Slashdot Mirror
Graphene Transistors 10x Faster Than Silicon
Asadullah Ahmad writes "IBM has created transistors made from carbon atoms, which operate at 100 gigahertz, while using a manufacturing process that is compatible with current semiconductor fabrication. With silicon close to its physical limits, graphene seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop. Quoting: 'Researchers have previously made graphene transistors using laborious mechanical methods, for example by flaking off sheets of graphene from graphite; the fastest transistors made this way have reached speeds of up to 26 gigahertz. Transistors made using similar methods have not equaled these speeds.'" The other day we discussed what sounds like similar research by a group of scientists at Tohoku University; that team did not produce transistors, however.
The other day we discussed what sounds like similar research by a group of scientists at Tohoku University; that team did not produce transistors, however.
Surely that is some sort of joke. From the summary of the Tokyo University article:
A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor.
Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.
My work here is dung.
With all the stories of highly-experimental new, novel types of transistors - the majority of which are expensive-research only with no chance of commercialization any time soon, it's refreshing to see something that actually takes production feasibility into account.
Year 2173:
"Hidrogen-Unobtanium polycomposites seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop."
"This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff, this is real," he says. "This development is really going to turn into a communications device not too long from now."
So, I won't be playing Crysis on this transistor next month, but I might be using it to make a phone call "not too long from now".
The first patent for transistors was filed in 1925.
Look where they are now.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
To be honest I'm more interested in seeing proper 3D chips become reality. If you find some affordable way to produce chips with, say 10 000 layers, then processing power per volume unit would increase rapidly.
I think the major obstacle is going to be what to do about heat. The center of such a chip-stack would probably get quite hot so you probably want to run some form of liquid cooling through the chip itself. Alternatively materials like silicon carbide or diamond might be able to cope better with the high power density.
It was bad enough when computers were made out of mere sand, now they will be made out of coal?
Can't they make computers out of sapphires or something so I can feel sophisticated when I buy it?
"The prototype devices, made from atom-thick sheets of carbon, operate at 100 gigahertz"
Define operate? This sounds like the cut-off frequency, which is 100s of GHz for Si CMOS. How is 200GHz 100GHz? And no, this does not mean it can switch this fast. If it can switch this fast, it would likely operate into the THz, and we would be interested in using it for THz applications. Maybe operate is maximum stable oscillation frequency? Ft? Fmax? It's sure as hell not a switching frequency, despite what the article tells us.
"Growing transistors on a wafer not only leads to better performance, it's also more commercially feasible"
Growing transistors on a wafer? As compared to what? A waffle?
Done reading... moving on...
Since I can not picture it ( even after read the article ) could someone explain what changes on the graph will happen. and if possible what would be the next stage after this ( given, I think I understand that quantum computing would be the current top of computing speed, but I can not figure out where this goes )
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Imagine at what speed the cards are going to come down and bounce in the "Solitaire" Windows game at 100 Ghz!
graphene provides a promising potential replacement because electrons move through the material much faster than they do through silicon
Could someone elaborate on that statement? I assume that they mean that an electron will move through the material with "less interference", like light traveling through space will be "faster" (to reach its destination) than if it were traveling through matter. Is that what they mean?
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those? [oblig]
2015:
"So what kind of computer you got these days?"
"Cluster...1 PetaHertz"
"LAME!! My stupidphone is faster than that. Get with the times, Dad!"
Graphene will probably be at least as important as a replacement for metallic interconnects as for transistors. Much of the area of a chip is covered by interconnects they are responsible for much of the heat and delay.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I have my doubts on whether we'll ever see this because of two things from the article: "first applications of graphene transistors will likely be as switches and amplifiers in analog military electronics" and "Graphene's properties are very sensitive to its environment". This means IBM is placing dainty technology into the hands of the harsh military environment. I've heard how rigorously they test military electronics, and if Graphene is sensitive enough to require insulation, then it's never going to make it past those extreme environment tests they do. Has anyone else seen sensitive materials make it through military applications?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_on_sapphire
I wonder what a fuzz box made of these would sound like...
These transistors are only about 9x faster than silicon, not 10x faster as the Slashdot headline claims.
I can't believe we're this far and nobody is dreaming about how they can play their favority games at highest resolution. This will effect GPU as well.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
We have dozens of interesting technologies proposed each year. But few pass the commercial test.
Before you get yourselves worked up, realize there is no mention in this article or the original article in "Science" for applying this for computing. There's somewhat of a misstatement in the technology review article - if you look at the actual article in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5966/662), the 100GHz figure is the unity (or cutoff) gain frequency (e.g., how high of a frequency you can build an amplifier) and not switching. There is no mention of switching in the paper by the IBM scientists, and that is the application relevant to computing. Even TFA's expert is talking about using this in analog communication frontends, folks. Sorry.
Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware, in which the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
Moore's law is about quantity of transistors, not speed of computing, the two just tend to be highly correlated.
graphene seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop
With everyone quitting smoking, we've run out of dead people's lungs to scrape carbon out of, so we've reached the limits of carbon-based CPUs and had to switch to graphene.
But the extra pencils from companies going paperless will only last so long. When we run out, we will have to switch to making quantum CPUs. Hopefully by then, making quantums will be a lot cheaper.
Twinstiq, game news
if the channel can pinch *almost* open/shut at 100Ghz, then the transistor can switch a lot faster than silicon, too.
Since Graphene-based computers are "organic", they should sell at a premium price, just like the worm-infested organic apples in the produce section.
Life is tough. Life is even tougher when you're stupid.
Think of it this way: They'll be carbon-based, like us!
Then they might evolve, stop liking us, build Terminators and take over the world!
All right! Now we have a chip that we can get rid of using an eraser!
That is all.
I'm moving to Graphene Valley before it gets overcrowded!
The summary doesn't mention it, but is the integration scale potentially competitive? I'd assume so, since it's supposed to be commercially viable, but of course I didn't RTFA.
To do list for Windows
an XBox 360 that doesn't RRoD after a year or 2. (Why do I get the feeling there's going to be a long line of "Hey maybe they can use this to make" examples as replies?)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Show me an 18 SiC wafer, and I'll show you my retirement plan!
So the future machine overlords will be a carbon based life form after all.... hmmmm.
The future of computing is gallium arsenide^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hphotonics^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hmolecular switches^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hquantum whatnot^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hummmmmmm^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hgraphene?^h!
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
The speed of light doesn't travel too far at 100ghz. This will limit how far components on a chip are separated from each other etc.
..we will be able to run java applications at "full speed".
Graphene is still very much a lab technology which isn't anywhere near ready for commercial production of devices. It may turn out to replace Silicon one day, but guess what, people keep doing amazing shit with silicon because it's still the cheapest material system for fabrication.
Apologies to those without IEEE access, but here is a paper discussing a recent 150GHz Silicon CMOS amplifier: A 1.1V 150GHz amplifier with 8dB gain and +6dBm saturated output power in standard digital 65nm CMOS using dummy-prefilled microstrip lines. That's pretty awesome in my book. It's pushing the amplifier very close to fmax of the actual transistors, but it works and it's in a commercial silicon process.
There are always applications where we can do better systems with more expensive materials like GaAs, GaN, InP, Graphene, etc... but silicon is cheap and easily mass-produced, so lots of engineers work on pushing it to incredible performance.
Quantum computing won't replace silicon transistors, or graphene transistors, or whatever comes after that. While quantum computers have the potential to be incredibly powerful, but they only work on a very small set of problems. As best I can tell they could, in theory, work well on problems that require brute force on a traditional computer. However for running a word processor, or rendering pretty 3D graphics they appear to be useless.
So while quantum computers may some day supplement traditional processors, they will never be a replacement.