that's on silicon. The next medium will carry it further, whether that's some sort of 3D or atomic, or even biological memory. Kurzweil.com has a lot of good stuff on what's about to happen.

      So the fact that a word processor works as well on a three year old computer is not really the point of the law. What the law will allow is the next generation of word processor, one you can talk to instead of type in, one that will quickly and accurately translate what you say into radically different languages, one that fits in your eyeglasses and projects a screen in front of you, or one that is simply implanted. To say 'when will this be ready for my laptop and will it lower the price (somewhere on this thread) is not the right question.

      You're not going to need a laptop any more.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    4. Re:Moore's Law is Dead! Or not! by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Moore's Law is like the Energizer Bunny. It just keep's going."

      Moore's Law is like the inappropriate apostrophe. It just won't die.

  18. 'course! by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

    They have a consensus about disputing each other. :)

    --
    "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
  19. Diamonds are next.... by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

    Silicon is inferior to industrial diamonds in so many ways, I'm wondering when they will start being used in processor design.... read about it years ago, so perhaps this is the first step towards.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    1. Re:Diamonds are next.... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      In other words, diamonds are the geek's best friend!

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Diamonds are next.... by Bender_ · · Score: 1


      Actually I believe there are only two properties of diamond that are superior to silicon in respect to electronic application: Heat conductivity and band gap.

      The disadvantages are numerous, starting with the very basic fact that there is no known n-type dopant for diamond.

    3. Re:Diamonds are next.... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Diamonds are next.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they have to create a decent-sized diamond boule to cut wafers from (and act as a seed for growing more), first. Not sure if they've done that yet.

    5. Re:Diamonds are next.... by Bender_ · · Score: 1


      Nice, I was not aware of the later work. It is still a far way towards proper junctions.

    6. Re:Diamonds are next.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      With all the "quality time" I spend with my computer, I'm surprised I haven't given it a diamond already.

  20. Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking recently that I should profile and optimize some of the software I maintain, but it sure looks like I won't need to.

  21. SIlicon was here by Kalle+Barfot · · Score: 1

    Welcome to Hafnium Valley

    --
    "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
    1. Re:Silicon was here by Kalle+Barfot · · Score: 1

      Hafnium comes from the Latin Hafnia for "Copenhagen", home town of Niels Bohr.

      So, welcome to Hafnia Vallis!

      --
      "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
  22. If you're into investing ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    this might be a good time to put some money into your local Hafnium mine.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  23. In Silico? by Kensai7 · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I don't know if you have noticed, but the old expression in silico will now have to be dropped...

    In ferro perhaps!

    --
    "Sum Ergo Cogito"
    1. Re:In Silico? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      All the chips have silicon substrates still. This is just the transistor gates.

  24. It's Da Bomb! by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    Keep it away from stray neutrons! (someone had to say it)

  25. Finally... by IorDMUX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, it's about time. Hafnium oxide dielectrics were the talk of the semiconductor research world in the early/mid 90's. Big-time chip manufacturers refused to adopt the technology, though, hoping that some technology that didn't require the re-vamping of an entire fabrication facility would come along and magically reduce gate oxide lekage current.

    The technology is fairly mature by now (from a research standpoint), so the only "news" is that the major manufacturers have finally realized that it is the least of all evils from a commercial point of view.

    Personally, I wonder how different the current market would be if one of the commercial fab plants would have embraced the technology 5-10 years ago.

    --
    >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    1. Re:Finally... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      How long has it been since the early '90s?

      How long do US patents last?

      Think it's a coincidence?

  26. Cool - but internet is still waaaaaaaaay slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's the point to run at gazillions GHZ speed if the internet is stillll
    sloooooooooooooooooooooowww ?

  27. Dupe reply by Kuvter · · Score: 1

    Why it's Moore's Law a law? It just sounds like a theory to me, it just has been surprisingly accurate to date, that's all.

    --
    "To be is to do." --Socrates
    "To do is to be." -- Aristotle
    "Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
  28. Need Compelling Applications for these chips by CalcuttaWala · · Score: 1

    While advances in chip technology is indeed good news, this needs to be backed up by equivalent advances in new age applications. After all who would want more firepower behind the same old MS-Office or chat client.

    My take is that the immense number crunching power of these new age chips should be directed towards a new generation of data compression/de-compression applications based on newer algorithms. This will allow intense video/grahpics based applications like Metaverse/SecondLife to run elegantly and effortlessly on existing networks.

    Other applications could be language translation on-the-fly where you speak English at one end of telephone line and the listener gets to hear French at the other end.

    We need creative applications like these to leverage the computing power of these new chips

    --
    Insight into much, Influence over nothing !
    1. Re:Need Compelling Applications for these chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up Ray Kurzweil. One of his startups is making such a device/program. He has a video of it working in real time, but its mostly for voice recognition.

    2. Re:Need Compelling Applications for these chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, before we get to the applications, we need to look at the servers themselves.

      I have noticed most of the Intel-AMD server vendors (HP, IBM, Dell, and SUN) have 1U and 2U "sweet-spots" for servers. A good example for the 2U space would be the following list: the HP ProLiant DL380 G5, the IBM Series x3650, the Dell PowerEdge 2950, and the SUN SunFire X4200. They are all slightly different, but basically this form factor has offerings from 2 CPUs to 2 dual-core CPUs to 2 quad-core CPUs. That sounds JUST GREAT until you look at memory.

      Assuming 4GB per CPU Core, a 2xDual-Core machine needs 16GB of RAM; the 2xQuad-Core machine needs 32GB. Now try to price these boxen with that much memory. Last time I tried, I noticed **just outrageous** pricing increases between the 1GB memory and the 2 and 4 GB modules needed to get these servers up to that memory range. (Try for yourself; you would think 2GB memory modules would be close to 2x the 1GB modules, but fat chance; and the 4GB modules are even worse).

      Some of you reading this may say "WTF? Why 4GB per CPU Core?" Because if you run 64-bit applications (especially memory intensive ones like SAP or Oracle, or VMWare virtualization for lots of partitions), that's what you are going to need, if not more. Unfortunately, these 2U boxes usually only come with 6, 8, or at most 12 memory slots, limiting them to between 24 and 48GB of potential max RAM (with most having a max listed of 32GB on the vendor websites).*

      Certainly this CPU war is all good. I can now even order a 2U server with only 1 CPU (if 2 or 4 core, I am happy) - haven't done that in quite a while. And for those that prefer Blades, up to 4-core single CPU blades can now be built w/o real form factor issues (but heat and power for the newer CPUs may still be an issue). But memory then becomes the bottleneck price-wise, assuming you have to use denser and thus more expensive memory modules.

      I expect this will get fixed in the long-run, but for now, having the equivalent of servers like the old Compaq Proliant 7000 8-CPU box in a 2U form form factor with 4 times the CPU power would be just great - if I could put in enough memory to make all those cores worthwhile. As far as I can see, it is still more cost-effective to buy two servers than to buy one with the more cores and more memory. Not really what Intel and AMD are focused on, in my opinion. And at the rate the multiple-core CPUs are being introducted, if the memory doesn't catch up soon, we will have this inbalance between CPU power and available memory for some time to come.

      . Yet Another Anonymous Poster .

      * Let me even cut back to 2GB per core; for a 2CPU x quad-core machine, you still need 16GB to run effectively. But I think 4GB per core is more appropriate for a server with a 3-4 year lifespan. Either way, the price of the memory looks prohibitive, at least to me.

  29. Re:Dupe reply - why is moore's law a law? by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

    "Why it's Moore's Law a law? It just sounds like a theory to me, it just has been surprisingly accurate to date, that's all."

      Theories that remain suprisingly accurate over time tend to be known as laws. Unlike, say, axioms, where one counterexample could break a paradigm, a law only has to work often enough to be useful. If a prediction works 95% of the time,and fails to account for 5% of the data, we can still call that a law. Feel free to call it Moore's pretty damn good conjecture. It's not intended to be rigorous,and we don't need to claim that that it will work for the next 10,000 years. It's enough to understand the general point that the cost of an information processing system is cut in half every two years or so by developing technology, and that can only have profound changes on culture and economy.
    It's useful to be familar with a couple of additional concepts: 1) austrian economics, which shows how markets function to drive technological change,and how technological change functions to drive markets. 2) the singularity. aka "the rapture for nerds", the singularity
    is the idea that the rate of technological change is speeding up, driving innovation in ever shorter cycles, in a hyperbolic curve (y=x squared), so that at some point, probably in this century, the rate of change will be going basicly straight up,and that on the other side of the singularity, things look weird.
    So there are at least three options:
    1) Moore's law is an overstatement in the long term. At some point physical limitations set in, the low hanging fruit has already been picked,and a new plateau is reached where the cost of information systems is low compared to today, but has leveled out and is no longer decreasing.
    2) Moore's law will continue to be suprisingly accurate for many years to come.
    The cost of information systems will keep decreasing by about half every two years,and that will continue to drive economic transformation and social change.
    3) Moore's law is descriptive at the elbow of the curve, where we live now, but as change builds on change Moore's law will be found to be wildly conservative,and the cost of a given information system will drop by half in shorter and shorter cycles, until information system costs approach zero, with consequences that include AI, space travel, life extension,
    gene hacking, and stuff we can barely imagine now.

    As formally stated in terms of doubling of transisters on a chip, or in terms of the cost of a transister, per period of time, moore's law only applies to the time since the invention of the transister and some unknown point in the future at which it no longer applies, perhaps because we use something else besides transisters. It remains useful in describing the period
    from about 1950 (or 1970) through 2007 up to at least until either limits are reached or the pre-singularity effects kick in and shorten the doubling time. I expect measurable pre-singularity effects by 2012. Some would argue Moore's law is itself an example of noticable pre-singularity effects.
    4) two cups of Moore, 1/2 cup of salad dressing = moore slaw

  30. Haf-not-ium? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    I have a haf-not-ium processor.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  31. Quit using CPP by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    rfc1149-cpip Google it.

    I swear it's worse than dial-up. Packet loss is horrible if someones tossing bread in your area too!

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.