Slashdot Mirror


Intel's Roadmap Includes 4nm Fab in 2022

Precision submits "Intel Corp., the largest maker of chips in the world, has outlined plans to make chips using 4nm process technology in about thirteen years. According to Intel, integration capacity of chips will increase much higher compared to fabrication process."

26 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Logical next step: by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 5, Funny

    The next step of the plan: negative-sized chips by 2050!

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    1. Re:Logical next step: by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Funny

      Either that or the "TARDIS" chip. The logic gates are bigger on the inside than on the outside in order to get around moore's law.....

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    2. Re:Logical next step: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They can already do this using, my special negative-sized ruler.

      The one you use to measure your penis?

  2. My business plan includes world domination by captaindomon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These are long-term business forecasts for 10+ years down the line. They are thought experiments only, in my opinion. They are still valuable, and something to consider, but still very much a "projection" and not a "concrete plan with funding".

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    1. Re:My business plan includes world domination by rcamans · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, I have been privy to Intel planning for many years, as I used to work there. It takes many years to develop the next generation uP. That means that the 16 nm devices are already in initial design stages. Since the overall design process is such a big job, all the supporting hardware is a major part of the design process. Like the fab hardware. So, no, much of this roadmap is not a thought experiment, but already many projects with many members working on the pieces. Otherwise, the plan would never come together when its time has arrived.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
  3. Re:Must not be using silicon then... by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're looking at moving away from using silicon as a substrate. I can't remember if artificial diamond or something else is the proposed replacement.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  4. Re:Must not be using silicon then... by uchihalush · · Score: 5, Informative

    Silicon's radius is 110 picometers which translates to .11 nanometers.

  5. The people that created this must not be engineers by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is obviously pie-in-the-sky speak from the marketing dweebs, who don't understand the physical limitations that come with a die shrink.

  6. Must we dumb it down? by stormguard2099 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Intel Corp., the largest maker of chips in the world,

    Is it really neccesary to explain who intel is on /.? I think even my parents know that intel makes chips, they put out enough commercials... Are even our taco overlords not really reading TFS before hitting that submit button?

    --
    http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
  7. My Roadmap by hippo_of_knowledge · · Score: 5, Funny

    It just happens that my personal roadmap for 2022 includes a flying pony that craps gold. I'm cautiously optimistic.

    1. Re:My Roadmap by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give it up. The liability from lawsuits by people who sue after getting hit in the head by heavy gold flying pony crap will bankrupt you, just like it did the owners of the goose that laid golden eggs...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  8. Oh Intel. Such optimists... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    By 2022, the only integrated circuits you'll have will be the ones you carve yourself, with your bare teeth, out of the bones of your children(during those rare times that you aren't fighting off hordes of monstrous rat-men or scavenging for survival in a grim Malthusian dystopia).

  9. Re:The people that created this must not be engine by matastas · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except for the fact that a lot of the 'marketing dweebs' at tech companies are engineers.

    Just sayin'. Your product management/marketing folks at these firms are often very plugged in to the tech side of things (I should know, being one of them).

  10. Who can predict that far out? by ishmalius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would suspect that unforeseen developments, such as big advances in 3d circuit design, would alter this schedule a lot. This is simply daydreaming.

    1. Re:Who can predict that far out? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      3D chip layouts are part of this roadmap. This kind of roadmap isn't really intended to say what their process will be, however. It's intended to give numbers to their core design teams about how many transistors they will be able to play with, what the latencies will be, and so on. These teams will then start working on designs on the assumption that the predictions are correct, then tweak them a bit if they were wrong. If they go badly wrong, you get something like the Pentium 4.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Re:The people that created this must not be engine by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Informative

    Forget about the limitations of die shrink, what about the limitations of quantum mechanics? I was under the impression that 4 nm is getting awefully close to the point where quantum tunneling makes tansistors unworkable. As in, when you detect a signal, you can't tell if it's there because it should be or because an electron just jumped the gap.

  12. Re:Must not be using silicon then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
  13. Re:Must not be using silicon then... by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

    You are correct, they plan to transition from silicon to unobtainium.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  14. It's not the radius that matters!!! by feranick · · Score: 5, Informative

    The atomic radius is not the proper distance to consider. If you do so, you assume that atoms can touch each other, which is very far from the truth. The closest distance "allowed" is the first nearest-neighbor (NN), which is related to the crystal lattice constant (for Si: 0.543 nm), and the crystal structure (Si has a diamond structure). For Si that NN distance is 0.235 nm. This is all very much academic tough. Even if you could make a circuit that small, you would then have to wonder, left alone quantum-size effects, leakage, behavior under oxidation, etc.

  15. Power vs Speed by Efreet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that rather than the identity and timeframe for the different technology nodes (which anyone who knows Moore's law could have given in advance) the interesting thing from that slide is what it says about delay scaling and energy scaling. Whenever you shrink your process you have a certain amount of gain that can go into either making the chip faster or making the chip more power efficient. For a long time back in the day people wanted to stay at 5 volts to preserve compatibility, so everyone just kept putting it into going faster. Nowadays chipmakers try to go for a more balanced strategy.

    But here, on this chart, Intel is saying that they're going to a delay scaling of "~1", staying at pretty much the same speed. And they're looking to increase their energy scaling from "~.5" to ">.5". So it looks like we really have topped out in terms of GHz.

    --
    This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
  16. How about 1994, 1997 and 2000/2001? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a set of roadmaps generated at three-year intervals. Note that, with the exception of RAM density, each of the charted criteria outran the roadmaps' predictions.

    These roadmaps are generated by a consortium of companies. They're routinely betting the future of their entire industry on these roadmaps. They're actually pretty darned conservative.

    1. Re:How about 1994, 1997 and 2000/2001? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Strictly in terms of clock, yes. But if you normalize for performance/clock it doesn't look that off. I imagine a 3.2GHz nehalem would perform somewhere around (or even north of) a 6.7GHz P4.

  17. Re:And on a personal note... by SilverEyes · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmm... 2013 can't be great for the gene pool. I guess it may be balanced out as 1/2 of the first generation's genes come from such an ambitious person.

    Or maybe

    2014) Run out of lottery money on alimony payments :P

    --
    Interesting.
  18. Re:The people that created this must not be engine by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "After all there's a reason you're not actually working in enginerring, when you're such a great engineer..."

    Yeah - the pay is better.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  19. Semiconductor roadmap by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    There have been formal semiconductor roadmaps to the future since 1992. There's an consensus roadmap updated annually by an industry group.

    This isn't a blue-sky thing. It tells all the players what they need to do to keep up their part of the technology. The fab-equipment people, the device physics people, the etching people, the mask people, the substrate people, the design tools people, etc. all have to push their parts forward. The roadmap tells them how far each piece has to be pushed.

    These roadmaps are available for past years, and you can see how the industry has tracked the roadmap. It's reasonably close for any five year period. The big change in the last decade is that heat dissipation is starting to dominate the problem. The roadmap now focuses on memory devices, which have low activity per cell compared to compute elements and aren't yet power-limited.

    The current consensus is that the improvements to known technology can get down to 22nm, and then it gets hard. The roadmap assumes CMOS transistors; other devices are discussed, but aren't factored into the mainline predictions.

  20. Re:Must not be using silicon then... by SilverEyes · · Score: 4, Funny

    Except for a vial coated in an oil of slipperiness, if memory serves.

    --
    Interesting.