not willing to be rude, but
you have no idea what you're talking about.
the speed of electricity has no sense at all. In chips, what's important is delays, due to capacitances and resistances, thus the delay of a line of copper might not be the same depending of its size and surroundings. the speed at which a transistor switches depends also of its surroundings, etc.
Your idea of using light, pretty good, though been thought of since, like, before you were born. But it's still much more complex than using current, for now.
smaller transistors switch faster. if you contain the delay of the lines, youll get a core working faster, but its much more complex thant "it has more stuff then but all that stuff at the same speed etc"
nope, because we do computations with electronic currents, we can not add computational matter, like you'd like. not that simple. Look around child, people have stacked chips for decades, and it's not helped them a lot. silicon is expensive, basically. once you find a simple, cost effective way to stack stuff and have no problems of delays between stacks, no problem of loss of areal density, no problems of manufacturing, no problems of heat disspation, then go on, youll be rich.
You can not solve an industry's problem in a comment, period
nope, before that people were talking about problems of creating a transistor small, but due to other problems (short channel effects etc etc). Now, we are facing atoms, dude, atoms, not just problems that can be solved with careful engineering (and of which solutions were academically studied).
Nowadays, reducing gate lengths to a couple of atoms is not feasible to have enough performances, period. physical limit, this time. before, it was a scare of not being able, but with good ideas over how to do it. Now we have no good idea to reduce silicon based transistor much more.
It's not a law, it's a empirical observation of the semiconductors market at the time. Since then it's been changed a bit, and also mainly served to get investors on board (look ! we can make stuff smaller/better/stronger twice as more every two years !) It's been a way to break the product cycle (a chip can last decades, no reason to buy a new version of something if it's not cheaper/more performant, roughly).
Without some kind of moores law, you couldnt have more performant stuff every year with lower price. every company selling you electronics gadget would be very sad.
EUV lithography is not abandonned, far from it. Evolution is good (ie, not so bad), even if the available tools are quite slow yet, but they're just prototypes. EUV needs a lot of work, and intel spent a lot in trying to continue DUV litho (double patterning, optics, mask corrections, etc etc), so they are not the best prepared with euv. intel is not alone in making chips in the world, also, you know.
e beam lithography with multiple beams is also tried in a lot of stuff, and might reach maturity before euv, who knows. also other techniques (bottom up) to advance moore's law are explored. Not all hope is lost. If you'd see the amount poured in R&D just so that peformance always rise and price always fall, it is obscene:-)
Slashdot Mirror
not willing to be rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about. the speed of electricity has no sense at all. In chips, what's important is delays, due to capacitances and resistances, thus the delay of a line of copper might not be the same depending of its size and surroundings. the speed at which a transistor switches depends also of its surroundings, etc. Your idea of using light, pretty good, though been thought of since, like, before you were born. But it's still much more complex than using current, for now. smaller transistors switch faster. if you contain the delay of the lines, youll get a core working faster, but its much more complex thant "it has more stuff then but all that stuff at the same speed etc"
nope, because we do computations with electronic currents, we can not add computational matter, like you'd like. not that simple. Look around child, people have stacked chips for decades, and it's not helped them a lot. silicon is expensive, basically. once you find a simple, cost effective way to stack stuff and have no problems of delays between stacks, no problem of loss of areal density, no problems of manufacturing, no problems of heat disspation, then go on, youll be rich. You can not solve an industry's problem in a comment, period
nope, before that people were talking about problems of creating a transistor small, but due to other problems (short channel effects etc etc). Now, we are facing atoms, dude, atoms, not just problems that can be solved with careful engineering (and of which solutions were academically studied). Nowadays, reducing gate lengths to a couple of atoms is not feasible to have enough performances, period. physical limit, this time. before, it was a scare of not being able, but with good ideas over how to do it. Now we have no good idea to reduce silicon based transistor much more.
It's not a law, it's a empirical observation of the semiconductors market at the time. Since then it's been changed a bit, and also mainly served to get investors on board (look ! we can make stuff smaller/better/stronger twice as more every two years !) It's been a way to break the product cycle (a chip can last decades, no reason to buy a new version of something if it's not cheaper/more performant, roughly). Without some kind of moores law, you couldnt have more performant stuff every year with lower price. every company selling you electronics gadget would be very sad.
EUV lithography is not abandonned, far from it. Evolution is good (ie, not so bad), even if the available tools are quite slow yet, but they're just prototypes. EUV needs a lot of work, and intel spent a lot in trying to continue DUV litho (double patterning, optics, mask corrections, etc etc), so they are not the best prepared with euv. intel is not alone in making chips in the world, also, you know. e beam lithography with multiple beams is also tried in a lot of stuff, and might reach maturity before euv, who knows. also other techniques (bottom up) to advance moore's law are explored. Not all hope is lost. If you'd see the amount poured in R&D just so that peformance always rise and price always fall, it is obscene :-)